I do not share the view of many human rights advocates in the West that sovereignty is an outdated doctrine of absolute states, inherently inimical to the interests of individuals. For much of the developing and non-Western world, state sovereignty protects societies from political, economic, and cultural dominance by Western states and institutions. Undermining state sovereignty may occur at the expense of national autonomy, further exposing weaker states to American hegemony. When Iran opposes NATO action because it fears that NATO involvement might spread beyond Europe and threaten the independence of other countries, it has a legitimate concern about the repercussions of current developments. When India and South Africa speak out against the air raids because they fear the precedent such action might set, they too are articulating questions that must be raised.
Humanitarian intervention is a doctrine susceptible to state abuse and manipulation.
But the possibility of its abuse by states does not mean that humanitarian intervention is never genuine or never justified. Kosova is no oil-rich province or strategic asset coveted by the West. If intervening in Kosova served Western interest, it is because the NATO countries determined that letting a human rights calamity occur in Europe was against their collective interest. The driving force behind NATO intervention was the humanitarian imperative. Sincere believers in both human rights and international law are faced with a staggering dilemma when upholding one amounts to undermining the other.