(B) were divided into three sub-groups. The first sub-group (B.1) were those who expressly and actively supported armed intervention to secure stability, to resume political processes for a peaceful resolution to the Kosovo crisis. These were NATO members. The second sub-group (B.2) opposed armed intervention because they deemed intervention contrary to the strict interpretation of the United Nations provisions and included Serbia, Montenegro, Russian Federation, China. The third sub-group (B.3) were former members of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia such Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia. (C) also consisted of three sub-groups (C1, C2, and C3). C1 were conscious of the ethnic nationality syndrome within their states and were keen to see a fair, just and lasting solution to the Kosovo Crisis. China was one such state who opposed what she called USA and NATO intervention as well as state oppression of ethnic grouping and attempts to create division among ethnic groups. The second sub-group (C2) included Brazil who opposed NATO intervention, held Belgrade responsibly and rejected any military action without Security Council mandate. C3 was Cuba who opposed intervention and remained silent on ethnicity issues. Cuba was closest to the Serbian position. (D) consisted of three sub-groups. D1 included states such as Namibia and Malaysia. D2 included Mexico and others who opposed intervention as well expressed abhorrence with ethnic violence and criticised the Security Council. Namibia was equally concerned with peace coming at such a price. Sub-group D3 included distant states, who felt strongly against ethno-religion based violence as well as very critical of Belgrade. Gabon, and Gambia, and Namibia fall into this group. These groupings are not on account of affiliation to an international group. Take the UK being regretful that NATO had to bomb, but blamed the autocratic leadership. So did Namibia and Gambia and Gabon. At times grouping is nothing more than a geographic division but then one has to face the difficulty of explaining USA and Canada involvement in Balkans. 6.6.2 Grouping of States According to Perceived Role of International law The exchanges between the diplomas of Cuba and the USA and the Netherland during the session manifested how dogmatic approaches to international legal
(B) were divided into three sub-groups. The first sub-group (B.1) were those who expressly and actively supported armed intervention to secure stability, to resume political processes for a peaceful resolution to the Kosovo crisis. These were NATO members. The second sub-group (B.2) opposed armed intervention because they deemed intervention contrary to the strict interpretation of the United Nations provisions and included Serbia, Montenegro, Russian Federation, China. The third sub-group (B.3) were former members of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia such Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia. (C) also consisted of three sub-groups (C1, C2, and C3). C1 were conscious of the ethnic nationality syndrome within their states and were keen to see a fair, just and lasting solution to the Kosovo Crisis. China was one such state who opposed what she called USA and NATO intervention as well as state oppression of ethnic grouping and attempts to create division among ethnic groups. The second sub-group (C2) included Brazil who opposed NATO intervention, held Belgrade responsibly and rejected any military action without Security Council mandate. C3 was Cuba who opposed intervention and remained silent on ethnicity issues. Cuba was closest to the Serbian position. (D) consisted of three sub-groups. D1 included states such as Namibia and Malaysia. D2 included Mexico and others who opposed intervention as well expressed abhorrence with ethnic violence and criticised the Security Council. Namibia was equally concerned with peace coming at such a price. Sub-group D3 included distant states, who felt strongly against ethno-religion based violence as well as very critical of Belgrade. Gabon, and Gambia, and Namibia fall into this group. These groupings are not on account of affiliation to an international group. Take the UK being regretful that NATO had to bomb, but blamed the autocratic leadership. So did Namibia and Gambia and Gabon. At times grouping is nothing more than a geographic division but then one has to face the difficulty of explaining USA and Canada involvement in Balkans. 6.6.2 Grouping of States According to Perceived Role of International law The exchanges between the diplomas of Cuba and the USA and the Netherland during the session manifested how dogmatic approaches to international legal
Mustafa%2C%20Ahmet.docx