THE MORALITY OF U.S. POLITICS IN THE AGGRESSION AGAINST THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA IN 1999

Abstract

The author examines the morality of U.S. policy in the aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) in 1999, using criteria for evaluating the morality of the U.S. president’s policy proposed by Joseph Nye (Joseph S. Nye Jr.). The aggression against FRY is controversial, particularly its a priori determined moral character and the designation of humanitarian intervention. Our main goal is to demonstrate the unsustainability of the assessment of the moral justification of the aggression precisely according to his criteria. Therefore, our hypothetical starting point is that if morality is present in the foreign policy of the U.S. president, the criteria by which Joseph Nye evaluates each president will also show whether the policy that is directly related to the aggression against FRY is also moral. After explaining the theoretical-methodological approach, and presenting the attitudes towards morality of the most important theories of international relations, the paper presents an analysis of the morality of aggression conducted on the basis of intentions, means, and consequences. In relation to this, we examined the deontological and consequentialist sustainability of the morality of aggression according to the proposed criteria and questions. It was concluded that there is no ethical justification for aggression, unless achieving political interests is valued as morally acceptable in the spirit of consequentialist ethics.