The principles evoked by professor Kirgis are in fact exceptions to the general principle of prohibition of use of force in international relations, which is certainly the paramount principle of international public law 

One of the basic principles of law interpretation, not only of international law but of law in general, is the principle of prohibition of extensive interpretation of provisions that are exceptions to the more general and higher legal principles. Even the ancient Romans knew this and they created the following maxim: EXCEPTIONES SUNT STRICTISSIMAE INTERPRETATIONES, EXCEPTIONES NON SUNT EXTENDENDA (exceptions are strictly interpreted, exceptions cannot be extended). 

It is clear that rules giving the possibility of the use of armed forces in international relations are an exception to the prohibition against war and that recourse to war can be allowed only by strict application of the exceptions authorizing the use of force and with strict adherence to established procedures (in this case this would mean the authorization of the UN Security Council). 

Without going into more details (and there are more details in professor Kirgis' legal arguments that show further weaknesses for justifying the aggression against Yugoslavia) and especially without going into an analysis of the allegations used for justification of the military intervention against Yugoslavia, I believe that this comment by itself is sufficient to prove that NATO intervention against Yugoslavia CANNOT be justified by any legal argument. 

About the Author:
Branko M. Rakic, Faculty, Belgrade University School of Law