De Groenen see defence policy from the perspective of global governance and have legalistic views about terms of engagement. We follow the rule of chapter VII UN-Charter. Further do we take notice of the interests of the individual people over whose heads the military conflicts take place. In political practice politicians act in the interest of their state in contrary of global or individual interests. It is important to anticipate to that in the selection of arguments.

The profit of security policy has to brought back to its success in maintaining individual civil liberties. A concentration of military power can become a repressive organ behaving against the interests of the people whose interests it should protect. The task of a military organisation is to protect a legal society against external intimidation. This is a condition, together with a functioning democratic legal order, for the maintenance of the rights of the members of that legal society.

It is not the purpose of an army to enforce respect within the executive power for the judiciary. This is incompatible with the authority of the executive power over the military. The last is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a democratic legal order.

Legal societies are in this context of security policy only those legal societies, which are subjects of international public law. Examples are:

1. The United Nations

2. The Council of Europe

3. The European Union

4. The Member-States of the EU

Since the UN unite practically the whole world is there no external treatment of the integrity of this organisation. It is unthinkable that non-member-states of the UN will coerce the Security Council to take a decision. Now there is no external threat, doesn't need the UN a military organisation. The weak point of the UN is the disfunctioning of its internal democratic legal order and its restricted possibilities to enforce its decisions.

The Council of Europe is a legal association of states. Its rule of law is embodied in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and several protocols. Because this Convention only imposes obligations on the Member-States it is not likely that the integrity of the European Court of Human Rights would be a target of military intimidation of, for example, the United States. Nevertheless is there the possibility of conflicts. For instance in the case of an American military who, based in the Netherlands, made away with his Dutch wife. Couldn't brought to trial in the Netherlands because of his immunity (Convention of London for NATO-personnel) and couldn't be extradited, unless the USA promised not to demand a death penalty. However here raised a conflict between the legal system of the USA and that of the Council of Europe is it very unlikely that such would raise to a military conflict between them.

Some Member-States (Turkey, Belarus has left the Council of Europe) fall short in fulfilling their legal obligations. This is an internal problem of the Council of Europe and falls outside the scope of a military organisation linked to that body.

The European Union is a legal society. The Court of Justice interprets the law and imposes it finally on the Member-States. The executive power is in most cases in hands of the governments of the Member-States and in a restricted area held by the European Commission. An external conflict can rise with the USA. The announcement of fusion of two large aeroplane builders leaded to conditions imposed by the European Commission on grounds of European anti-trust law. The vice-president of the USA used then threatening language addressed to the EU. Boeing accepted the conditions of the EU. Since long journalist regularly speculate about a trade-war between the USA and the EU. In practice both parties know to avoid such a conflict.

The Member-States as such form a legal society at their own. The principal of sovereignty legitimates the possession of a military organisation to protect the structure of the state against an external coup. Many European states have been occupied for years because they were not able to prevent a coup d'état mandated by the German government. Many East-European countries were, until the elections in Poland of 4 June 1989, limited in exercising their sovereignty, because of the preponderance of the Soviet Union. The bloc of communistic states didn't form a legal society, because the participating states didn't have a choice between accepting or rejecting the Brezjnev-doctrine.

To prevent repetition states need military means. These are expensive and states differ widely in their defensive capacity. To supply their limited defensive capacities states can form alliances. These alliances raise the defensive capacities against other states, but have no effect on the mutual vulnerability among allies. This is seen in the repeating aggression between the NATO-allies Greece and Turkey. The WEU is neutral in this conflict and therefore of no much use for its Member Greece.

The UN has the legal monopoly on the use of military means. This is arranged in chapter VII of the UN Charter. The Security Council (SC) has the executive power. In principle creates this monopoly the possibility of abuse of power by the SC. Libya has appealed against the prohibition of air-traffic by the SC to the International Court of Justice. This appeal has been rejected. This was a non-military measure conform art 41 UN Charter. Based on art. 39 and 42 UN Ch. is the SC empowered to mandate to use military means in case of endangerment of peace, violation of peace or an act of aggression. In practice this means any violation of sovereignty by an external coup d'état, as in the case of Kuwait, but also in cases of anarchy (Northern Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia). The abuse of power of UN military in Somalia makes clear that an intervention can also harm the right of the inhabitants. That operation was a failure. Nevertheless has such an intervention broad support in the UN and has the SC been empowered by customary law to intervene in cases of anarchy or genocide on humanitarian grounds.

Because of art. 46 and 47 UN Charter the general staff committee should have the strategic lead of military operations of the UN. All under political and administrative authority of the SC. In reality this general staff committee doesn't function at all. Meanwhile NATO and the USA withdraw the execution of SC-decisions from the authority of the SC. NATO bombed Bosnia in December 1994 during the mandate of UNPROFOR. By doing so NATO undermined the authority of the SC. It was not the SC what took the decision but the North Atlantic Council.

This decision of NATO caused arbitrary use of military means. The large-scale bombardments caused loss of lives of conscripts and civilians and destruction of expensive economic infrastructure as bridges, railway-centres, trunk lines exchanges and powerstations. This all without a balancing of costs and profits by the only competent organ: the SC.

De Groenen have the opinion that NATO is not a help for but a competitor to the SC. Since we prefer that the EU respects the authority of the SC do we plea for a neutral attitude of the EU and its Member-States towards NATO.