Interference in the domestic affairs of independent states by other states is one of the most controversial issues in international law. The United Nations (UN) General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX) declared that all countries should conduct their affairs independently.
Additionally, the principle of non-intervention prohibits any state from meddling in the internal affairs of another independent state. Although the UN Charter prohibits use of force or any military intervention in the internal affairs of a country, it permits use of substantial force in extreme situations. For that reason, the principle of non-intervention has had a number of contradicting interpretation and, therefore, is subject to abuse. Nonetheless, the concept of human rights is gaining momentum against that of sovereignty.
Consequently, the principle of right to protect (R2P) and unilateral humanitarian intervention are slowly replacing the principle of non-intervention. Therefore, the two principles are a major impediment to the principle of non-intervention as a core doctrine of international law. This essay revisits the application of the principle of non-intervention in contemporary international law.
The United Nations (UN) General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX) aimed at protecting all countries’ independence and sovereignty. Therefore, this resolution laid a foundation for the principle of non-intervention. Furthermore, Article 2 of the principles of the UN summarizes the principle of no-intervention. For instance, Article 2(1) provides for sovereign equality to all UN members. Additionally, Article2 (3) states that all international disputes must be settled peacefully. Furthermore, Article 2(4) prohibits use of force in all interventions made in a sovereign by another state.
However, Article 2 (7) allows the UN to use it own discretion when applying the principle of non-intervention. For that reason, although self-determination is the backbone of friendly relations, the UN recognizes the need to protect humanitarian interests. In a number of cases, the international community has been unable to reach a quick agreement on how to approach a humanitarian crisis. As a result, there has been confusion and controversy in the application of the principle of non-intervention as a basis of maintaining order in the world. Some states such as China and Russia have decided to adhere to the principle of non-intervention and its interpretation.
On the other hand, countries such as the United States, France and Britain have used some of the exceptions in this principle to involve themselves in other countries’ affairs. A result of these disagreements is slowness in solving major humanitarian crises facing the world. For instance, the international community is yet to come up with a plan to end the ongoing civil war in Syria.
Another example was when United States drafted the Iraq Liberation Act. This act called on the United States to assist in dethroning Saddam Hussein and replace him with a democratic government. However, this issue elicited a heated debated among members of the international community and left unanswered questions on some countries commitment in upholding the principle of non-intervention.
Nonetheless, the principle of non-intervention is an important legal tool for addressing an array of regional and international security issues. For that reason, it is a fundamental doctrine of the international law under the UN Charter and customary international law. Additionally, this principle is the foundation of peaceful co-existence among states.
Additionally, it is a constituent of the international law and must be upheld by all states as it shields them from external aggression. Moreover, the principle of non-intervention upholds the principle of sovereignty which maintains that all states are equal legally. However, when there is need to deal with massive human rights violation or maintain regional or global stability there is some exception to this principle. A state’s independence is limited by human rights.
For that reason, under the international law, when a situation takes a humanitarian angle, focus shifts from the state’s right to state’s obligation towards its citizens. Accordingly, states are just instruments whose main function is to serve the interests of their citizens.
Moreover, the international legal system is now centered more on an individual than the state. Consequently, R2P has replaced the principle of sovereignty as the first principle of international law. The explanation to this change is that sovereignty is derived from people and, therefore, their rights, interest and security should be prioritized. State sovereignty, therefore, has a legal value only when it respects human rights.
However, a government can request for intervention when faced with a situation it cannot handle. For instance, the Democratic Republic of Congo used the UN, through the International Criminal Court (ICC), to fight rebels on its northern frontier. In addition, the UN has also facilitated major interventions in states which have no governments. In non-legal terms, these states are called failed states.
A typical example is the military intervention being experienced in Somalia by the UN backed African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISON). Principles of unilateral humanitarian intervention and the R2P are a major impediment to the principle of non-intervention as a core doctrine of the international law. Unilateral humanitarian intervention allows for armed interference in the affairs of a country without its consent. On the other hand, R2P was developed out of the need to develop a clear framework to counter impunity and mass atrocity in some states.
However, the validity of these two principles is hotly contested. Unilateral humanitarian intervention is derived from customary law and the UN Charter. For that reason, it is part of the international law. Nonetheless, a vivid legal justification is required to accept the use of R2P and Unilateral humanitarian intervention. Although the moral justification requires no explanation, the legal justification is hard to prove.
In contemporary law, the legality of these two principles is controversial. However, some scholars argue that these principles are legal under the Customary International Laws. Unlike treaties, Customary International Laws are binding to all nations except those that were opposed to them during their formulation. Since the UN charter is a treaty, Customary International Laws are best placed to offer legal interpretation of unilateral humanitarian intervention and R2P.
Apart from its ambiguous interpretation, implementation of the principle on non-intervention is also faced with other controversies. For instance, many people believe that it is implemented with a bias. Likewise, the UN Security Council members support its implementation in circumstances that favour their interest. For that reason, there are always disagreements between permanent members on ways of handling major humanitarian crises. Additionally, this principle is also politicized in some instances.
For instance, many analysts believe that the crackdown on Muammar Gaddafi regime was largely due to his opposition to the west. Moreover, many believe that sanctions imposed on countries such as Iran and Zimbabwe are a punishment to their continued opposition to the west. On the hand, the west is yet to crackdown on Bashar al-Assad regime because Syria is an ally of the west.
Another problem facing the principle of non-intervention as a fundamental doctrine of the international law is the difficulty in determining whether crimes committed are in magnitudes that warrant intervention. For that reason, it is very difficult to gauge whether certain atrocities can be regarded as crimes against humanity.
For instance, in the Kenyan case, around a thousand people were killed and a few thousands displaced. However, the picture portrayed to the world, through the ICC, was that of a failed state. In contrast, there have been countries where tens of thousands of people have been killed and the ICC is yet to intervene. The ICC has also a reputation of investigating their cases poorly. In some cases, ICC depends on investigations done locally.
For instance, it sometimes looks at a country’s human right report. As a result, many people have lost faith in the ICC and the principle of non-intervention as a whole. In addition, some interventions serve to deteriorate peaceful co-existence. A typical case is when the ICC indicted Omar al-Bashir. This prompted the African Union to intervene since its members believed that this move could have worsened the situation in the Darfur region. Finally, most members of the UN Security Council do not lead by example. For instance, most of them are yet to become members of the ICC. Nonetheless, they appear to control major dealings within this court.
In conclusion, this paper has examined the existence, nature, and content of the non-intervention principle in contemporary international law. However, major issues have arisen on the way it has been applied to solve major humanitarian crises worldwide. For instances, major decision made by members of the international community and the ICC has put the principle in disrepute. For that reason, permanent members of the UN security have been seen to abuse their veto.
Consequently, most states have lost faith in the international community and the principle of non-intervention as a whole. Therefore, unless an amicable solution is reached, the disagreement on its implementation will continue. As a result, it will be very difficult to apply it.
Reference List
Adjei, E., The legality of humanitarian intervention, 2005. Web.
Chatham House, The principle of non-intervention in contemporary international Law: non-interference in a state’s internal affairs used to be rule of international law: is it still? 2007. Web.
Halt, B., The legal character of R2P and the UN Charter, 2012. Web.
Kinacioglu, M., The principle of non-intervention at the United Nations: the charter framework and the legal debate. Web.
McWhinney E., Declaration on the inadmissibility of Intervention in the domestic affairs of states and the protection of their independence and sovereignty General assembly resolution 2131 (xx) New York, 21 December 1965. Web.
Nashu, H., Revisiting the principle of non-intervention: a structural principle of international law or a political obstacle to regional security in Asia? 2012. Web.
Peters, A., “Humanity as the A and Ω of sovereignty”. The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, No.3, 2009, pp. 513–544. Web.