CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUTION

1.1-The Background of the Study

In international law, the principle of non-intervention includes, but is not limited to, the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (Article 2.4 of the Charter). The principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States also signifies that a State should not otherwise intervene in a dictatorial way in the internal affairs of other States. The International Court referred in the Nicaragua case to “the element of coercion, which defines, and indeed forms the very essence of, prohibited intervention”. As Oppenheim’s International Law puts it, “the interference must be forcible or dictatorial, or otherwise coercive; in effect depriving the state intervened against of control over the matter in question. Interference pure and simple is not intervention”. But the extent to which acts other than the use of force are, or should be, prohibited is uncertain. Intervention (even military intervention) with the consent, properly given, of the Government of a State is not precluded.

The more common term is “non-intervention”, though “non-interference” also appears in the texts. The latter may suggest a wider prohibition, though in most contexts the two terms seem to be used interchangeably. In recent years, Libya had been of little concern to the U.S. It was an oil producer, but Gaddafi had as much incentive to sell the oil as did King Idris I, whom Gaddafi and other members of the “Free Officers Movement” ousted. Gaddafi carefully balanced interests in Libya’s complex tribal society and kept the military weak over fears of another coup.[1] He was a geopolitical troublemaker, supporting a variety of insurgent and terrorist groups. But he steadily lost influence, alienating virtually every African and Middle Eastern government. Of greatest concern to Washington, Libyan agents organized terrorist attacks against the U.S.—bombing an American airliner and a Berlin disco frequented by American soldiers—leading to economic sanctions and military retaliation. In 2021 and early 2022, there was a major Russian military build-up around Ukraine’s borders. NATO accused Russia of planning an invasion, which it denied. Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized the enlargement of NATO as a threat to his country and demanded Ukraine be barred from ever joining the military alliance. He also expressed Russian irredentist views, questioned Ukraine’s right to exist, and wrongfully stated that Ukraine was established by Vladimir Lenin. On 21 February 2022, Russia officially recognized the two self-proclaimed separatist states in the Donbas, and openly sent troops into the territories.

On Feb. 17, President Emmanuel Macron announced his decision to withdraw French forces from Mali. These troops form part of Operation Barkhane, a French anti-jihadist operation primarily focused on Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. A linked European special forces task force, Takuba, will withdraw as well, with both groups reentering their activities in neighboring Niger. This follows a major escalation in tensions between Paris and Bamako in recent months, which included exchanges of insults culminating in the expulsion of the French ambassador.

The Charter of the United Nations was signed on the 26th of June, 1945 in San Franc[2]isco United States of America. The Charter came into force on the 24th of October, 1945. Sequel to the meeting and signing of the Charter, many meetings were held at various places as a result of what was considered to be threat to the international community. This threat had its own origin from what happened immediately after the First World War and indeed, during the Second World War. For example, the world-wide economic recession of the late twenties and thirties, the risk in popularity of anti-democratic and nationalist doctrines, the disintegration and collapse of the League of Nations. Others included aggressive force of Italian fascism, German Nazism and Japanese militarism. All these were recognized as threats to the international peace and security, which needed to be stamped out for peace and security of the International community.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

 Since the signing of the United Nations Charter on October 24, 1945 illegal intervention of one state by another at international level seems to have continued unchecked. Since human activities are not static but flexible, there occurred many changed circumstances, interests and priorities. Many concepts, ^[3]ideologies, philosophies and norms have evolved under international law. However, between 1945 and now  many international events took place which, though not totally overtaking the original  concerns of the United Nations but are equally fundamental to international peace and security. These include the idea of fundamental human rights and basic freedoms, the principle of humanitarian law (arm conflicts), the need for democracy and good governance, the problem of multiple party systems and the principle of self-determination. Recently, coup d’états, elections, have called for illegal intervention of the United Nations or developed countries into the domestic activities of the third world countries. Thus, in recent times, we have noticed that there is a deepening or widening concept of what was originally conceived as non-intervention and what the present conception of the principle of non-intervention means such as political, economic and diplomatic pressures.

1.3 Objective of the Study

1.3.1 Main objective

– To examine the applicability of the principle of non-intervention.   

1.3.2 Specific objectives:

– To investigate the legal effect of the principle non-intervention.

– To examine the circumstances that may lead to the suspension of the principle of non-intervention

– To make proposal in relation to the application of the principle of non-intervention.

1.4 -Research question

1.4.1 Main research question

– To what extent has the principle of non-intervention in International law?

1.4.2 Specific question

– What is the significance of the doctrine of non-intervention?

-What are the circumstances that may led to the suspension of the principle of non-intervention?

– What proposal can be in relation to the application of the principle of non-intervention?

[1] Bearman 1986, p. 91; Blundy & Lycett 1987, p. 68; St. John 1987, p. 116; St. John 2012, p. 147.

[2]  Article 2(7)

“6. [See separate study]

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.”

[3] J. Verhoeven, ‘Non-intervention: “affaires intérieures” ou “vie privée”?’, in Liber Amicorum Michel Virally, Le droit international au service de la paix et du développement (1991), 493–500; Klein, P. and Corten, O., ‘Droit d’ingérence ou obligation de réaction non armée? Les possibilités d’actions non armées visant à assurer le respect des droits de la personne face au principe de non-ingérence’, (1990) 23 Revue Belge de Droit International 368Google Scholar.