Third state intervention in civil armed conflict. Justifications for circumventing the principle of non-intervention.
(2002)Department of Law
- Abstract
- Since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations the pattern of conflict in the international arena has drastically changed. From largely being a scene for inter-state conflicts, internal conflicts have predominated the post-war era. The few international conflicts that the post-war world has witnessed have originated in civil conflicts. The principle of non-intervention implies the duty for third states to abstain from interfering in other states' domestic affairs. This fundamental principle governing inter-state relations is implicitly laid down in the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the Charter, but has been confirmed and clarified by subsequent legal instruments. In spite of the general consensus on the... (More)
- Since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations the pattern of conflict in the international arena has drastically changed. From largely being a scene for inter-state conflicts, internal conflicts have predominated the post-war era. The few international conflicts that the post-war world has witnessed have originated in civil conflicts. The principle of non-intervention implies the duty for third states to abstain from interfering in other states' domestic affairs. This fundamental principle governing inter-state relations is implicitly laid down in the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the Charter, but has been confirmed and clarified by subsequent legal instruments. In spite of the general consensus on the principle of non-intervention among the members of the international community, individual states make persistent attempts at circumventing the principle by invoking various justifications for intervening in civil conflict. Intervention by third states internationalises the internal conflict and presents an imminent risk of escalation. The two most frequently invoked justifications for intervening in civil conflict are the justifications of consent and collective self-defence. At times, states also intervene for the alleged purposes of establishing or restoring democratic governance or furthering the process of self-determination. The protection of the population of the target state against gross violations of human rights and the rescue of own nationals in danger in the territorial state constitute another two common state justifications. The present thesis presents an analysis of the current state of the principle of non-intervention in the light of the extensive interventionist state practice. In doing this, the legal history of the principle of non-intervention is retraced in order to demonstrate the constant divergent opinions of states. The object of attaining consensus, in spite of the persistent disagreement, has led to ambiguous results. Although states frequently take advantage of the margin of interpretation built into the legal instruments, it should be observed that states usually tend to diverge as to the determination of the facts rather than on the conditions for a lawful exercise of the justifications. The justifications of consent and collective self-defence have been frequently abused in state practice. Nevertheless, the legal tenability of these justifications is generally recognised, provided that a large number of conditions are met. The additional justifications examined in the present thesis have encountered widespread criticism from both third states and legal scholars. Moreover, their legal foundation, as embodied in a contextually interpretation of Article 2(4), is open to fundamental objections as to its compatibility with the overwhelming purpose of maintaining international peace and security. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1561695
- author
- Salö, Paulina
- supervisor
- organization
- year
- 2002
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Folkrätt
- language
- English
- id
- 1561695
- date added to LUP
- 2010-03-08 15:55:29
- date last changed
- 2010-03-08 15:55:29
@misc{1561695,
abstract = {{Since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations the pattern of conflict in the international arena has drastically changed. From largely being a scene for inter-state conflicts, internal conflicts have predominated the post-war era. The few international conflicts that the post-war world has witnessed have originated in civil conflicts. The principle of non-intervention implies the duty for third states to abstain from interfering in other states' domestic affairs. This fundamental principle governing inter-state relations is implicitly laid down in the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the Charter, but has been confirmed and clarified by subsequent legal instruments. In spite of the general consensus on the principle of non-intervention among the members of the international community, individual states make persistent attempts at circumventing the principle by invoking various justifications for intervening in civil conflict. Intervention by third states internationalises the internal conflict and presents an imminent risk of escalation. The two most frequently invoked justifications for intervening in civil conflict are the justifications of consent and collective self-defence. At times, states also intervene for the alleged purposes of establishing or restoring democratic governance or furthering the process of self-determination. The protection of the population of the target state against gross violations of human rights and the rescue of own nationals in danger in the territorial state constitute another two common state justifications. The present thesis presents an analysis of the current state of the principle of non-intervention in the light of the extensive interventionist state practice. In doing this, the legal history of the principle of non-intervention is retraced in order to demonstrate the constant divergent opinions of states. The object of attaining consensus, in spite of the persistent disagreement, has led to ambiguous results. Although states frequently take advantage of the margin of interpretation built into the legal instruments, it should be observed that states usually tend to diverge as to the determination of the facts rather than on the conditions for a lawful exercise of the justifications. The justifications of consent and collective self-defence have been frequently abused in state practice. Nevertheless, the legal tenability of these justifications is generally recognised, provided that a large number of conditions are met. The additional justifications examined in the present thesis have encountered widespread criticism from both third states and legal scholars. Moreover, their legal foundation, as embodied in a contextually interpretation of Article 2(4), is open to fundamental objections as to its compatibility with the overwhelming purpose of maintaining international peace and security.}},
author = {{Salö, Paulina}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Third state intervention in civil armed conflict. Justifications for circumventing the principle of non-intervention.}},
year = {{2002}},
}