AN APPRAISAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERVENTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The Charter of the United Nations was signed on the 26th of June, 1945 in San Francisco 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.
In several meetings that were held, member states agreed that complete victory over their enemies was a necessary prerequisite for the defense of life, liberty, independence, religious freedom and for the preservation of human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other places. They also agreed to engage in a common struggle against savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world . By the Declaration, each signatory government pledged itself to employ its full resources, military and economic, against those members of the tripartite pact and its adherents with which such governments were at war and to cooperate with Governments signatories thereto, and not to make separate armistice or peace with enemies.
However, during the preparation of the Charter, Member States agreed to draw a line between activities, which were regarded as purely domestic, and those, which were within the realm of international domain.
So at the end, the principle of non-intervention was inserted into the United Nations Charter. Thus, Article 2 of the UN Charter provides inter alia that:
“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. ” This is what is commonly known as the principle of non-intervention. Since then the principle have
been abused by 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, ideologies, philosophies and norms have evolved under international law. These have called for a review of the old initial idea or conception of the principle of non-interference5 69 years after the signing and coming into effect of the principal Charter of the United Nations. For example in 1945, the priority of the United Nations was how to prevent further international wars, how to promote international peace and security by way of coming together of the international community and to agree on peace agenda which was thought to be the only panacea for peace and security.
However, between 1945 and now (year 2014) 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 system and the principle of self determination. Recently, coup d‟etats, elections, have called for illegal intervention of the United Nations or firstworld 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. Therefore, the task of this work is to examine states practices as they affect the principle of nonintervention.
1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study
The aim of this research is to examine critically the principle of nonintervention in international law with a view to realizing the following
objectives: –
i. To what extent has the principle of non-intervention been abused?
ii. To make recommendations or suggestions, as to how to review the law of non-intervention.
1.4 Scope of the Study
The scope of the research is principally confined to the principle of non-intervention as enshrined in Art. 2(7) of the UN charter, basically by considering the words and sprit of the charter. This does not preclude the application of international norms and treaties as well as domestic legislations to the discussion of the principle, including the interpretations by law courts and arguments of various writers.
1.5 Literature Review
By the provisions of Art. 2(7) of the UN charter of 1945, forbid all states or groups of states to intervene directly or indirectly in the internal or external affairs of other states . This is what scholars, writers and judicial decisions termed as principle of non-intervention. In many text books of international law, one finds discussions, by learned scholars , and decisions by law courts on principle of non- intervention. According to Hingorani, R.C., “interference has got to be dictatorial in order to constitute intervention. ” Further, the learned author concluded that ………if it is not dictatorial, it does not amount to intervention. It is most respectfully submitted that, there are interventions that are not dictatorial but are recognized by the UN and international community. Example, humanitarian intervention.
However to Professor Richard J.E., the principle prohibits “not only armed intervention, but all direct or indirect intervention of a political or economic nature and political or economic pressure aimed at preventing peoples from choosing their social system or from taking economic measures to further interest in their own country . With due respect to the learned author there are some interventions that are legal, for example intervention by request to the legitimate authorities against insurgents, whatever the effect which that help may have on the political future of the state .
