The necessity and parameters of indirect intervention under the principle of non-intervention
Date
2020-11
Authors
Nnemaka, Esperance
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Strathmore University
Abstract
Despite the United Nations Charter prohibiting states from indirectly intervening “in matters that are in essence within the jurisdiction of a state”, under the principle of non-intervention, in practice, this is rarely followed. This can be highly attributed
to the lack of set down parameters of what exactly constitutes these ‘intervening activities’ and consequently leaving a Pandora box for the exploitation of states, violating the principle of non-intervention. The reality is more so seen in practice in
a realm where states have varying powers and varying degrees of interdependence. Armed conflict under ‘direct intervention’ in turn, is rarely resorted to, as more and more, economic, diplomatic and subversive forms of intervention carry the day.
Description
The foundations of International law, based on writings/work by the ‘father of International law, Hugo Grotius 1 and works by Emer de Vattel 2 , International law has rested on the basic analogy that ‘...in the same manner that human beings are free and
equal, with autonomy in their private interests, so are states in matters concerning its domestic or sovereign affairs’ 3 . Emer de Vattel was acknowledged for being the first to formulate the principle of non-intervention 4 on whether the principle was carried out in practice during the period within States is doubtful following evidence of historical signings of treaties such as “The Holy Alliance” of 1815. 5 Some early treaty formulations
of the principle were the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States of
1933, Article 15 (8) of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Additional Protocol
on Non-Intervention of 1936 6 .