The sovereignty of nations: When is it proper to derogate the duty of nonintervention?

Ifediora, John (2003): The sovereignty of nations: When is it proper to derogate the duty of nonintervention? Published in: Journal of Policy Perspective , Vol. Vol. 3, No. Issue 1 : pp. 1-8.

Abstract

The doctrine of nonintervention, a staple of traditional international law, provides that each state should refrain from interfering in the domestic affairs of other states. This prohibition includes not only military intervention, but also, in Hersh Lauterpacht’s formulation, all “dictatorial interference in the sense of action amounting to denial of the independence of the state.” Directly linked to this obligation is the notion of state sovereignty which has, at different times, enjoyed a wide and varied interpretation. However, as commonly understood, sovereignty implies that the only source of power within the geographic confines of a state is the state itself; hence any intervention in matters that are purely domestic would be illegal, for it implies another source of power in the state.

The norm of nonintervention continues to be serviceable, and provides the primary foundation on which international laws and relations are erected, principally because it recognizes the need to accept and respect the geographic, ethnic, religious, and cultural integrity of nations. Furthermore, the norm internationalizes the doctrine of self-determination, and the acceptance that a viable state and its people have the right to exist without fear of foreign aggression or interference in purely domestic matters. In principle, this customary rule of nonintervention gives substance, and sustains the doctrine of state sovereignty.

The duty of nonintervention, however, is not based on moral grounds. It is predicated on the assumption that a state, once recognized as such by the community of nations, enjoys sovereign powers. This practice makes no distinction between a de facto sovereign power and the legitimate exercise of power in the sense that legitimacy derives from the governed. Nonintervention may also be given a different interpretation; which is, that the obligation of noninterference in a state’s domestic matters is owed, not to the target state, but to the international community at large as a means to peace. This view comports well with the United Nation’s Charter, and its primary objective of world peace and security.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: International Law, Economic Theory, International Relations.
• Subjects: F - International Economics > F5 - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy

References

Beitz, Charles, 2000. “Rawls’ Law of Peoples,” Ethics, 110, July, pp. 681-97.

Buergenthal, Thomas, 1995. International Human Rights, 2nd Ed. New York: West Group Publishers.

Charney, Jonathan, 1999, “Anticipatory Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 93, Issue 4, Oct., pp. 834-441.

Chinkin, Christine, 1998, “International Law and Human Rights,” in T. Evans (ed.). Human Rights Fifty Years On: A reappraisal. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 105-129.

Donnelly, Jack, 1982. “Human Rights as Natural Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly, IV, pp. 120-153.

Doppelt, Gerald, 1980, “Statism Without Foundations,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, IX, Summer, pp. 385-403.

Hoffman, Stanley, 1981. Duties Beyond Borders: On the Limits and Possibilities of Ethical International Politics. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Ingram, David, 2003, “Between Political Liberalism and Postnational Cosmopolitanism,” Political Theory, Vol. 31, No.3, June, pp. 359-391.

Kymlicka, Will, 1991. Liberalism, Community, and Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Luban, David, 1980, “Just War and Human Rights,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, IX, Winter, pp. 160-81.

Maier, K., 2000. This House Has Fallen: Midnight in Nigeria. New York: Public Affairs.

Mankiw, G., 1995. “The Growth of Nations.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, pp. 275-326.

Manzetti, L., Wilson, C., 2007. “Why Do Governments Maintain Public Support?” Comparative Political Studies, 40: pp. 949-990.

Masters, W., McMillan, M., 2000, “Climate and Scale in Economic Growth,” Agricultural Economics, 19 (1-2), pp. 81-86.

Melden, A. I., 1977. Rights and Persons. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Steiner, H., Alston, P., 2000. International Human Rights in Context, 2nd Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Teson, Fernando, R., 1987, “Le Peuple, C’est Moi! The World Court and Human Rights,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 81, pp. 173-183.

Thornberry, Patrick, 2001, “Come Friendly Bombs…International Law in Kosovo,” in M. Waller, (Ed.). Kosovo: The Politics of Delusion. London: Frank Cass Press. Pp. 45-58.

Roberts, Elizabeth, 2001, “Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 95, pp. 757-784.

United Nations Development Program, 1999, The Human development Report; New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 171.

Van de Walle, 2001, African Economies and the Politics of Permanent Crisis (Cambridge University press) pp.5- 35.

Vitalis, R., 2002. “Black Gold, White Crude,” Diplomatic History, Vol. 26, No. 2. Pp. 186-210.

Walzar, Michael, 1980, “The Moral Standing of States,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, IX, Spring, pp. 209-29.

White, H., Wignaraja, G., 1992. “Exchange rate, trade liberalization and aid: The Sri Lankan Experience,” World Development, Vol. 20, No. 10, pp. 1471-1480.

Williamson, Oliver, 1994, “The Institutions and Governance of Economic Reform,” Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics; pp. 171-197.

World Bank, 2006, World Development Indicators; Washington, DC: World Bank, pp.45.

World Bank, 1998/99, Global Economic Prospects and the developing Countries, (Washington, DC: World Bank), p.53.