The prospect of international intervention legitimacy: case study of 2011 libyan armed conflict

2.5.1.2 The Principle of Sovereignty of States under International Law

The principle of sovereignty is set forth in the relations between States. This sovereignty implies both the exclusivity of the jurisdiction over the national territory, the possibility of delegating to regional communities as well as the full independence of the State towards foreign power or other persons with a foreign attachment. However, this principle has some limitations or exceptions.

2.5.1.2.1. Application of the Principle

The States rely on the principle of sovereignty to deny any outside interference and subtract any particular problem from the intervention of other States. This principle is constantly reaffirmed and the rights it grants to the State are jealously claimed and particularly enshrined in the constitutive instruments of international organizations.^77(*)

Thus, for example, article 2 §7 of the Charter of the United Nations enshrines the notion of "reserved domain" or "national jurisdiction" of the article 2§7 states : "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. This text therefore recognizes the scope of responsibility of a State in which only the State can intervene and in doing so, both enshrines the principle of the sovereignty of the State and of non-interference in the internal affairs. This text therefore recognizes the scope of responsibility of State in which only the State can intervene and doing so, both enshrine the principle of sovereignty of the State and of-interference in internal affairs.^78(*)

The problem which arises in this connection is to know who is responsible for determining if a matter falls within the domain of the State, because any State may, on the basis of article 2 §7, prevent any international initiative to resolve a conflict and completely cripple the international organization, on the pretext of rejecting the interference in its internal affairs. This is what occurs particularly at the UN, which can thus be reduced to its impotence because the use by States of the principle of sovereignty is not exempted from arbitrary or abuse.^79(*)

Another example is the Charter of the African Union (AU) which refers expressly to the principle of the sovereignty of the States: article 3 "solemnly" proclaims the principle of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of each State and what is closely related «it's an inalienable right to independent existence".^80(*) There too, the principle of the sovereignty of States is linked in the same text, to "non-interference in internal affairs».

2.5.1.2.2 Internal Sovereignty

According to S. DREYFUS, "at the internal level, the State is master in itself (...)»^81(*) but being his own master at home should not induce States to exercise an arbitrary power. But all depends on the internal structures of the State, because limits to its power and brakes to the arbitrariness of its action are linked to the political regime and cannot be determined by the rules of internal law.^82(*)

Furthermore, it should be noted that the State has tasks that aim at the maintenance of order indoors. In the broad sense, it is, of course, matter of public order that fit within the mandate of the Government. It is also matter of justice which belongs to all courts established in the country. But these are there minimum tasks and objectives which call, actually, other interventions of the State provided it is easy fix limit of their action.^83(*)

In any case, it should certainly be regarded as an integral part of the functions of sovereignty those relating to administration, the enactment of laws, the monopoly of the public force, money, army, etc.

* ⁷⁷ Dorota Gierycz, "From Humanitarian Intervention to Responsibility to Protect." Criminal Justice Ethics 2010: pp. 110-128.

* ⁷⁸ Article 2 of UN Charter.

* ⁷⁹ Dorota, G., op. cit., pp36-38.

* ⁸⁰ Ibid.

* ⁸¹ DREYFUS, H., Origin of Political Crimes, Oxford, 2011, p.84.

* ⁸² Idem, p. 85.

* ⁸³ Elfstrom, G., op. cit., 24-25.