WOW !! MUCH LOVE ! SO WORLD PEACE !
Fond bitcoin pour l'amélioration du site: 1memzGeKS7CB3ECNkzSn2qHwxU6NZoJ8o
  Dogecoin (tips/pourboires): DCLoo9Dd4qECqpMLurdgGnaoqbftj16Nvp


Home | Publier un mémoire | Une page au hasard

 > 

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

( Télécharger le fichier original )
par Jean de Dieu ILIMUBUHANGA
Kigali Independent University - Master degree in public international law 2014
  

précédent sommaire suivant

Bitcoin is a swarm of cyber hornets serving the goddess of wisdom, feeding on the fire of truth, exponentially growing ever smarter, faster, and stronger behind a wall of encrypted energy

2.5.2. Interference and Non-Interference Principle

To understand the principle of non-intervention, it is firstly important to define it, then to briefly develop its content and finally end with its limitations.

The principle of non-intervention means the prohibition against any State, as a corollary of the principle of sovereign equality, to interfere in the internal or external affairs falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of another State.88(*) In this sense, it stands for "non-interference". This principle involves the right of a State to conduct its affairs without external interference, although not few examples of violations of the principle as the ICJ had the opportunity to say: "Between independent States, respect for the territorial sovereignty is an essential basis of international relations".89(*)

International law also requires respect for the political integrity. It is not difficult to find many expressions of 'opinio juris' on the existence of the principle of non-intervention in international customary law.90(*)It is appropriate, furthermore, to note in the same context that the "concept of the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of the State has as consequence the prohibition of other States to intervene in matters that fall within the domain of the State. However, if the principle of non-intervention or non-interference is unquestionably granted by the positive law, its precise contours are not less uncertain.91(*)

However, in a more narrow sense, non-intervention means, for a subject of law, the respect for the principle prohibiting ignorance of territorial integrity of another State or using force or similar means.92(*)

2.5.2.1 Content of the Principle Non Interference

If the principle of non-intervention is deeply rooted in positive law, its scope remains uncertain both in what concerns subject only to the terms of the prohibited intervention. Regarding the object, note that the attempt is permanent for the States to appeal to the principle of nonintervention in the systematic way if necessary, giving him a very broad: "manipulation, diplomatic of the theory of the reserved area promotes a return to the initial design of the domain reserved by nature and its unilateral and exclusive definition by each State".93(*) In its ruling on military activities (Nicaragua versus USA), the ICJ, without claiming to give a general definition of the principle of non-intervention, however provide important details on its constituent elements. General formulations accepted this principle prohibits any State or group State to intervene directly or in the interior or exterior of another business State indirectly.94(*)

The terms of prohibited intervention could be justified by the passage from the judgment of the ICJ (case Nicaragua versus USA) 1986 which highlights the fundamental character of the prohibited intervention it has an element of coercion. As a result in particular that mere verbal criticism or offers of negotiations does not fall into this category. On the other hand, if there is no doubt that armed intervention is prohibited under contemporary international law, the threshold of the stress inherent in relationships between unequal end entity, tolerable, remains undecided.95(*) In the same case, the Court ruled that: 'the support provided by the USA, until the end of September 1984, in military and paramilitary activities in Nicaragua, in the form of financial, military training, supplies of weapons, intelligence and logistical support constitutes a violation undoubtedly of the principle of non-intervention'.96(*)

The question also arises of knowing if, even when there is presence of intervention in general rule prohibited, it can be legitimized in certain situations.

* 88 Christine Gray, The Use of Force and the International Legal Order, in INTERNATIONAL LAW 615, 623 Malcolm D. Evans ed., 3d ed. 2010, p. 46.

* 89 O.CORTEN and P. KLEIN, Right of Interference or Obligation of Reaction? Possibilities for Action Aimed at Ensuring the Respect of Human Rights Against the Principle of Nonintervention, Brussels, Bruylant, 1996, p. 697.

* 90 FRANCK M., «Recourse to Force State Action Against Threats and Armed Attack», Cambridge university Press, Cambridge, 2002, p. 132.

* 91 NGOYENQUOC DINH; PELLET, A DAILLER and P., Droit International Public, 1998, p. 424.

* 92Ibid.

* 93 FRANCK M, op. cit., p. 82.

* 94 SCHWEBEL, Intervention and self-defense in Modern International Law, R.C.A.D.I., 2002 II, p. 136.

* 95 Ibid, p. 141.

* 96 CIJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in the Nicaragua and Against, judgment of June 17, 1986, Rec.1986, p. 108.

précédent sommaire suivant






Bitcoin is a swarm of cyber hornets serving the goddess of wisdom, feeding on the fire of truth, exponentially growing ever smarter, faster, and stronger behind a wall of encrypted energy








"Qui vit sans folie n'est pas si sage qu'il croit."   La Rochefoucault