New forms of intervention

The question arises of whether the ban on interference in the internal affairs of other States-also embraces those interventions, that do not take the form of sending, or threatening to send, military aircraft and warships, but include: economic pressure or even economic coercion; bringing about political destabilization; instigating, foment­ing, and financing unrest in a foreign country. In addition, one may wonder whether international law bans the resort by powerful States to more subtle forms of undue interference, such as radio propaganda, economic boycott, withholding economic assistance, or influencing international monetary and financial institutions with a view to stifling weak States economically. Arguably, economic force is proscribed when used as a means of compelling a State to adopt a course of action contrary to its will and advantageous to the coercive State.

Prohibition of the threat or use of force

The prohibition of the threat or use of force was first laid down in the UN Charter (Article 2.4). That this principle was proclaimed and strongly emphasized in 1945 is hardly surprising.

Peaceful settlement of disputes

The UN Charter obliges member States to settle their international disputes peace­fully (Article 2.3) so as generally to prevent peace and security, as well as justice, being imperilled.

This obligation has gradually been extended to all States as a logical corollary of the formation of a customary ban on the use of force.

Consequently, the principle is breached whenever a State wilfully and mala fide refuses to resort to negotiations or other peaceful means or procedures proposed by the counter-party; or, after the failure of a particular means or procedure agreed upon by the contending parties (for example, mediation), refuses to continue to seek a settlement; or takes action that is likely to aggravate the dispute or jeopardize peace. More generally, the principle is breached when a party manifestly engages in delaying tactics or in any other way shows that in actual fact it is not prepared to settle the matter peacefully.

One should bear in mind that one of the purposes of peaceful counter-measures may be to impel the counter-party to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute.

As in the case of other general principles, respect for human rights derives its most solid guarantee from the UN system. Legally, any State whatsoever is entitled to insist that the offending party discontinue its violations (and make reparations, as the case may require). However, for a number of historical, political, and diplomatic reasons States eschew bilateral action and prefer to bring the issue of gross disregard for human rights before international organizations, chiefly the UN. This practice is to some extent, a healthy phenomenon, for in the UN a less partial examination of allegations can be made, and 'collective sanctions' (11.4.1-2) may be resorted to which tend to be more effective than individual (peaceful) counter-measures

In the present world community, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union and most other socialist countries, States are divided economically and politically and often their relations are beset with tensions. The principles therefore represent the fundamental set of standards on which States are not divided and which allow a modicum of relatively smooth international relations. They make up the apex of the whole body of international legislation. They constitute overriding legal standards that may be regarded as the constitutional principles of the international community.

The sovereign equality of States

Traditional international law was based on a set of rules protecting the sovereignty of States and establishing their formal equality in law.

Of the various fundamental principles regulating international relations, this is unquestionably the only one on which there is unqualified agreement and which has the support of all groups of States, irrespective of ideologies, political leanings, and circumstances.

This being so, what is its present purport? The principle is an umbrella concept, covering various general rules, of which it provides a synthesis. Consequently, it can only be fully appreciated if these general rules are spelled out. As the principle embraces two logically distinct notions (sovereignty and legal equality), it makes sense to .consider them separately.