- •1.3 The lack of a central authority, and decentralisation of legal ‘functions’
- •1.4 Collective responsibility
- •1.5 The need for most international rules to be translated into national legislation
- •1.6 The range of States’ freedom of action
- •1.7 The overriding role of effectiveness
- •1.8 Traditional individualistic trends and emerging obligations and rights
- •1.9 Coexistence of the old and new patterns
- •2 The historical evolution of the international community
- •2.1 Introduction
- •3 States as the primary subjects of international law
- •3.1 Traditional and New Subjects
- •Individuals
- •3.2 Commencement of the Existence of States
- •3.3 The Role of Recognition
- •3.4 Continuity and Termination of Existence of States
- •3.5 Spatial Dimensions of State Activities
- •3.5.1 General
- •3.6 The Legal Regulation of Space, Between Sovereignty and Community Interests
- •4 Other International Legal Subjects
- •4.1 Insurgents
- •4.2 The reasons behind the emergence of new international subjects
- •International organizations:
- •Individuals
- •4.3 International organizations
- •4.4 National liberation movements
- •4.5 Individuals
- •4.5.1 Traditional law
- •5 The fundamental principles governing international relations
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 The sovereign equality of States
- •5.2.1 General
- •5.3 Immunity and other limitations on sovereignty
- •5.4.1 General
- •Part II: Creation and Enforcement of International Legal Standards
- •6 International law-making: Customs and Treaties
- •6.1 Introductory remarks
- •6.1.1 Traditional Law
- •6.2 Custom
- •6.2.1 General
- •6.3 Treaties
- •6.3.1 General
- •6.4 Codification
- •6.5 The introduction of jus cogens in the 1960s
- •8 Implementation of international rules within national systems
- •8.1 Relationship between international and national law
- •8.2 International rules on implementing international law in domestic legal systems
- •8.3 Trends emerging among the legal system of States
- •8.4 Techniques of implementation
- •8.5 Statist versus international outlook: emerging trends
- •9 State Responsibility
- •9.1 General
- •9.2 Traditional law
- •9.3 The current regulation of State responsibility: an overview
- •9.4 ‘Ordinary’ State responsibility
- •9.5 ‘Aggravated’ State responsibility
- •9.6 The special regime of responsibility in case of contravention of community obligations provided for in multilateral treaties
- •9.7 The current minor role of aggravated responsibility
- •10 Mechanisms for promoting compliance with international rules and pursuing the prevention or peaceful settlement of disputes
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.2 Traditional mechanisms for promoting agreement
- •10.3 Traditional mechanisms for settling disputes by a binding decision
- •10.4 The new law: an overview
- •10.5 The general obligation to settle disputes peacefully
- •10.6 Resort to traditional means
- •10.7 Strengthening and institutionalizing of traditional means
- •10.8 The establishment of more flexible mechanisms for either preventing or settling disputes
- •Part III: Contemporary Issues in International Law
- •14 Collective Security and the Prohibition of Force
- •14.1 Maintenance of Peace and Security by Central Organs or with their Authorization
- •14.2 Peacekeeping Operations
- •14.3 Collective Measures not Involving the Use of Force
- •14.4 Exceptionally Permitted Resort to Force by States
- •14.5 Use of force when self-determination is denied
- •14.6 The old and the new law contrasted
- •15 Legal Restraints on Violence in Armed Conflict
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.2 Classes of War
- •15.3 Traditional law in a nutshell
- •15.4 New developments in modern armed conflict
- •15.5 The new law: an overview
- •15.6 Current regulation of international armed conflict
- •15.7 Current regulation of internal armed conflict
- •15.8 The role of law in restraining armed violence
5.4.1 General
Principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other States is one of the most essential tenets of the ‘Grotian’ classical model of international community.
The principle has been enshrined in specific customary rules:
Prohibition of a state from interfering in the internal organisation of the foreign State (i.e. deciding which ministry is best equipped to deal with a certain question)
State is not allowed to bring pressure to bear on specific national bodies of other countries (e.g. legislature, judiciary, police)
May not interfere in the relations between foreign government authorities and their own nationals
State must refrain from instigating, organizing, or officially supporting the organization on their territory of activities prejudicial to foreign countries (but this does not cover subversive activities carried out by private persons without authorization of state).
Whenever a civil war breaks out in a foreign country, States are duty-bound to refrain from assisting insurgents, unless they qualify for status of a national liberation movement
Pre-1945 – these rules were in force, but a state could choose not to follow them if they thought their interests over-rode the rules (e.g. a state could intervene in affairs of another state if it thought it was under threat from that state).
Post-1945 – these principles have renewed importance, particularly to some states, due to:
Introduction of far-reaching legal restraints on use or threat of force
Drive towards international co-operation, which entailed expansions of inter-governmental organizations which by definition meddle in internal affairs of states, and encourage states to determine exactly which areas of their affairs were immune from any intervention
Spread of human rights doctrines, with the ensuing possibility for states and others to press for compliance with human rights standards
Principle of non-intervention bridge between traditional sovereignty-orientated structure of int’l community and new attitude of States, based on social intercourse and co-operation
5.4.2 New Forms of Intervention
Does the ban on interference in internal affairs include economic pressure or coercion, political destabilization, instigating, fomenting and financing unrest? What about more subtle forms of pressure, such as radio propaganda, economic boycott, influencing int’l monetary and financial institutions and stifling views of weaker states in those bodies?
Economic pressure:
Decision to withhold economic assistance to developing countries or int’l aid agencies is not an infringement, if decision is motivated by difficulties in granting State or change in policy motivated by domestic jurisdictions
However, economic measures “designed to coerce another state in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind” (principle III of UN Declaration of1970, para. 2) may be run counter to principle of non-interference.
These issues were subject of big debate during Cold War (1960s and 1970s).
Socialist and developing countries argued that economic pressure violated rights to non-interference.
Western States denied this, arguing that int’l law only prohibits intervention by force or by threat of force, and felt that states remained free to influence the policies and actions of other countries.
One area of agreement between West and Socialist and developing countries:
Prohibition of toleration by State A of subversive activities against other states organized in territory of state A.
[5.6 – 5.10]