“Military Intervention
in any Sovereign State is Unlawful”
The Principle,
established in International Law.
This principle of non-interference was well
grounded in customary international law. Its explicit origins are often located
in the aftermath of the Thirty Years War, when Europe’s princes adopted the
principle cuius regio, eius religio, (‘Whose rule,
his religion’), to put a stop to the bloodbath which ensued when one
state decided it had the right to attack another for religious reasons.
The principle of non-interference has been enunciated on
many occasions since, when the International Court
of Justice, the UN’s highest legal body, has confirmed that there exists
no right of interference or intervention in the internal affairs of other
states, not even when human rights are alleged to be at stake.
In 1986, the International Court of Justice ruled
on a case brought by Nicaragua against the United States for interfering in
its internal affairs by creating and supporting the Contras to overthrow the
Sandinista government. The ICJ found that such
action was illegal and that the American claim to be acting in the name
of a higher good was not admissible as an argument in law:
The Court reaffirmed that there does not exist a new rule opening up a right of intervention
by one State against another on the ground that the latter has opted [to adhere] to
some particular ideology or system; that, alleged violations of human rights could not be taken as justification
for the use of force, since the use of force could not be the
appropriate method to monitor or ensure respect for human rights.
The same sentiment is to be found in the
Declaration on Friendly Relations adopted by the UN General Assembly in1970, which
stipulated:
No State or group of
States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason
whatsoever, in the internal or external affairs
of another State. Consequently, armed
intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against
the personality of the State or against its political,
economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law. No State
may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures 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. Also, no State shall organise, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate
subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent
overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife
in another State.
Note:
All of the above is quoted from the book “TRAVESTY” by the author John
Laughland.
The
book covers the “Trial of, SLOBODAN MILOSOVICH”, and, the corruption of
International Justice.
Gordon
J Sheppard
