State Sovereignty and Lawful Intervention - Essay Example

Sovereignty and Lawful Intervention Political Science 19 April 2007 Introduction Sovereignty has been defined as “the supreme, absolute and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed” (Black 1396). It has also been defined as “the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation” (Black 1396). A “state” which is an entity recognized under international law having a defined territory, a permanent population, a government and having the capacity to engage in formal relations with other entities enjoy this sovereignty (Wallace 58). States that have been recognized, also enjoy territorial sovereignty manifested either with their exclusive right to display their activities (Wallace, 58) or the right to exercise, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State (Wallace, 89). This territorial sovereignty extends not only to the designated landmass, but also to the subsoil, the water enclosed therein, the land under that water, the sea coast to a certain limit and the airspace over the landmass and territorial sea (Wallace 89). The states thus have the jurisdiction, an attribute of state sovereignty, to govern persons and property by its municipal law and to prescribe, adjudicate and to enforce the law (Wallace 108). But despite this recognition of sovereignty of a State under international law, there have been practices under international community which allow intervention over the affairs of another state. What are these allowable exceptions recognized under international law? How does this relate to the threat of terrorism as an exception to non-intervention over states? This paper hopes to first explain what intervention is and how it is manifested. Secondly, this paper hopes to expound on the instances under which international law which allows intervention over the affairs of one State. Thirdly the paper hopes to examine the war on terrorism which have been often used by states in order to intervene with the sovereignty of another state. Finally, the paper hopes to give a conclusion based on the ideas presented. Intervention International law emphasizes on the duties and responsibilities of states, in the conduct of their international relations with other states (Coquia and Santiago 115). There is a duty “to refrain from intervention or the dictatorial interference by a State in the affairs of another State for the purpose of maintaining or altering the actual condition of things” (Coquia and Santiago 115). Intervention is basically illegal under international law as it violates the sovereignty of a state (Coquia and Santiago 459) and affects the independence, the international personality, the territorial supremacy and even the existence of a state (Coquia and Santiago 115). However, there are instances where intervention is lawful based on “existing legal restrictions upon the independence or territorial or personal supremacy of the State intervened with” (Coquia and Santiago 116). Among the reasons which have been cited for state intervention are the following: intervention as a self-defense, for humanitarian reasons and finally for abatement. Self-Defense A State may intervene for its preservation or self-defense against armed attack provided that there exists an immediate danger of attack (Coquia and Santiago 118). It is important therefore to determine whether there exists an immediate danger of an armed attack or not (Coquia and Santiago 118). Thus the exercise or the use of force in self-defense would be justified under international law provided that the need for such force was “instant, overwhelming, immediate and that there was no viable alternative action which could be taken” (Wallace 258). The UN Charter therefore recognizes this right of self-defense as an inherent right of every State under Article 51 which provides that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” (UN Charter). As classified by McDougal and Feliciano, self-defense maybe three types. The first type are those which aims to respond with force to the intense coercion that is immediate and current that is initiated against it. The declaration of war by the United States after the Japanese air forces attacked Pearl Harbor is an example of this type (Coquia and Santiago 118). The second type is what is called “the claim by a belligerent to the use of force against a third State which is not a participant in the original conflict” (Coquia and Santiago 118). The purpose of this is to hamper an anticipated hostile operation by the opposing belligerent in the territory of the third state as a measure of self-defense (Coquia and Santiago 118). An example of this was the seizure of the Danish fleet in 1807 by British Naval forces, after the bombardment of Copenhagen, to forestall the acquisition of the fleet by Napoleon. Finally, the third type related by McDougal and Feliciano is “the assertion of authority over portions of the high seas and the air-space thereof as a measure of self-defense or self-preservation” (Coquia and Santiago 119). This claim was for the purpose of maintaining and protecting military security interests of the claimant State (Coquia and Santiago 119). Although the main purpose of this kind of intervention with another state is for self-defense which is recognized under the UN Charter or in order to protect their interests especially when there is force or coercion exerted against a state, there would however be tendencies of powerful states “to take the law into their own hands” by using force and then asserting self-defense especially when their interests are threatened (Coquia and Santiago 119). Humanitarian Intervention Humanitarian concern is also one of the basis used by states to intervene in the affairs of another state (Wallace 264). Hence, when a State manifests cruelties or persecution of its own nationals to the extent of depriving them their fundamental human rights, intervention in the interest of humanity is permissible (Coquia and Santiago 120). Humanitarian intervention have become part of customary international law to prevent atrocities committed in several States and which were also considered a breach of peace (Coquia and Santiago 120). This was what happened in the Bangladesh incident, where “India in 1971, used large-scale military forces in Pakistan on the allegation that said state was violating minimal standards of human rights in East Bengal by killing and imprisoning large numbers of the population, causing mass flights or refugees to India” (Franck and Rodley 1973). This case was one of the example where the unilateral use of military force was justified on grounds of human rights (Coquia and Santiago 120). The UN Relief operation in Northern Iraq following the Gulf War in 1990-91 was also an example of an intervention based on humanitarian concerns (Wallace 262). Reports of thousands of deaths of Kurdish refugees fleeing Iraqi troops prompted the UN Security council then to pass Resolution 688 (Wallace 262). This resolution condemned the repression of civilian population and insisted the immediate access to Iraq of international humanitarian organizations in order to help those in need (Wallace 262). Although the intention of this kind of intervention is seemingly important in order to protect the humanitarian concerns but which might be essentially civil-war conflicts, international response to humanitarian crises however have been inconsistent especially in the 1990s in connection with the operations of the UN (Wallace 264). There still might be some conflicts as to what extent of human suffering must be manifested in order that lawful intervention in a state’s sovereignty may be justified. Abatement Theory As explained by Coquia, “the abatement theory holds that when conditions in the territory of a neighboring State might result in anarchy or disorder, and the authorities of the state are unable to restore order and prevent spilling over the territory of another, the latter has the duty to intervene even by armed force to restore order in the border and to end the chaos” (Coquia and Santiago 121). This was basis of the United States in intervening in Cuba in 1898, and by Japan in 1932 in invading Manchuria, as well as by Russia in 1939 when it invaded Poland (Coquia and Santiago 121). Also in 1916, the United States sent military forces to Mexico after the apparent inability of the Mexican authorities to stop the civil disturbances in Northern Mexico and to restore order in the United States Border (Coquia and Santiago 121). An argument however against this might be that selfish aims or territorial aggrandizement or other gain may be used by states in justifying their act in using this as a basis for intervention (Coquia and Santiago 121). Therefore abatement theory may be justified if it is alone used for self-defense or self-preservation and without selfish aims. War on Terrorism After the September 11 incident at the World Trace Center, New York, there have been several actions by different nations stressing on the war on terrorism, which is the latest and most serious threat to international peace. Reports of bombings mostly suicidal, were allegedly motivated by the antagonism against the Western powers by Muslim extremists (Coquia and Santiago 460). The United Nations System provides that “no force may be used to settle any international dispute without the sanction of the Security Council” (Coquia and Santiago 460). The Security Council allowed and ordered the inspection of the presence of weapon of mass destruction in Iraq (Coquia and Santiago 460). However, as events would itself tell, without waiting for the final report of the inspection team, the US military forces and allies invaded Iraq bringing in troops, all in the name of war on terrorism (Coquia and Santiago 460). This pre-emptive self-defense against terrorism however is a serious concern for the future UN system in its policies in using self-defense as a basis by any state in the future (Coquia and Santiago 460). Conclusion As above presented, customary international law have recognized justifications for intervention over the sovereignty of a state for reasons of self-defense, humanitarian concerns and to prevent escalation of chaos which serves as a threat to peace. The war on terrorism is also used often to justify the intervention and invasion of US military troops and its allies over another. There must however be some delineation as to which may be justified and which are not because one must still recognize the sovereignty of a state. And unless there are conditions, which certainly justify lawful intervention, sovereignty of a state must still be respected. Works Cited Black, Henry Campbell. Black’s Law Dictionary. St. Paul Minn: West Publishing Co., 1990. 1396. Coquia, Jorge and Miriam Defensor Santiago. International Law and World Organizations. Quezon City: Central Lawbook Publishing Co. Inc., 2005. 115 – 460. Franck, Thomas and Nigel Rodley. “After Bangladesh:The Law of Humanitarian Intervention by Military Force.” 67 American Journal of International Law. 1973: 275. United Nations Charter Wallace, Rebecca. International Law. London: Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 2002. 58 – 264. Read More