The Necessity of Reviewing the Principle of Non-intervention in the Light of Emerging Human Rights Norms

Document Type : Original Article from Result of Thesis

Authors

1 PhD. Student in Public International Law, International Law Department, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor Department Of Political Science Zanjan, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor Department of International Relations Zanjan, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran.

Abstract

The non-intervention rule is one of the established principles of international law, particularly the United Nations Charter, Although that has endured Until the early years of the twenty-first century, However given the rapid evolution of human rights in the modern era, it appears that such a principle faces numerous challenges and constraints. Instead of resorting to sovereignty mechanisms of human rights, such changes, in an unprecedented movement and a turning point in the development of human rights, have targeted its fundamental principles and pushed them to the margins by circumventing national sovereignty. In fact, the main question that arises is, within the context of expanding contemporary human rights norms, what normative and structural developments has the non-intervention rule seen, and what challenges have these changes faced? This descriptive-analytical study examined such changes and how they affect the nature and score of the non-intervention rule from a different perspective. The finding showed that transforming sovereignty into responsibility, as well as the establishment of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), purposive sanctions, and military intervention under the guise of fighting terrorism, are examples that not only have theoretical contradictions with the non-intervention rule's absolutism, but have also significantly weakened states' undisputed power in terms of human rights.

Highlights

Introduction

Known as the legacy of the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and an explicit principle of the UN Charter, the principle of non-interventionism is considered among the fundamental rights and duties of states. Resulting from the principle of respect for the governance of states in accordance with Article 1 of Chapter 2 of the UN Charter, non-interventionism is among the important elements affecting the international legal-political order. However, the penetration and authority of non-interventionism have faced serious challenges in the current paradigm of international law and its evolutional trend toward the humanization of rules and regulations as well as the assurance of human rights and basic freedoms against the aggression of states. It is essential to determine what effects such a change in the contemporary approach to international law, especially the support for human rights and confrontation with international crimes against the maintenance of international state-oriented peace and security, will have on the foundation of non-interventionism or the domain of its penetration and authority. The most possible hypothesis is that the international law has managed to surpass national governance and weakened non-interventionism in recent years through newly emerging norms in human rights. These norms include imposing purposive unilateral sanctions against the states that violate human rights and shouldering the responsibility for fighting against international terrorism, which is considered a crime against humanity. In the currently important era, some states resort to national governance for immunity to crimes against humanity and systematic violation of human rights in many cases, despite their international commitments to human rights. At the same time, it is now more essential than ever before to revise and research into the concept of non-interventionism due to political military conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq as well as the military interventions of neighboring countries under the pretext of fighting with terrorism and protecting their territorial integrity in which the involved states seek their goals of interests through a dichotomous interpretation of non-interventionism. Moreover, procedural differences of countries and disagreements of lawyers encountering non-interventionism would require the more accurate analysis of this principle in terms of its consistency with transformations in the international system.

 

Methodology

This descriptive-analytical study aimed to analyze and identify developments of human rights in recent years in addition to determining whether some important newly emerging norms of human rights affect non-interventionism by nature and its credibility in the current system of international law.

 

Results and Discussion

According to the findings, a new chapter of developments has come into view in the concept of non-interventionism since the beginning of the 21st century. In this era, the norms of human rights have emerged and constrained the boundaries of non-interventionism by challenging the domestic qualification and national governance of states. Purposive sanctions of human rights are pursued seriously, whereas humanitarian intervention has emerged under the new disguise of support responsibility through a more evolved approach since 2005. The international terrorism is fought with because it is considered a crime against humanity that passes through national borders. In this era, supportive mechanisms of human rights have been emerging for the first time ever by bypassing national governance without considering the governmental mechanisms of human rights.

 

Conclusion

By the end of the 20th century, the inconsistency between the governance of countries and the international support for human rights had resulted from the mere reliance on the governmental mechanisms of human rights in that era. Evidently, it is necessary to diminish the role of national governance as the major obstacle to the development of human rights and transform it in the process of globalizing human rights in such a system. This is also considered a historical mission, which has become a reality as the 21st century rolled around. According to the results of this study, the evident normative features of human rights in this era include developments beyond the governance of states or have at least tried to mitigate dependence on national governance. The newly emerging norms of human rights have two features. First, they act as a deterrent normative force preventing totalitarian states from easily violate the rights of their citizens extensively as they used to, for they are scared of the potential consequences. Second, these norms are inherently independent of national mechanisms of human rights because they have removed the main obstacle to any kinds of necessary actions for supporting and preventing serious violation of human rights by bypassing national governance. It is not believed that human rights are necessarily against national governance. Evidently, compliance with the fundamental human rights on the part of states will eliminate the groundwork for any potential challenges between national governance and the norms of human rights. Nevertheless, the main challenge arises when national governance contradicts the normal of human rights by ignoring or violating these rights. In this case, the norms of human rights should be able to achieve the predetermined goals by bypassing national governance. In fact, the important features of the newly emerging norms of human rights do not contradict national governance but rather represent independence of and emancipation from governmental mechanisms with the purpose of achieving the desired results. The outcome of such a development is the further inefficiency of non-interventionism in situations related to the violation of human rights. Supposedly, the analyses conducted in this study will prove the hypothesis that the principle of non-interventionism loses its conventional efficiency as the supportive shield of states at least in the sectors where states are unable or unwilling to shoulder such a responsibility toward the serious and evident violations of human rights of citizens. This might be considered an ethical revolution in the human civilization. In fact, this approach is a clear sign of normative reduction in national governance, for the spiritual and political importance of governance will weaken or fade away when it is known as responsibility. In other words, the unbounded and unconditional decision-making powers of states have drastically reduced, and the dependence of human rights on governmental mechanisms are wearing off on a daily basis.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ahmed, K. (2006). The Domestic Jurisdiction Clausse in the United Nations Charter: A Historical View. Singapore Year Book of International Law and Contributors, (10), 175–197.
  2. Balanche, F. (2018). Sectarianism in Syria’s Civil War.  The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, January 1, at: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01702640/document.
  3. Bannelier, K. (2016). Military Interventions against ISIL in Iraq Syria and Libya and Legal Basis of Consent. Leiden Journal of International Law, 1(03), 1-33. Doi: 10.1017/S0922156516000303
  4. Bledsoe, R. (1996). Dictionary of International Law. Translated by Bahman Aghaei, Tehran: Ganje Danesh. (In Persian)
  5. Byers, M. (2002). Terrorism the Use of Force and International Law after 11 September. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 51(2), 401-414.
  6. Caroline, T. (1985).   New States Sovereignty and Intervention. Sage journal, 14(2), 1-177
  7. Cassese, A. (2009). International Law, Translated by Hossein SHarifitarazkohi.  Tehran: Mizan, Second Edition. (In Persian)
  8. Cleveland, S. (2001).   Norm Internalization and US. Economic Sanctions. Yale Journal of International Law, 26(1), 1-102.
  9. Dehshiri, M., Naghshbandi, A.,    Keshishiyan, S., Ghayede, M. (2020). Political and Economic Consequences of the US Withdrawal from JCPOA for Iran in the Trump Era and Beginning of Biden’s Presidency.  International Studies Journal (ISJ), 3(67), 157-176. DOI: 10.22034/ISJ.2021.275512.1414 (In Persian)
  10. Ebrahimgol, A. (2014). International responsibility of the Government. Tehran: Institute of Legal Studies and Research of its municipality, Sixth edition. (In Persian)
  11. Jackson, R., Sorensen, G. (2018). Introduction to International Relations. Translated by Mahdi Zakerian, Ahmad Taghizadeh, Hasa Saeed Kolahi, Tehran: Mizan, Seventh Edition. (In Persian)
  12. Jalali, M., Zabib, R. (2018). Assessing Preventive Self-defense in Fighting Terrorism. Journal OF Judicial Law Views, 23(82), 53-82. (In Persian)
  13. Javid, A. (2014). The beginning of the Imposition of Unilateral Economic Sanctions on International Rights Guarantor of the Implementation of International law or National Policy tool?. Law and Politics Journal, 10(22), 105-148. (In Persian)
  14. Haddock, B. (2012). A History of Political Thought: From Antiquity to the present. Translated by Mohammad Hussein Waqar, Tehran: Ettelaat. (In Persian)
  15. Gholipoorshahraki, A., Heshmatinezhad, H. (2018). The Presence of the Iranian armed forces in Iraq and Syria from the Perspective of International law. Official Newspaper of the Islamic Republic of Iran. (In Persian)
  16. Khodabakhshi, L. (2021). Investigating the Military and Political Crises in Syria and the Solutions to Overcome this Crisis (Dimensions and Approaches). International Studies Journal (ISJ), 1(69), 45-62, DOI: 10.22034/ISJ.2021.252186.1233 (In Persian)
  17. Maccormick, N. (2001). Questioning sovereignty Law state and nation in the European Commonwealth. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
  18. Mirfakhraei, H. (2015). Investigating the Principle of Non-intervention and Use of Force in the Light of Global Developments. Journal of Political Studies, 7(27), 23-46. (In Persian)
  19. Mohan, K. (2008). Terrorism and Asymmetric Warfare: State Responsibility for the Acts of Non State Entities Nicaragua Tadic and Beyond. Journal of The institute of Justice and International Studies, 8, 211-220.
  20. Mohebi, M. (2016). International law in the Contemporary World. Tehran: Khorsandi. (In Persian)
  21. Mousazadeh, R. (2019). Concise of Public International Law. Tehran: Mizan, Twenty-eighth edition. (In Persian)
  22. Navadeh Topchi, H. (2014). The Law of War and Armed Conflicts. Tehran: Khorsandi. (In Persian)
  23. NATO (2009). NATO Publishes New Policy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation, at: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-34852433-30729564/natolive/news_57234.htm?selectedLocale=en
  24. Ngwa, N. (2017). The Rise and Decline of Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect. Journal of International Social Research, 10(49), 121-128.  DOI: 10.17719/jisr.2017.1563
  25. Oluwaseyi, E., Felix, Ch. (2020). International Law and Humanitarian Intervention in the Syrian Civil War the Role of the United States. Sage Journals, (10)2, 1-11. DOI: 10.1177/2158244020919533
  26. Regilme, S. (2020). Human Rights and Humanitarian Interventions in the International Arena. The SAGE Handbook of Political Scienc, 1462-1479. DOI: 10.4135/9781529714333.n89.
  27. Samuel Kern, A. (2009). Economic Sanctions Law and Public Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, DOI:10.1057/9780230227286
  28. Shaw, M. (2010). International Law. Translated by Mohammad Hussein Waqar. Tehran: Ettelaat, Third Edition. (In Persian)
  29. Simma, B. (2015). The Charter of the United Nations, Translated by Heybatollah Nezhandimanesh. Tehran: Khorsandy. (In Persian)
  30. Talebi Arani, R. (2016). Hegemony and the use of force. Tehran: Mokhatab Publication, First Edition. (In Persian)
  31. Zamani, Gh., Gharibabadi, K. (2015). Investigating the Legality and Legitimacy of Unilateral Economic Sanctions under International Law. Journal of Judicial Law Perspectives, 20(72), 93-129 (In Persian)
  32. Zakeriyan, M. (1999). The position of the United States and Israel in international human rights conventions. Journal of Regional Studies in Israeli Studies (1), 21-35. (In Persian)
  33. Zakerian, M. (2021). An Introduction to Human Rights in Islam. Journal of International Studies, Tehran, Second Edition. (In Persian)
  34. Zakerian, M. (2013).   All Human Rights for All. Mizan Legal Foundation, Tehran: Mizan, First Edition. (In Persian)
  35. Zelin, A. (2015). Foreign Fighter Motivations. Washington Institute for Near Policy. 7, 59-64, August, at: http://www.Washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-rise-of-isil-counterterrorism-lectures-2015
  36. Ziai Bigdeli, M. (2019). Public International Law. Tehran: Ganje Danesh, Sixty Fiveth (In Persian)
International Studies Journal (ISJ)
Volume 18, Issue 3 - Serial Number 71
January 2021
Pages 143-164

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics