Intervention

It is the inalienable right of every state to manage its affairs according to its own volition,
to adopt the constitution it likes, to change it within the terms of the law when it so desires or to
enter into alliances and treaties with other states. But as Lawrence points out, sometimes it
happens that another state, or a group of states, interferes with its proceedings. Interference of
this kind is called intervention.

Intervention is dictatorial interference by a state in the affairs of another state for the
purpose of maintaining or altering the actual condition of things. Mere friendly advice and
general political influence do not strictly come under this term as the essential requisite of
intervention as because use of force or a threat to use force is lacking in such type of
interventions. The intervention must take an imperative form which must be forcible or backed
by the threat of force.

The “intervention” prohibited by International Law is usually defined as dictatorial

interference by a state in the affairs of another state. A dictatorial interference is interference by
the threat or use of force. Intervention is as a rule forbidden by the Law of Nations. It uses force
or threat to use force and violation of territorial supremacy, it conflicts with International Law,
and is justified only in certain cases. General International Law does not prohibit intervention
under all circumstances such as forcible interference is the sphere of interest of another state is
permitted as reaction against a violation of International Law.

General Assembly Resolution on Intervention

Intervention has been prohibited by the International Law as well as by the United
Nations Charter under Article 2, Para 4. On October 1970 the General Assembly adopted
unanimously a resolution entitled as ‘Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations.’ This resolution declared that every state has the duty to refrain from organizing,
instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another state or organized activities
within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts with threat or use of force.
 As regards the principles of non-interference, the resolution added that “no state or group
of states has the right to intervene directly or indirectly for any reason whatever, in the internal or
external affairs of any other 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. The resolution further
declared that “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 and to secure from it any unfair
advantage.

On November 18, 1987, the General Assembly adopted “the Declaration on the
Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the threat or use of Force
in International Relations.” General outlines of this Declaration were as follows:

1) Every state has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other
manner inconsistent with the purpose of the U.N. Such a threat or use of force constitutes
a violation of International Law and the Charter of the United Nations.
2) The principle of refraining from the threat or use of force in international relations is
universal in character and is binding regardless of each state’s political, economic, social
or cultural system or relations of alliance.
3) No consideration of whatever nature may be invoked to warrant resorting to the threat or
use of force in violation of the Charter of the U.N.
4) The states have the duty not to urge, encourage or assist other states to resort to threat or
use of force in violation of the Charter of the U.N.
5) States shall fulfill their obligations under International Law to refrain from organizing,
instigating, assisting or participating in para-military, terrorist acts, including acts of
mercenaries in other states in the organized activities within their territory directed
towards commission of such acts.
6) States have the duty to abstain from armed intervention and all forms of interference or
attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its political, economic and
cultural elements.
 7) 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 sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind.
8) In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, states have the
duty to refrain from propaganda for wars or aggression.

This Declaration may be regarded to be an authoritative interpretation of Article 2(4) of

the U.N. Charter.

Kinds of Intervention

There are three different kinds of Intervention;

1) Internal.- It is the interference by one state between disputing sections of the

community in another state either for protection of the legitimate Government or the
insurgents. In 1936, a number of states intervened in the civil war of Spain. The
interference on the part People’s Republic of China in the affairs of the Republic of
Korea in 1950 by providing aid to the North Koreans furnished another instance of
intervention.
2) External.- It is the intervention by one state in the relations, generally of the hostile
relations, of other states. It is, in other words, an intervention in the foreign affairs of
another state, such intervention being directed against hostile relations of such states.
This kind of intervention is tantamount to the declaration of war. The entry of Italy in
the Second World War siding with Germany against Great Britain provided an
example of external intervention.
3) Punitive.- It is a punitive measure falling short of war and is in the nature of reprisal
for an injury suffered at the hands of another state. It is frequently carried out by
stronger nations towards weaker nations. A pacific blockade to compel the
observance of treaty engagements or to redress some breach of law affords an
illustration of this type of intervention.

Another classification of intervention may be as follows:

 1) Military.- It involves use of armed forces and may take the form of military
occupation of territory, blockades and the like.
2) Subversive.- It involves manipulation and propaganda to start or further flame a
revolt or civil conflict.
3) Economic.- Simple examples would involve denial of access (through land or water)
or interference in trade and shipping to and from nation.
4) Diplomatic.- It includes expulsion of foreign diplomats, communications implying
threats or use of force.

Grounds of Intervention

Strictly legal occasions of an intervention may be brought under three heads, such as self-
defense, reprisals and the exercise of a treaty right.

There are few interventions which can be justified by right and as such are not a violation
by the intervening state of the independence of another. They are discussed here along with other
grounds.

1) Self-Preservation
The supreme interest of the state overrides law. The right of self-preservation is more
sacred than the duty of respecting the independence of other states. A state has a right to
interfere in the affairs of another state where the security and immediate interests of the
former are compromised. Interventions in order to ward off imminent danger to the
intervening state are justified by the force of circumstances. The danger must be direct
and immediate. Prof. Hall justifies intervention on the ground of self-preservation by the
state when the adjoining state is too weak to prevent actual attacks upon its neighbor by
its subjects.
2) Enforcement of treaty Rights
A state is justified in interfering in the affairs of another state if the provisions of any
treaty oblige the former to preserve the independence or neutrality of the latter. Such
intervention does not violate any right of independence because the state that suffers has
conceded such liberty of interference by treaty. The Treaties of London of the year of
1831 and 1839 guaranteed the integrity and neutrality of Belgium, but the invasion of
 Belgium by Germany in 1914 led to the intervention of Great Britain in pursuance of
treaty rights by declaring war on Germany. It was again in pursuance of the Treaty of
London, 1863, that France, Russia and Great Britain who had guaranteed the
independence of Greece, interfered in the affairs of Greece in 1916 and re-established
constitutional government.
Invitational Intervention.- as regards invitation by the lawful government of the state to
intervene in its internal affairs, the matter is not free from difficulty. The most conflicting
intervention was the involvement of the United States and other states in the Vietnamese
conflict. Although many American writers justified the United States’ intervention in that
conflict as a lawful intervention, it could not be denied that the civil war in that case had
been sponsored, aided and promoted by the United States of America.
3) Grounds of Humanity
Another justification for intervention is based on the ground of humanity. Lawrence
observes that in the opinion of many writers such interventions are legal, but they cannot
be brought within the ordinary rules of International Law, which does not impose on
states the obligation of preventing barbarity on the part of their neighbors. The Charter of
the United Nations reaffirms its faith in promoting and encouraging respect of human
rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language
or religion. The General Assembly is enjoined by the Charter to assist in the realization of
human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without any distinction. The Economic
and Social Council is also empowered to make recommendations for the purpose of
promoting respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.
Oppenheim observes, ‘the Charter of the United Nations, in recognizing the
promotion of respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms as one of the principal
objects of the Organization, marks a further step in the direction of elevating the principle
of humanitarian intervention to a basic rule of organized international society. This is so
although under the Charter as adopted in 1945, the degree of enforceability of
fundamental human rights is still rudimentary and although the Charter itself expressly
rules out intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of
the state.’
4) Balance of Power
The doctrine of the necessity of a balance of power, observes Fenwick, between the
leading states as the basis of mutual self-protection dominated the international relations
of the nineteenth century. It was almost regarded as an essential condition of the
maintenance of order and the preservation of liberty within the European system so that
no state could be in a position to have absolute mastery and domination over others. The
Crimean War of 1854 was undertaken by Great Britain and France with a view to protect
the Ottoman Empire for the maintenance of the balance of power among the states of
Europe.
Intervention on the ground of preservation of the balance of power has been
condemned by the jurists of all ages.
5) Protection of Person and Property
Protection of the persons, property and interest of its nationals may provide justification
for intervention. The necessity for protection may arise due to gross injustice or due to
injury caused by unfair discrimination. A state’s right to protect its citizens abroad, where
they are being wrongfully treated may justifiably led it to intervene in order to secure
their proper treatment. Protection is deemed to include protection of life, security, honour
or property of the citizens. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century the right to use
military force by way of self-help when a state’s legal rights has been infringed was
quietly drawn. Thus self-help could be used in certain circumstances when nationals
abroad received treatment contrary to the international minimum standard. Oppenheim
was very cautious while justifying intervention by a state for the protection of its citizens
abroad. He was of the view that intervention proper for the protection of nationals is
justified in emergencies. England and France intervened in Egypt in 1956 in Suez Canal
dispute on the plea that ‘intervention was designed to protect the lives of their nationals
and to safeguard the Suez Canal.
6) Collective Intervention
Collective intervention at the present time is in pursuance of the provisions of the Charter
of the United Nations. These are interventions for checking illegal intervention,
intervention against an immoral act, intervention to remove international nuisances and
intervention to defend national honour or to protect the interest of the nationals abroad.
 The Charter of the United Nations has made a provision for the collective intervention
against member states as well as against non-member states. Article 2 Para 7 of the
Charter lays down regarding intervention in the domestic affairs of the member state. It
has authorized Security Council to take enforcement action under chapter VII of the
Charter to maintain international peace and security. In addition to the Security Council,
the General Assembly may also intervene under the Uniting for Peace Resolution in
situations where the Security Council fails to act due to lack of unanimity. The power of
intervention by the Security Council is qualified by the determination of threat to the
peace or breach of the peace or an act of aggression under the Charter.
7) Other Grounds
Starke enumerates the following principal exceptional cases in which a state has at the
International Law a legitimate right of intervention:
a) Collective intervention pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations the enforcement
action under the authority of the United Nations Security Council, pursuant to
Chapter VII of the Charter;
b) To protect the rights and interests and the personal safety of its citizens abroad;
c) Self-defense, if intervention is necessary to meet a danger of an actual armed attack;
d) In the affairs of a protectorate under its dominion;
e) If the state subject of the intervention has been guilty of a gross example, if it has
itself unlawfully intervened.

Professor Brierly is of the view that the strictly legal occasions of an intervention may be brought
under the following heads, like, legitimate case of reprisal, protection of nationals abroad, self-
defense and the exercise of a treaty right with the state concered.