Hypotheses

A generally accepted limitation to the application of the doctrine of state sovereignty is embedded in the rule that the exercise of a state‟s external independence must not be undertaken in such a manner as to cause any interference in the domestic affairs of another sovereign state.²³⁹ This limitation is a natural concomitance of the established doctrine of sovereignty of state.

The practice and application of the doctrine of state sovereignty is further limited by the combined effects of treaty provisions and the rule of customary international law.

Treaties which connote contractual obligations subscribed to by states parties thereto often permits restricted interference into the otherwise exclusive domestic matters of independent state. Thus, treaties like the twin 1966 International Covenants²⁴⁰ and the 1949 Geneva Conventions together with their Additional Protocols established limitations that bind contracting states to safeguard the basic liberties and human rights of their nationals and attract penal sanctions in the event of grave breaches of these restrictions.²⁴¹

It is important to emphasize that although sovereignty of states may be circumscribed in certain situations,it must be noted that sovereignty of states is the foundational basis of the contemporary state system. It is in this regard that where a sovereign state acts in such a way as to impair upon the sovereignty of another state in which such action is not sanctioned by the rule of customary international law or by the stipulations of Treaties then such actions violate the sovereignty of the latter state.

According to Jennings & Watts, „In absence of treaty provisions to the contrary, a state is not allowed to intervene in the management of the internal or international affairs

238Military and Paramilitary Activities in Nicaragua Case(supra) p. 131.

239 See CorfuChannelCase(1949) ICJReport 35.

240The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 & the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966.

241 See generally Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984.

63

of other states, or to prevent them from doing or to compel them to do certain acts in their domestic relations or international intercourse.‟²⁴²

Permissible treaty stipulations to interfere in the domestic affairs of sovereign state are required because of the entrenched principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states and the prohibition against the use of force in international relations.²⁴³ This is essential because, the non-intervention principle and the prohibition against the threat or use of force have both been held to be customary international law principle that are different from limitations imposed by treaties.²⁴⁴

242R Jenning&AWatt, op cit, 384.

243United Nations Charter, Article 2 (4) & (7).

244Military and Paramilitary Activities case (Supra) at p. 100.

64

CHAPTER THREE

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION 3.1 Introduction

The concept of humanitarian intervention is essentially not limited to the gruesome atrocities of the last few years. However, questions are increasingly being posed as to whether indeed there is in existence the conception of humanitarian intervention. Thus, it has been argued, „is humanitarian intervention a euphemism for war in the pseudo name of human rights, a dangerous political maneuvering that is at the verge of replacing multilateralism with aggressive unilateralism?‟²⁴⁵

The aftermath of the Second World War established the United Nations Charter and subsequent conventions which imposed limitations on intervention in international relations. This brought about the use of force in international relations within the competence of the United Nations Security Council.²⁴⁶

However, the emerging norms and development in international law resulted in the crystallization of the humanitarian intervention concept which to a large extent has modified various principles upon which the United Nations Organization is founded.

However defining the concept of humanitarian intervention is enormously challenging and its application to varied situations is controversial. Nonetheless, the concept of humanitarian intervention has been generally described as an armed intervention in another state devoid of the consent of that state to halt humanitarian emergency occasioned by gross and systematic human rights breaches.²⁴⁷

International humanitarian intervention in the light of understanding its tenets is viewed as a direct infringement on the sacred doctrine of state sovereignty sanctioned by the Charter regime. But, in the heat of the Cold War period,international law relating to the prohibition against the use of force and non-intervention was downplayed. In its place, the superpower rivalry and ensuring balance of power in international relations

245 W Mamah, ‘Is Humanitarian Intervention A Pseudonym for Aggressive Unilateralism?’ in CC Nweze (ed), Contemporary Issues on Public International and Comparative Law: Essay in Honour of Professor Christian NwachukwuOkeke (USA: Vandeplas Publishing, 2009) p.644.

246 See generally United Nations Charter, 1945, Chapter VII.

247 G Wilson-Roberts, ‘Humanitarian Intervention: Definition and Criteria’ (2000) vol 3, No. 1, Canadian Social Science Journal at http://www.vum.ac/css.Accessed on 20 August 2015.

65

blossomed.²⁴⁸ Interestingly, the end of the Cold War ushered in an era in the global system that was characterized by rapid instancesof humanitarian intervention. In this regard, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military intervention in Kosovo in 1999 on humanitarian considerations seen today as the prime illustration of such intervention.²⁴⁹Accordingly the concept and application of humanitarian intervention presents a fundamental challenge in international relations. The competing imperative is manifested by the inherent tension between the primacy of state sovereignty and the protection of human rights.

This chapter evaluates the concept of humanitarian intervention, its evolution and development in the face of the United Nations Charter stipulation on the sanctity of non-intervention doctrine. In addition, we examined the practice and application of humanitarian intervention in varied instances and its implications on state sovereignty under current international law.