CYIL 2012

JOSEF MRÁZEK CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ Key words: Military intervention, use of force, legalisation, legitimate, military power, humanitarian justification, Security Council’s authorisation, security concern, NATO, USA, responsibility to protect. On the Author : JUDr. Josef Mrázek, DrSc., Ústav státu a práva AV ČR, Právnická fakulta ZČU Plzeň [Institute for State and Law of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Law Faculty of the University of Western Bohemia in Pilsen]. Research Frllow at the Institute of State and Law, Czech Academy of Sciences; Lecturer in Public International Law, West Bohemian University in Pilsen; Lecturer at the University of Advanced Legal Studies in Prague; Juris Doctor, Charles University (1967); Candidate of Sciences in Law – CSc. (Ph.D.), 1974; Doctor of Sciences in Law Dr (D.Sc.), 1988; Author or co-author of about 200 writings on public international law; Attorney at Law in Prague (since 1992). I. Introduction The notion and legal content of intervention are among the most controversial terms in international law. Intervention generally represents an act of “dictatorial interference” by one or several states with the internal or external matters of another state with the aim to influence the behaviour of this state. The basic aim of the non intervention principle in international law is the protection of state sovereignty. The concept of the sovereignty of the state has been changed in modern international law. This fact has also had serious impact on the non-intervention principle in international law. The main concern always was whether an action interferes with the domestic or international affairs of another state. Contemporary international law certainly limits sovereignty of states and the scope of their domestic or internal affairs. Former Secretary-General K. Annan in Sept. 1999 proclaimed that “state sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined by the forces of globalization and international cooperation”. 3 Not every foreign intercession is legally prohibited. The measures employed must be legal, however. Increasing international law obligations, memberships of states in international organisations, international cooperation and mutual interdependence of states’ laws have serious impact on sovereignty of states and on the content of the general principle of non-intervention. Art. 2 (4) of the UN Charter stipulates that “all Member States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force”. There are in principle two exceptions from this absolute prohibition: 1. the right to individual or collective self-defence under Art. 51; and 2. the right to take armed actions individually and collectively upon decision of the UNSC under Chapter VII (Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression). Art. 2 (4) is centred on inter-states armed conflicts and not on internal conflicts. The pre-Charter international law has been concerned mainly with international military conflicts (wars). In the nineteenth century, it was considered as lawful to use armed force for any reason, not only to protect nationals and property abroad. At present the great 3 See note 1.

64