CYIL 2012

ARMED INTERVENTION IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW The so-called Brezhnev doctrine asserted the right of socialist states to intervene in another socialist state when socialism was threatened. So Czechoslovakia was invaded on September 21, 1968 by the USSR and some other socialist countries. II. The Notion of Intervention and Non-Intervention Principle Intervention in a broad sense means forcible foreign involvement in the internal (domestic) as well as foreign affairs of another state, and infringement of its political independence and sovereignty. States for political reasons consider as illegal intervention any interference by another state, even without employing any coercion. Interventions (illegal) are to be distinguished from admissible forms of interference such as retorsions or reprisals. In linguistic terms, there is probably not a substantial difference in the terms to “intervene” and to “interfere” in internal affairs. However, according to L. Oppenheim and later to H. Lauterpacht, “intervention proper” is always dictatorial interference by a state in the affairs of another state for the purpose of maintaining or altering the actual conditions of things. Such intervention can take place by “right or without a right, but it always concerns the external independence” or the territorial or personal supremacy of the state concerned and the whole matter is therefore of great importance for the international position of states. H. Lauterpacht distinguished “intervention proper” as dictatorial interference from “pure and simple” interference. In his view, which was stated nearly sixty years ago, “intervention is, as a rule, forbidden by international law, which protects the international personality of the States.” On the other hand, he wrote that “this rule has exceptions, for there are interventions which take place by right, and there are others which, although they do not take place by right, are nevertheless permitted by International Law.” 11 Intervention was also defined, for example, by W. Friedmann as a “dictatorial interference in the domestic or foreign affairs of another state which impairs that state’s independence”. 12 Sir Jennings and Sir Watts in the new edition of Oppenheim’s International Law have written: “Although states often use the term ‘intervention’ loosely to cover such matters as criticism of another state’s conduct, in international law it has a stricter meaning, according to which intervention is forcible or dictatorial interference by a state in the affairs of another state, calculated to impose certain conduct or consequences on that other state.” They emphasised at the same time that “interference must be forcible or dictatorial, or otherwise coercive, in effect depriving the state intervened against of control over the matter in question”, since “interference pure and simple is not intervention”. 13 With the adoption of the UN Charter, military intervention was generally considered as illegal. According to Art. 103 of the Charter, in the event of conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the Charter 11 Lauterpacht H., Oppenheim’s International Law , Vol. I Peace, London 1955, p. 304-320. 12 See Friedmann W., Intervention and International Law, in: Jaquet L.G.M. (ed.), Intervention in International Politics, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1971, p. 40. 13 Sir Jennings, Sir Watts, Oppenheim’s International Law , Peace Vol. I, pp. 430-452.

67