CYIL 2012

JOSEF MRÁZEK CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ and their obligations under any other international agreement, those obligations under the Charter shall prevail. The principle of non-intervention (non-interference) is closely linked with the principle of the sovereign equality of states (Art. 2 para. 1). Besides, para. 7 of this Article stipulates: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.” The principle of non intervention is also part of international customary law. The concept of “matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction” is a legal notion which undergoes substantial changes depending on the development of international law (at present mainly of international law of human rights). Disagreements arise in connection with alleged exceptions to the general rule of non intervention. Jack Donnelly in 1984 wrote: “… thus intervention remains a pervasive element of contemporary international relations, despite the clear conflict with legal and moral norms …” 14 In literature we may find different typology and manifestations of interventions. The basic articulation may be divided into several groups: 1. political, economic and armed interventions; 2. interventions by forcible and non-forcible means; 3. direct or indirect interventions; military action may occur in direct form or as a subversive action supporting rebels, insurgents or terrorists in another state; 4. unilateral and multilateral interventions; 5. interventions on request; 6. interventions by international organisations; 7. interventions organised or authorised by the UNSC; 8. legal (lawful) and illegal (unlawful) interventions. The crucial point of any intervention always was whether a certain action interferes illegally with domestic or external affairs of another state. The question of illegal interference is which degree of coercion employed constitutes inadmissible pressure. The general principle of non-intervention reflects the real standing of today’s international law. The political coercion and inadmissible pressure of a state is in practice not always easy to distinguish from voluntary commitments of states in political, economic, social and even cultural fields. The economic intervention may involve economic coercion, sanctions, boycott, embargo, freezing of assets, etc. Indirect intervention may consist of political, economic and military support to opposition groups, armed bands, irregulars or insurgents in internal conflicts. The doctrine of intervention was historically rooted in the unlimited right to use force. This doctrine was primarily motivated by religious considerations and was also advocated by such authors as Vitoria, Gentili or H. Grotius. The legal doctrine of humanitarian intervention traces historically its roots to the seventeenth century treatise of Hugo Grotius De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres. 15 The right of 14 Donnelly Jack, Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention and American Foreign Policy: Law, Morality and Politics, in Journal of International Affairs 1984, Vol. 37, No. 2, p. 311-312. 15 See Ch. XXV, pt. VIII (4).

68