Farjana Yesmin

NON INTERVENTION Assistant Professor

Department of Law
University of Chittagong
DEFINITION
The principle of non-intervention is a foundational norm of
international law that prohibits states from interfering in the internal or
external affairs of other sovereign states. This principle is based on the
respect for state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political
independence, ensuring that each state has the freedom to determine
its own political, economic, and social systems without external coercion.

According to international law, the principle of non-intervention means

that no state or group of states may, directly or indirectly, interfere in
matters that fall within the domestic jurisdiction of another state. This
includes prohibiting coercive measures such as military intervention,
subversive activities, or economic pressures designed to manipulate a
state’s internal affairs.
LEGAL BASIS
The principle is formally codified in:
•Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use or threat
of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of
any state.
•The UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970) on the
Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and
Cooperation, which states that intervention is illegal if it seeks to
coerce a state’s internal affairs.
•The International Court of Justice (ICJ) also reinforced this
principle in cases like Nicaragua v. United States (1986), defining
non-intervention as prohibiting actions that coerce or interfere with
sovereign decision-making.
GROUNDS FOR
INTERVENTION
There are now only two valid grounds of
intervention-
i. For the state, self-defence.
ii.For the United Nations, collective intervention
under Chapter VII (Art-51) of the Charter.
SELF-DEFENCE

The right to self-defence is a fundamental

principle in international law that allows a state to
use force to defend itself against an armed attack.
This right is primarily codified in Article 51 of the
United Nations Charter,
KEY ELEMENTS OF THE RIGHT TO
SELF-DEFENSE

1.Armed Attack:
i)Self-defense is permissible only in response to an "armed
attack." The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has
interpreted this term to mean significant attacks, such as
military incursions or bombings, while minor incidents or
isolated threats generally do not justify self-defence.

ii) The ICJ case Nicaragua v. United States (1986)

emphasized that only grave uses of force qualify as an
armed attack, distinguishing it from lesser uses of force
that might not warrant a full self-defence response.
2.Necessity and proportionality: Any act of self-
defense must meet the criteria of necessity and
proportionality
Necessity: Self-defense must be necessary,
meaning the state has no reasonable alternative but
to use force to defend itself.
•Proportionality: The defensive response must be
proportionate to the scale and nature of the initial
attack, ensuring that the use of force does not
exceed what is necessary to address the threat.
3. Immediacy:
•The response must be immediate.
Preemptive or anticipatory self-defense is
controversial in international law,
although some states argue it is
permissible if there is an imminent
threat of attack. This concept, however,
lacks universal acceptance and is often
debated.
IS PREEMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE (AGAINST AN
IMMINENT THREAT) AND PREVENTIVE SELF-
DEFENSE ALLOWED U NDER INTERNATIONAL
LAW?
Under international law, pre-emptive self-defense (in
response to an imminent threat) and preventive self-
defense (in response to a potential future threat) are highly
debated concepts, and their legality remains controversial.
i) Preemptive self-defense refers to the right of a state to
use force in self-defense if an attack is imminent and
unavoidable. This is based on the principle that waiting for
an actual attack could lead to severe harm that cannot be
prevented in time. Article 51 of the UN Charter does not
explicitly endorse preemptive self-defense, as it only
mentions the right to self-defense "if an armed attack
occurs." However, some states interpret Article 51 to
include preemptive action if the threat of attack is
Although not universally accepted, preemptive self-
defense has some support among states and scholars who
argue it is reasonable in the face of modern warfare and rapid
attack capabilities, such as missile technology. Still, the
international community generally demands that the threat
be clearly imminent to avoid abuse of the principle.
Ii) Preventive self-defense refers to the use of force to counter a
potential threat that might arise in the future. This type of defense
is more speculative because it involves actions taken to prevent
possible attacks without any evidence of immediacy. Preventive
self-defense is widely considered illegal under international law.
The ICJ and the UN Charter strongly favor the principle of non-
intervention and prohibit the use of force except in response to an
actual or imminent armed attack.
The U.S. 2003 invasion of Iraq is often cited as an example of
preventive self-defense, where the U.S. justified its actions on the
basis of Iraq’s alleged development of weapons of mass destruction
(WMDs), even though there was no immediate threat. This action
faced strong opposition from the international community, which
largely viewed it as unlawful.
IS SELF DEFENCE AGAINST
NON STATE ACTOR VALID
UNDER INTERNATIONAL
LAW?
The legality of self-defense against non-state actors (such as
terrorist groups or insurgent organizations) under international law
is complex and has evolved significantly, especially since the 9/11
attacks. Traditionally, the right to self-defense was primarily
envisioned as a state-to-state right, but recent interpretations have
expanded this to include responses against non-state actors under
certain conditions.
Article 51 provides the inherent right of self-defense "if an armed
attack occurs" but does not specify whether the attacker must be a
state. Historically, self-defense under Article 51 was limited to
armed attacks by states.
However, after 9/11, many states and legal scholars began
interpreting Article 51 more broadly to include self-defense against
non-state actors, especially if the host state is unable or unwilling
to prevent such attacks.
Following 9/11, UN Security Council Resolutions 1368 and
1373 recognized the right of states to respond in self-defense
against terrorist attacks, implicitly broadening the scope of Article
51 to include non-state actors.

These resolutions did not formally amend Article 51, but they did
acknowledge that large-scale terrorist attacks could justify self-
defense measures, setting a precedent for responses to similar
threats.
Many states invoke the "unwilling or unable" doctrine, which
justifies self-defense against non-state actors if the state where
they are located is unwilling or unable to prevent them from
operating within its borders. For example, if a terrorist group is
launching attacks from State A’s territory and State A cannot or will
not stop them, State B may claim a right to self-defense against the
group.
The U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 following 9/11 is a
prominent example of self-defense against a non-state actor, with
global support under the Security Council resolutions.
However, in recent years, some ICJ opinions have indicated limited
acceptance of self-defense against non-state actors, especially
where the host state is complicit or incapable of controlling such
groups.
COLLECTIVE SELF DEFENCE
Collective self-defense refers to the right of states to defend
themselves collectively against an armed attack, even if they are
not directly attacked. This principle is recognized in international
law and is most notably outlined in Article 51 of the United Nations
Charter.
LEGAL BASIS

Article 51 states that nothing in the Charter shall impair the

inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an
armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.
Conditions for Collective Self-Defense
•Armed Attack: There must be an armed attack against one or
more states.
•Consent: The state seeking assistance must consent to the
intervention by other states.
•Proportionality and Necessity: Responses must be necessary to
repel the attack and proportionate to the threat faced.
EXAMPLES OF COLLECTIVE
SELF DEFENCE
NATO: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) operates on
the principle of collective defense, as stated in Article 5 of the
North Atlantic Treaty, which asserts that an attack against one
member is considered an attack against all.

Regional Alliances: Various regional defense arrangements, such

as the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, also embody
the principle of collective self-defense.
Post-9/11: The U.S. invocation of collective self-
defense after the September 11 attacks to justify
military actions in Afghanistan was a significant
example of this principle in action.