Exceptions to the prohibition of intervention in internal affairs can be categorized into two groups. One of the factors is the evolving limitations on the appropriate application of force. The second aspect pertains to the authority given to foreign nations and international agencies about a state’s internal legal structures and actions, excluding the use of force. The framework for prohibiting the use of force has been significantly influenced by the security conundrum and the lack of agreement on a consistent security strategy to handle this issue. The State’s freedom to act unilaterally in its own regulations has been limited in cases connected to human communities and their security. Before the post-World War I period, there were few established restrictions on the unilateral use of force. However, several restraints were introduced during this time.
The prohibition of the use of force in specific situations, established through various initiatives like the League of Nations, was short-lived due to the conditions of the interwar period. The Second World War tragedy led to the reemergence of the discussion on the prohibition of using force. Consequently, the UN Charter banned states from unilaterally using force except in self-defense situations. The restriction on the use of force aims to ensure the state’s continuance as the primary topic and entity in international politics. The long-standing tension between the ideals of sovereignty and non-interference in internal matters has been resolved, at least in theory. The prohibition of the use of force acknowledges the sovereignty of the state and makes the right to life of each state the responsibility of all states.
The prohibition of the use of force protects the security of the nation-state, which functions as a political entity separate from the community (country or people). This represents a notable transformation and development, but it is only loosely connected to the people’s permission, which is crucial for the state’s legitimacy regarding sovereignty. International law has lately established laws and constraints regarding the security of human populations, which are crucial for the state’s existence and legitimacy. The primary cause of this delay is the belief that state sovereignty is synonymous with safeguarding human communities. The fundamental reason why a separate category like human security has not been considered is because the focus has been on protecting the security of the state, assuming that it will also ensure the security of the people.
From an international law standpoint, human communities have historically been mostly subject to the authority of the state. However, this does not imply that a state has never interfered in the internal matters of another state for humanitarian reasons. The basis for foreign operations is based on the political justifications of the state rather than the violation of responsibilities under international law. Before the Second World War, states were not held accountable under international law for the well-being of their citizens. States have not been required to fulfill any obligations to other states over their own people. This should be viewed as typical, as the permission of a certain community is what grants a state autonomy as a political institution. Therefore, it is natural for there to be a relationship between the security, welfare, peace, and harmony of a community, together with its future vision, and the state established by that group.
International human rights law
The Second World War demonstrated that this premise was not totally accurate. Millions of people were slain or subjected to genocide or mass persecution by their own states, which were supposed to protect them. It has been demonstrated that the security of states and the protection and security of populations are separate issues. Human rights became a recognized area in international law due to this concept. International human rights law mandates nations to ensure and safeguard specific rights of individuals under their jurisdiction as a requirement stemming from international law. The primary cause for reaching this stage is the occurrences that transpired during the Second World War. Following World War II, the issue of safeguarding human rights began to emerge in international political discussions. Following the conclusion of World War II, human rights, once under the jurisdiction of individual States, transitioned to concern the global community as a whole.
The primary catalyst for the significant shift towards preventing human rights violations and safeguarding individual rights, previously overlooked by the international community including organizations like the League of Nations due to concerns about sovereignty, was the atrocities committed by the Nazis, particularly the mass killings of Jews and other groups during World War II. The question must be posed at this point. Why did most states agree to human rights-focused international legal obligations? This question is significant because a state is inherently expected to give priority to its own security. Sensitization and defining legal requirements regarding human rights are intimately linked to state security and the state’s survival. When a state agrees to international human rights responsibilities, it does so within a framework influenced by its own national security interests.
The concept of entrusting the care of individuals to states based on traditional sovereignty has been identified as a significant factor contributing to issues and instability within the international system, as exemplified by the Second World War, and is considered a key factor in the development of international human rights law. The definition of specific obligations for nations regarding human rights is mostly linked to concerns about state stability and the international political system established by states. Human rights rules have significantly altered the old concept of sovereignty, thus it is important to acknowledge that other variables may also play a role.
Primary among these elements is the direct participation of non-governmental groups, which thereafter, particularly after the conclusion of the Cold War, took part in international diplomatic efforts. How has international human rights law altered the traditional concept of sovereignty? Initially, governments provided legal assurances for the safeguarding of human rights to other states that are part of human rights legislation regulations for the first time. Put simply, the states involved in these regulations have pledged to other states to uphold human rights, which sets them apart from traditional treaty regulations. The assurances for protecting human rights are not connected to safeguarding the interests of other states involved in the agreements.
Put simply, a state commits to a duty under human rights law that is closely connected to its own political structure. Furthermore, this duty is governed and secured by international law. Put simply, a state agrees to limit its sovereignty in its internal matters in a manner acknowledged by international law. Civil and political rights impose a wider range of obligations on nations, which in turn limits their autonomy. The lack of motivation from other states to intervene in cases of human rights legislation violations has prompted the implementation of extra supervision measures. The primary reason for taking such action is that a state participating in international human rights law systems is obligated to safeguard the rights of individuals inside its own territory.
From an international law standpoint, this duty is owed to other nations rather than human societies. The state’s responsibility towards individuals is connected to domestic legislation. Violations of human rights law are considered breaches of duties made to other state parties. Individuals benefit from human rights processes established by international law. If a state violates individual rights protected by international law, other governments involved in the agreement may not necessarily have sufficient justification to interfere based on their own goals. A state, even if it is a participant to an arrangement, is likely not to act on a problem that is not directly related to its own interests or political priorities.
As a consequence, human rights abuses may not face substantial penalties. To address this issue, further supervisory mechanisms have been implemented for individuals to appeal if their rights have been violated. The supervisory systems vary in their characteristics and authority. These mechanisms, some structured as committees and others as courts, oversee the human rights practices of member states. They may issue decisions on individual violations, subject to state approval, with varying degrees of authority.
International Humanitarian Law
International humanitarian law governs the use of violence by safeguarding individuals not directly engaged in or no longer taking part in wars, while also restricting the level of violence. Humanitarian law is a set of principles that outline the minimal standards of behavior and aid for those involved in war or armed conflict, including both fighters and civilians, in order to reduce the impact of such situations. Legal protections created by humanitarian law regulate criminal or disciplinary consequences imposed by the holding state or occupying forces during war. Sanctions can be categorized into two groups. One type of sanctions is outlined in the Geneva Conventions, while the other type is enforced by international courts. Humanitarian law plays a crucial role in the responsibility to protect by establishing violations and setting boundaries. Many human rights treaties do not provide an international penalties system for violations of human rights. The Geneva Conventions are the only international agreements that define serious offenses and the corresponding legal penalties in times of armed conflict.
International humanitarian law restricts traditional state sovereignty by international legal regulations. Humanitarian law has a narrower scope compared to human rights law, as it primarily applies in times of armed conflict. Another significant distinction is that the fundamental ideas of humanitarian law originated before human rights law. The fundamental principles of humanitarian law are more widely acknowledged than human rights principles. Part of humanitarian law may have a stronger legitimacy basis than human rights law. Humanitarian law standards have broad legitimacy since they do not restrict justifications for using force and have minimal impact on the intended outcomes of using force. The fundamental reason for establishing and refining humanitarian law norms is to prevent actions and decisions that are not essential for military purposes. Simply put, adhering to humanitarian law standards does not significantly restrict the traditional sovereignty of states in matters of national security, making these principles more acceptable.
Humanitarian law began developing earlier than human rights law partly for this reason. By the late 19th century, the concept that armed conflicts must adhere to specific rules started to be recognized as a need of international law. This theory emerged mostly because to the swift advancement of weapons technology, resulting in avoidable casualties during armed wars. Some states have independently created regulations to address this idea or issue. The requirement for conflicts to be conducted under specific rules as mandated by international law has directly restricted state sovereignty. Humanitarian law norms have emerged as a significant exception to the concept of non-interference in internal affairs in international law.
Nevertheless, the following point should be emphasized here: Human rights law and humanitarian law suggest changes in state sovereignty but do not explicitly grant the international community, international organizations, or other states the power to act. The concept of this power emerging and gaining support has a historical origin that occurred at a later time. Violations of human rights law and humanitarian law have been used as grounds for military and political intervention. Violations of the existing regulations in both domains were not regarded justifications for intervention during the period in which they originated. Humanitarian law restrictions apply to both the state and individuals. Put simply, both the state and people must adhere to these rules.
Therefore, unlike human rights law, individuals can be held responsible under international law for violations of humanitarian law. One responsibility that impacts the State’s sovereignty is the restrictions on the weaponry permissible in armed conflicts. While not explicitly banning the use of force, the restrictions in this field can influence how force is utilized. Hence, it is indeed feasible to discuss a restricted impact on sovereignty in this context. However, the importance of humanitarian law in humanitarian intervention or the responsibility to protect is not the limitations it imposes. What is more important is that violations of humanitarian law have become the justification for humanitarian intervention or intervention on the grounds of responsibility to protect.
International criminal law
International criminal law and humanitarian law both impose constraints on state sovereignty. International criminal law applies beyond armed conflict situations, unlike humanitarian law. Any circumstance involving the commission of international crimes creates obligations for the state under international criminal law, not just those recognized as conflicts by international law. War crimes governed by humanitarian law are a significant aspect of international criminal law. Crimes under this category can be prosecuted by any state or by an international criminal court. Another similarity pertains to individual accountability.
Individuals are subject to a considerable extent to the regulations of humanitarian law and international criminal law. Individual criminal culpability and state accountability can be discussed independently in both legal domains. International law responsibility includes a legal restriction on sovereignty. What are the legal obligations of a state according to international criminal law? Typically, under international criminal law, states are not actively and intentionally involved in committing international crimes. Aside from general responsibilities, it is crucial to highlight specific duties like preventing certain international crimes and ensuring the prosecution of the individuals responsible for these crimes, as outlined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The requirements outlined in the Genocide Convention have not been widely implemented. Yet, in extreme humanitarian crises, prominent members of the world community have chosen not to acknowledge the tragedy as genocide to evade assuming such a responsibility. Criticizing the UN for debating whether the mass killings in Rwanda constituted genocide, albeit being ethically right, lacks significance due to the worldwide duty to prevent genocide. In this instance, neither the US nor the other permanent members wished to be explicitly obligated to intervene in order to stop genocide by officially labeling the events as such.
Under international criminal law, the state is obligated to refrain from participating in any form in the crime of genocide. Genocide, as a crime characterized by individual acts, highlights a framework where state accountability is stressed more than other criminal acts not recognized by international law and other international crimes. State sovereignty is restricted by the duty to refrain from committing genocide, aiding in genocide, or participating in its execution. This commitment is affirmed by both the Convention and customary international law.
The prohibition of genocide is such a strong norm that it can be considered as one of the conditions for a political union or entity to become a state. Put simply, a political body can become a state only by pledging not to engage in genocide. No state can contribute to the commission of the crime of genocide since it goes against the nature of statehood. Although the duty to refrain from aiding in the commission of genocide is evident, the duty to prevent and, more significantly, to punish genocide is unclear. The Genocide Convention stipulates that the punishment for the crime of genocide is a responsibility, but in reality, it is often viewed as an entitlement.
A state is more likely to assert universal jurisdiction over acts of genocide perpetrated beyond its territory, even though it may have an obligation regarding such atrocities within its sovereign land. Under this jurisdiction, any state has the authority to prosecute the perpetrator of an international crime, regardless of where or by whom the crime was committed. Exercising this power relies on the specific concept of jurisdiction within its own legal framework. The crucial aspect is that the authority stems from international law. It is evident that this is not a restriction on sovereignty; instead, it demonstrates the state’s ability to exert extraterritorial influence.
International criminal law limits state sovereignty by holding even leaders of state individually liable for international crimes. Heads of state do not have immunity under international criminal law for actions related to sovereignty. Therefore, diplomatic privileges recognized under international law and justified by the sovereignty of the state do not apply in cases of international crimes. The International Criminal Court conducted a trial in absentia of Omar al-Bashir, the former President of Sudan, who was ousted by a coup while in office. The Court’s prosecutor also sought the arrest of Israeli officials, highlighting significant examples in this situation.
Restraints on State Sovereignty Under International Law
