Sociology | Mercantile Law | International Law | International Relations

Jurists, keeping in consideration the practices of states, have arranged certain grounds which justify the intervention of one state into another state. These are following;

A. SELF DEFENCE & SELF PRESERVATION
The two things are a little bit different. Former is to defend by intervening into the invading state when an armed excursion has taken place and the latter is to intervene on the basis of military preparations of other state which gestures to attack.

Under the existing Charter; ‘Self Defence is a permissible and logical ground of intervention while Self Preservation is not.’

US Secretary of State, Webster said; “Necessity of self defence should be overwhelming and leaving no choice of deliberations.”

Under Article#51 of the Charter; intervention on basis of self defence is permissible if following conditions are fulfilled;

• Armed attack
• SC has not yet taken any action even when the matter has been reported and is under consideration.

Example of this sort of intervention is the US invasion of Afghanistan about 11 years ago; on the grounds of self defence against the Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack.

B. ENFORCING TREATY RIGHTS
When a treaty made is not being enforced by any of the parties to it; even then under the UN Charter intervention is permissible but to the extent of enforcing the treaty rights. For instance; Germany invaded Belgium in 1939 on the basis of enforcing treaty rights. If we take Islamic History; similar principle is seen even there. Muslim rulers used to invade the territory which pledged not to fulfill the promises made.

C. TO PREVENT ILLEGAL INTERVENTION
UN Charter denies illegal intervention of any state. Intervention is to be justified by certain grounds and to be certified by the Resolution of SC. Any illegal adventure on another state can call for the collective intervention to check that illegal adventure. For instance; Iraq faced severe international intervention when it illegally invaded Kuwait in the Gulf War of 90s.

D. BALANCE OF POWER
Maintaining the balance of power is an ancient concept which often led the emperors to plunder the peaceful lands. This ground was nullified by the League in the previous century and by the UN of contemporary world order.

E. PROTECTION OF PERSONS & PROPERTY
A state may intervene into the other in order to protect its persons and property while they are under attack. For instance; US mission in Iran in late 80s was justified as its diplomats and embassy were under attack of the revolutionaries. Similarly, attack on American Embassy at Bin Ghazi (Libya) also called for a justified attack of US on militant chapters of that state.

F. INTERVENTION ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS
Human Rights if are being violated to a larger extent; say as it is sort of genocide then a state may with the permission of SC intervene into the oppressor’s land to save humanity.

G. COLLECTIVE INTERVENTION
A call for all the states to intervene against the oppressor is another ground in this regard. In modern times, NATO is its bright example. It intervenes to defend any of its allies.

H. MAINTENANCE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
For enforcing the effective implementation of International Law i.e. UN Charter; states can intervene into the other state.

I. INTERVENTION DURING CIVIL WAR
Middle East has been the epicenter for being invaded to avoid or to deal with the crisis of civil war. US invaded Afghanistan a decade ago but it remained installed there in the name of dealing the civil war.

MONROE & DRAGO DOCTRINES
The two famous doctrines named after American President Monroe and Argentinean Foreign Minister Drago laid emphasis on what we call intervention. They warned Europe not to intervene in the matters of American continents as it’s not a colonial era any more.