SOURCE:

Faculty: Law
Department: Law

CONTRIBUTORS:

Ienlanye, S. A.
Oji, E. A.

ABSTRACT:

The principle of non-intervention was founded on the respect for the territorial integrity of individual states in international relations. Traditionally, the doctrine of sovereignty of states embodied the principle of international law wherein a state exercised absolute control over the affairs within its territorial boundaries devoid of external intervention. However, the establishment and development of international human rights instruments and institutions since the creation of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 have imposed limitations on the application of exclusive domestic jurisdiction of states. Humanitarian intervention connotes an unwarranted incursion into the domestic affairs of states preserved by Article 2(4) & (7) of the UN Charter.This dissertation is motivated by the fact that state sovereignty and human rights protection have reached a pedestals where they are considered to be of equal and competing interests in international law. Many states have agreed by their own acceptance of international treaties and conventions prohibiting unnecessary suffering and safeguarding human rights to international scrutiny of certain of aspects of the treatment of their citizens within their sovereign domain. The landmark resolution 688 of the UN Security Council demonstrated a paradigm shift from the strict adherence to the dictates of absolute sovereignty of states. The research demonstrates the changing concept of the Westphalia sovereignty of states and the new opportunities afforded humanitarian intervention under the auspices of responsibility to protect. The objective of this research is to evaluate the consequences of humanitarian intervention and their justification for the doctrine and practice of state sovereignty. This research is further driven by the objective to demonstrate how the rising legitimacy profile of human rights standards is shaping the meaning and scope of state sovereignty. The research found out that state sovereignty is no longer absolute but paradoxically it remains sacrosanct. Further findings revealed that it is the United Nations Security Council that has the sole legal prerogative to authorize armed intervention and that no state (or group of states) has such rights either in conventional or customary law. The methodology of research employed in this study is doctrinal, complemented by the analytical and comparative approaches in the evaluation of treaties, conventions, resolutions, customary international law, textbooks, journal articles and internet sources on the subject. This dissertation recommended the essential need for reform of the UN system and a multilateral framework to determine when humanitarian intervention should be undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations pursuant to the concept of responsibility to protect.