Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 November 2012
The principle of non-intervention remains a significant legal issue, particularly in Asia, for regional efforts to address a wide range of transnational security issues in the absence of a regional collective security mechanism. This article revisits the principle of non-intervention with a particular focus on the application and interpretation of the principle by Asian states for the purpose of identifying whether and in what respect an Asian approach or approaches can be found, and considering its implications for regional efforts to address transnational security issues. This article finds that the emerging regional norm of comprehensive security requires clear demarcation between the principle of non-intervention and the norm of comprehensive security, as well as an institutionalized mechanism to ensure that regional efforts to address transnational security issues are not used as a disguised form of intervention and that the fear of intervention does not impede those regional efforts.
Senior Lecturer, ANU College of Law, Australian National University. The original draft was presented at the 3rd NUS-AsianSIL Young Scholars Workshop held at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law on 23−24 February 2012, and at the CIPL Public Seminar at the Centre for Public and International Law, ANU College of Law, The Australian National University, on 13 April 2012. The author expresses gratitude to the workshop organizers, participants, and anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft. The author also gratefully acknowledges Sarah Fitzgerald for her truly remarkable research assistance and proofreading of the final draft.
1. Art. 2(7) of the UN Charter provides: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise 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.”
2. DAVIES, Gareth, “Subsidiarity as a Method of Policy Centralisation” in Tomer BROUDE and Yuval SHANY, eds., The Shifting Allocation of Authority in International Law (Oxford/Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2008)Google Scholar
3. ABASS, Ademola and BADERIN, Mashood, “Towards Effective Collective Security and Human Rights Protection in Africa: An Assessment of the Constitutive Act of the New African Union” (2002) 49 Netherlands International Law Review 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OLONISAKIN, Funmi, Reinventing Peacekeeping in Africa: Conceptual and Legal Issues in ECOMOG Operations (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000)Google Scholar
4. It is difficult to define Asia precisely. For the purpose of this article, Asian countries include Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), India, Indonesia, Japan, The Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam.
ACHARYA, Amitav, Regionalism and Multilateralism: Essays on the Cooperative Security in the Asia-Pacific (Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 2003)Google Scholar
HOURN, Kao Kimed., ASEAN's Non-Interference Policy: Principles under Pressure? (London: ASEAN Academic Press, 2000)Google Scholar
FUNSTON, John, ASEAN and the Principle of Non-Intervention-Practice and Prospects (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2000)Google Scholar
WU, Linjun, “East Asia and the Principle of Non-Intervention: Policies and Practices” (2000) 5 Maryland Series in Contemporary Asian Studies 1Google Scholar
DICKENS, David and WILSON-ROBERTS, Guy, eds., Non-Intervention and State Sovereignty in the Asia-Pacific (Wellington: Center for Strategic Studies, 2000)Google Scholar
6. Georg NOLTE, “Article 2(7)” in Bruno SIMMA, ed., The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)Google Scholar
7. See Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States),  I.C.J. Rep. 14 at 106−9, paras. 202−7 [Nicaragua Case]; Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania),  I.C.J. Rep. 4 at 35.
8. Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 26 December 1933, 165 L.N.T.S. 19 (entered into force 26 December 1934), art. 8.
9. Charter of the Organization of American States, 30 April 1948, 119 U.N.T.S. 47 (entered into force 13 December 1951), as amended by Protocols of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States, 27 February 1967, 721 U.N.T.S. 324, O.A.S.T.S. No. 1-A (entered into force 27 February 1970) (Protocol of Buenos Aires); 5 December 1985, O.A.S.T.S. No. 66, 25 I.L.M. 527 (entered into force 16 November 1988) (Protocol of Cartagena de Indias); 14 December 1992, 33 I.L.M. 1005 (entered into force 25 September 1997) (Protocol of Washington DC); 10 June 1993, 33 I.L.M. 1009 (entered into force 29 January 1996) (Protocol of Managua), art. 3(e).
10. Constitutive Act of the African Union, 11 July 2000, 2158 U.N.T.S. 1 (entered into force 26 May 2001), art. 4(g).
11. Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 20 November 2007 (entered into force 15 December 2008), online: ASEAN <http://www.aseansec.org/21069.pdf> [ASEAN Charter], art. 2(e).
12. TSAGOURIAS, Nicolas, “Security Council Legislation, Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, and the Principle of Subsidiarity” (2011) 24 Leiden Journal of International Law 539 at 547−550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. See “Full Text of Kevin Rudd's Speech to the Asia Society Australasia” The Australian (5 June 2008); cf. “China: Time is ‘Not Ripe’ for an Asia-Pacific Community” (14 April 2009), online: Singapore Institute of International Affairs <http://www.siiaonline.org/?q=programmes/insights/china-time-not-ripe-asia-pacific-community>.
14. Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco, Advisory Opinion,  P.C.I.J. (ser B) No. 4 at 24. See also Documents of the United Nations Conference on the International Organization, Vol. 5 (1945) at 507.
15. See e.g. Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Doc. A/HRC/16/47 (19 January 2011).
16. See e.g. SC Res. 1373 (28 September 2001).
17. ABBOTT, Frederick, “The WTO Medicines Decision: World Pharmaceutical Trade and the Protection of Public Health” (2005) 99 American Journal of International Law 317 at 348−358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. VOON, Tania and MITCHELL, Andrew, “Face Off: Assessing WTO Challenges to Australia's Scheme for Plain Tobacco Packaging” (2011) 22 Public Law Review 218Google Scholar
19. BROWNLIE, Ian, Principles of Public International Law, 7th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar
20. TRINIDADE, A.A.C., “The Domestic Jurisdiction of States in the Practice of the United Nations and Regional Organisations” (1976) 25 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 715 at 761−762Google Scholar
21. WALDOCK, C.H.M., “The Plea of Domestic Jurisdiction Before International Legal Tribunals” (1954) 31 British Year Book of International Law 126 at 126−127Google Scholar
GOODRICH, Leland M., HAMBRO, Edvard, and SIMON, Anne Patricia, Charter of the United Nations: Commentary and Documents, 3rd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969) at 67−68Google Scholar
22. The original text of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposal made an express reference to international law: “The provisions of paragraph 1 to 6 of Section A should not apply to situations or disputes arising out of matters which by international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of the state concerned”, Dumbarton Oaks Proposal, Chapter VIII, Section A, para. 7.
23. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980), art. 31(3)(b) [Vienna Convention].
24. UN SCOR, 1st Year, 1st Series, 44th meeting, 6 June 1946, UN Doc S/PV.44, 318−19.
25. JONES, Goronwy J., The United Nations and the Domestic Jurisdiction of States (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1979) at 18−32Google Scholar
HIGGINS, Rosalyn, The Development of International Law Through the Political Organs of the United Nations (London: Oxford University Press, 1963) at 68−74Google Scholar
RAJAN, M.S., United Nations and Domestic Jurisdiction (Bombay: Orient Longmans, 1958) at 66−78Google Scholar
26. LAUTERPACHT, H., International Law and Human Rights (London: Stevens & Sons, 1950) at 167Google Scholar
28. SCHACHTER, Oscar, “The United Nations and Internal Conflict” in John Norton MOORE, ed.,, Law and Civil War in the Modern World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974)Google Scholar
29. UN Doc. A/5725/Add.7 (11 December 1964) at para. 3.
30. The process resulted in the adoption of Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, GA Res. 2625 (XXV) (1970). Cf. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, GA Res. 2131 (XX) (1965).
31. Report of the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, UN Doc. A/5746 (16 November 1964) at paras. 248−9.
32. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, GA Res. 36/103 (1981).
33. Adopted by 120 to 22, with 6 abstentions. Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and Venezuela are the only non-Western states that voted against the resolution.
34. Nicaragua Case, supra note 7 at 108, para. 205.
36. Nicaragua Case, supra note 7 at 108, para. 205.
37. Rajan, supra note 25 at 499. See also, Goodrich, Hambro, and Simons, supra note 21 at 68; Higgins, supra note 25 at 65−7.
39. Jean-Marc SOREL and Valérie BORÉ EVENO, “1969 Vienna Convention, Article 31: General Rule of Interpretation”, in Olivier CORTEN and Pierre KLEIN, eds.,, The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar
GARDINER, Richard, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 246−248Google Scholar
40. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Advisory Opinion),  I.C.J. Rep. 66 at 81, para. 27. Cf. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion),  I.C.J. Rep. 136 at 149−50 (distinguished on the grounds that the practice of the UN General Assembly is examined solely to delimit its competence in relation to the Security Council, not in relation to Member States, under art. 12(1) of the UN Charter).
41. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Jurisdiction) (Appeals Chamber), (1997) 105 I.L.R. 453 at 466−7, para. 30.
42. Certain Expenses of the United Nations (article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter) (Advisory Opinion),  I.C.J. Rep. 151 at 168.
46. MILLER, David Hunter, The Drafting of the Covenant (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1928)Google Scholar
47. ONUMA Yasuaki, ed., Kokusaiho, Kokusai Rengo to Nihon [International Law, the United Nations and Japan] (Tokyo: Kobundo, 1987), 427 at 441−456Google Scholar
48. LODGE, Henry Cabot, The Senate and the League of Nations (New York: Scribners, 1925) at 246Google Scholar
49. ZIMMERN, Alfred, The League of Nations and the Rule of Law 1918−1935 (London: Macmillan, 1936) at 244−245Google Scholar
50. Covenant of the League of Nations, annexed to Treaty of Peace, 28 June 1919, 225 C.T.S. 188 (entered into force 10 January 1920).
54. Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization (1945) Vol.1 at 245 (India); Vol. 3 at 527 (India); Vol. 3 at 535 (the Philippines).
55. Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization (1945) Vol. 5 at 535−7. It does not mean that Asian states had no concern for foreign intervention, particularly armed intervention. Thus, the Philippine delegation regarded as an act of aggression an interference with the internal affairs of a state “by supplying arms, ammunition, money or other forms of aid to any armed band, faction or group, or by establishing agencies in that nation to conduct propaganda subversive of the institutions of that nation”: Ibid., Vol. 3 at 538.
56. UN GAOR, 1st sess., Supp. 2nd pt, Sixth Committee 25th mtg, UN Doc A/C.6/100 (30 November 1946) at 124−5.
57. SCHIFTER, Richard, “Human Rights at the United Nations: The South Africa Precedent” (1993) 8 American University Journal of International Law and Policy 361 at 363−365Google Scholar
61. It should be noted that the position of other states was equally divided on different grounds including, not insignificantly, ideological differences. See UN GAOR, 14th sess., 826th, 831st−834th plen mtgs, UN Doc. A/PV.826, 831−834 (12, 20−21 October 1959). The draft resolution sponsored by the Federation of Malaya and Ireland calling for the restoration of human rights to Tibet was adopted by forty-five (including Federation of Malaya, Japan, Laos, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Taiwanese China) votes to nine, with twenty-six abstentions (including India, Indonesia, Nepal, Burma, Cambodia), which became GA Res. 1353 (XIV) (21 October 1959).
62. UN GAOR, 14th sess., 826th plen mtg, UN Doc. A/PV.826 (12 October 1959) at paras. 44−6 (Indonesia); UN GAOR, 14th sess., 831st plen mtg, UN Doc. A/PV.831 (20 October 1959) at para. 57 (Nepal). See also UN GAOR, 19th sess., 1299th plen mtg, UN Doc. A/PV.1299 (11 December 1964) at para. 22 (Cambodia).
63. UN GAOR, 14th sess., 826th plen mtg, UN Doc. A/PV.826 (12 October 1959) at paras. 91−4 (Thailand); UN GAOR, 14th sess., 831st plen mtg, UN Doc. A/PV.831 (20 October 1959) at paras. 2−7 (Federation of Malaya); UN GAOR, 14 sess., 832nd plen mtg, UN Doc. A/PV.832 (20 October 1959) at paras. 2−3.
64. International Commission of Jurists, The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law-A Preliminary Report (Geneva, 1959) at 76.
65. Ibid., at 17−18. The findings were confirmed in its full report: International Commission of Jurists, Tibet and the Chinese People's Republic - A Report to the International Commission of Jurists by its Legal Inquiry Committee on Tibet (Geneva, 1960).
66. UN GAOR, 16th sess., 1084th plen mtg, UN Doc. A/PV.1084 (19 December 1961) at para. 175; UN GAOR, 16th sess., 1085th plen mtg, UN Doc. A/PV.1085 (20 December 1961) at para. 104.
67. See e.g. UN GAOR, 20th sess., 1394th plen mtg, UN Doc. A/PV.1394 (14 December 1965) at para. 50 (Thailand); UN GAOR, 20th sess., 1403rd plen mtg, UN Doc. A/PV.1403 (18 December 1965) at para. 76 (Malaysia).
68. See e.g. Acharya, supra note 5 at 80; Michael LEIFER, “The ASEAN Peace Process: A Category Mistake” (1999) 12 Pacific Review 25 at 26−7; Shaun NARINE, “ASEAN and the Management of Regional Security” (1998) 71 Pacific Affairs 195 at 196−201.
71. SAIPIROON, Pranee, ASEAN Governments’ Attitudes Towards Regional Security 1975−1979 (Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies, 1982) at 5−7Google Scholar
73. Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, 24 February 1976, 1025 U.N.T.S. 319 (entered into force 15 July 1976), art. 2(c).
75. SIMON, Sheldon, “ASEAN and Multilateralism: The Long, Bumpy Road to Community” (2008) 30(2) Contemporary Southeast Asia 264Google Scholar
76. INBARAJ, Sonny, East Timor: Blood and Tears in ASEAN (Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 1997)Google Scholar
82. LYON, Peter, War and Peace in South-East Asia (London: Oxford University Press, 1969) at 176Google Scholar
84. Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, “White Paper: Human Rights in China” (1991), online: <http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/7/7-L.htm>.
86. Wu, supra note 5 at 21−22Google Scholar
87. Wim MULLER, “Chinese Practice in UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies: Principled Sovereignty and Slow Appreciation” in Hitoshi NASU and Ben SAUL, eds., Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region: Towards Institution Building (London: Routledge, 2011)Google Scholar
88. The Chinese delegation voiced its opposition, but abstained on the final vote on SC Res. 1160 (31 March 1998): see UN SCOR, 53rd Year, 3868th mtg, UN Doc S/PV.3868 (31 March 1998) at 11−12.
89. The Chinese delegation expressed support for the deployment of multinational forces in East Timor: UN SCOR, 54th Year, 4043rd mtg, UN Doc S/PV.4043 (11 September 1999) at 13 (stating that “[t]he issue of East Timor must be solved through the United Nations”).
90. UN SCOR, 66th Year, 6491st mtg, UN Doc S/PV.6491 (26 February 2011) at 4.
91. CARLSON, Allen, “Helping to Keep the Peace (Albeit Reluctantly): China's Recent Stance on Sovereignty and Multilateral Intervention” (2004) 77 Pacific Affairs 9Google Scholar
GILL, Bates and REILLY, James, “Sovereignty, Intervention and Peacekeeping: The View from Beijing” (2000) 42 Survival 41Google Scholar
93. THAYLER, Carlyle A., “Reinventing ASEAN: From Constructive Engagement to Flexible Intervention” (1999) 3 Harvard Asia Pacific Review 67 at 70Google Scholar
99. Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II), 7 October 2003, online: ASEAN <http://www.aseansec.org/15159.htm>; ASEAN Charter, supra note 11.
100. ASEAN Chairman's Statement on the Situation in Thailand, 21 May 2010, online: ASEAN <http://www.aseansec.org/24718.htm>.
101. See Tanvi PATE, “Crisis in Thailand-IV: Analysing ASEAN, US, UN and EU Responses”, 22 June 2010, online: Institute of Peace & Conflict Studies <http://www.ipcs.org/article/southeast-asia/crisis-in-thailand-iv-analysing-asean-us-un-and-eu-3163.html>.
102. SIMPSON, Brad, “‘Illegally and Beautifully’: The United States, the Indonesian Invasion of East Timor and the International Community, 1974−76”, (2005) 5 Cold War History 281Google Scholar
103. UN GAOR, 30th sess., 2439th mtg, UN Doc A/PV.2439 (12 December 1975) at para. 72 (Japan); UN SCOR, 30th Year, 1864th mtg, UN Doc S/PV.1864 (15 December 1975) at para. 20 (Malaysia); UN SCOR, 31st Year, 1909th mtg, UN Doc S/PV.1909 (14 April 1976) at paras. 48, 52 (the Philippines).
104. Heike KRIEGER, ed., East Timor and the International Community: Basic Documents (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) at 129−133Google Scholar
Vaughan LOWE et al., eds., The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 346 at 354Google Scholar
SHEARER, Ivan, “A Pope, Two Presidents and a Prime Minister” (2001) 7 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 429 at 434−435Google Scholar
105. UN SCOR, 30th Year, 1865th mtg, UN Doc S/PV.1865 (16 December 1975) at 1−2. See also the table of voting record in Krieger, supra note 104 at 129−33.
107. There were of course other factors at play, which led to Indonesia's decision to hold a “popular consultation” in East Timor: see Carey with Walsh, supra note 104 at 355−7.
108. Maiko ICHIHARA, “East Asian States’ Collaborative Action in UN Peace Operations for East Timor” in Sorpong PEOU, ed., Human Security in East Asia: Challenges for Collaborative Action (London: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar
109. UN SCOR, 44th Year, 4043rd mtg, UN Doc S/PV.4043 (11 September 1999) at 18 (Republic of Korea), at 20 (the Philippines); UN SCOR, 44th Year, 4043rd (Resumption) mtg, UN Doc S/PV.4043 (Resumption) (11 September 1999) at 6 (Cambodia), 9 (Lao), 20 (Singapore), 25−6 (India).
110. UN SCOR, 44th Year, 4043rd (Resumption) mtg, UN Doc S/PV.4043 (Resumption) (11 September 1999) at 17 (emphasis added).
112. UN SCOR, 44th Year, 4043rd (Resumption) mtg, UN Doc S/PV.4043 (Resumption) (11 September 1999) at 19.
115. ALBAR, Syed Hamid, “It Is Not Possible to Defend Myanmar” Asian Wall Street Journal (24 July 2006)Google Scholar
116. UN SCOR, 61st Year, 5526th mtg, UN Doc. S/PV.5526 (15 September 2006) at 2 (China); UN SCOR, 62nd Year, 5619th mtg, UN Doc. S/PV.5619 (12 January 2007) at 3 (China), 4 (Indonesia).
117. UN SCOR, 61st Year, 5526th mtg, UN Doc. S/PV.5526 (15 September 2006) at 4.
118. GA Res. 60/1 (16 September 2005) at paras. 111−15. See also Report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, UN Doc. A/59/565 (2 December 2004) at 23.
119. See e.g. UN GAOR, 62nd sess., Third Committee, 50th mtg, UN Doc. A/C.3/62/SR.50 (20 November 2007) at 4 (DPRK), 5 (Thailand), 6 (Malaysia), 7 (India, Indonesia), 7−8 (Singapore), 9 (Viet Nam); UN GAOR, 63rd sess., Third Committee, 45th mtg, UN Doc. A/C.3/63/SR.45 (21 November 2008) at 2 (DPRK, Malaysia), 2−3 (Thailand), 4 (India, Indonesia, Viet Nam); UN GAOR, 65th sess., Third Committee, 47th mtg, UN Doc. A/C.3/65/SR.47 (18 November 2010) at 9 (China, Viet Nam), 10 (Malaysia, India, Thailand).
120. The draft resolutions were sponsored mainly by Western states (with the exception of Australia, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea): UN Doc. A/C.3/62/L.41/Rev.1 (2007); UN Doc. A/C.3/63/L.33 (2008); UN Doc. A/C.3/65/L.48/Rev.1 (2010). Although those draft resolutions were adopted, Asian states, with the exception of Japan, Mongolia, Palau, the Republic of Korea, and Timor-Leste, voted against it or abstained.
121. See e.g. UN SCOR, 61st Year, 5526th mtg, UN Doc. S/PV.5526 (15 September 2006) at 3 (Qatar); UN SCOR, 62nd Year, 5619th mtg, UN Doc. S/PV.5619 (12 January 2007) at 3 (South Africa), 5−6 (Qatar), 8 (the Democratic Republic of Congo).
122. NASU, Hitoshi, “The UN Security Council's Responsibility and the ‘Responsibility to Protect’” (2011) 15 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 377 at 406−407Google Scholar
123. See e.g. UN GAOR, Human Rights Council, 5th spec. sess., UN Doc. A/HRC/S-5/SR.1 (2 October 2007) at 5 (the Philippines), 7 (Pakistan), 8 (Malaysia), 13 (China), 14 (Indonesia); UN GAOR, Human Rights Council, 5th spec. sess., UN Doc. A/HRC/S-5/SR.2 (2 October 2007) at 3 (Singapore), 17 (India).
124. See e.g. UN GAOR, Human Rights Council, 5th spec. sess., UN Doc. A/HRC/S-5/SR.1 (2 October 2007) at 6 (Portugal on behalf of the EU), 9 (France), 11 (Germany).
125. The expression “condemns” was replaced with “strongly deplores” before the Europe-sponsored draft resolution was put to the vote for adoption: UN GAOR, Human Rights Council, 5th spec. sess., UN Doc. A/HRC/S-5/SR.2 (2 October 2007) at 16 (Portugal).
126. UN GAOR, Human Rights Council, 5th spec. sess., UN Doc. A/HRC/S-5/SR.1 (2 October 2007) at 7.
127. Jayadeva UYANGODA, “Government-LTTE Peace Negotiations in 2002−2005 and the Clash of State Formation Projects” in Jonathan GOODHAND, Jonathan SPENCER, and Benedikt KORF, eds., Conflict and Peacebuilding in Sri Lanka: Caught in the Peace Trap? (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011)Google Scholar
128. See Philip ALSTON, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions: Mission to Sri Lanka, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5 (27 March 2006).
129. “Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka” (31 March 2011) at para. 427, online: UN <http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf>.
130. Report of the Human Rights Council on Its Eleventh Special Session, UN Doc. A/HRC/S-11/2 (26−27 May 2009) at paras. 2−5.
131. Shigeki SAKAMOTO, “Challenges to a Human Rights Mechanism in the Asia-Pacific Region: The Experience of the Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council” in Nasu and Saul, supra note 87, 49 at 61.
132. Statement by Malaysia at the 11th Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the Situation of Human Rights in Sri Lanka, Geneva (26 May 2009) at para. 3, online: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights via <http://portal.ohchr.org>; Statement by the Maldives at the 11th Special Session of the Human Rights Council, Geneva (26 May 2009) at 1, online: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights via <http://portal.ohchr.org>.
133. Statement by the Head of Delegation of Indonesia His Excellency Mr Dian Triansyah Djani at the Special Session on the Human Rights Situation in Sri Lanka (26 May 2009) at 2, online: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights via <http://portal.ohchr.org>.
134. Statement by Ambassador Zamir Akram of Pakistan on behalf of the OIC at the Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the “Human Rights Situation in Sri Lanka”, Geneva (26 May 2009) at 2, online: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights via <http://portal.ohchr.org>.
136. Human Rights Council Res S-11/1 Assistance to Sri Lanka in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (27 May 2009).
137. Statement by His Excellency Mr Sihasak Phuangketkeow, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Thailand at the 11th Special Session of the Human Rights Council on the Human Rights Situation in Sri Lanka (26 May 2009) at 2, online: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights via <http://portal.ohchr.org>.
138. Statement by His Excellency Ambassador Vu Dung, Permanent Representative of Viet Nam at the 11th Special Session of the Human Rights Council on “The Human Rights Situation in Sri Lanka”, Geneva (27 May 2009) at 1, online: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights via <http://portal.ohchr.org>.
139. Mely CABALLERO-ANTHONY, Ralf EMMERS, and Amitav ACHARYA, eds., Non-Traditional Security in Asia: Dilemmas in Securitization (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006)Google Scholar
140. CABALLERO-ANTHONY, Mely, “Revisioning Human Security in Southeast Asia” (2004) 28 Asian Perspective 155 at 160−163Google Scholar
Muthiah ALAGAPPA, “Comprehensive Security: Interpretations in ASEAN Countries” in Robert A. SCALAPINO et al., eds., Asian Security Issues: Regional and Global (Berkeley, CA: Institute of East Asian Studies, 1988)Google Scholar
141. “China's Position Paper on the New Security Concept” (31 July 2002), online: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China <http://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zzjg/gjs/gjzzyhy/2612/2614/t15319.htm>.
142. For the author's analytical framework for the consideration of security in international law, see Hitoshi NASU, “The Expanded Conception of Security and International Law: Challenges to the UN Collective Security System” (2011) 3 Amsterdam Law Forum 15.
143. Originally founded as the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe by the 1975 Helsinki Accords: Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, 1 August 1975, 14 I.L.M. 1292.
145. Mely CABALLERO-ANTHONY, “Non-Traditional Security in Asia: The Many Faces of Securitisation” in A.F. COOPER, C.W. HUGHES, and P. DE LOMBAERDE, eds., Regionalism and Global Governance (London: Routledge, 2008)Google Scholar
146. Illustrative is the Asian states’ response to the situation in East Timor, as discussed in Part II(B1).
147. Severino, supra note 85 at 90.
148. See above, Parts II(B2) and II(B3).
150. In December 1999, CSCAP's Working Group on Comprehensive and Cooperative Security held a meeting in Seoul to discuss the evolving concept of non-intervention. The summary of discussions is reproduced in Wu, supra note 5 at 37−9.
151. THAYER, Carlyle A., “Southeast Asia: Challenges to Unity and Regime Legitimacy” (1999) 26 Southeast Asian Affairs 3 at 4Google Scholar
153. Ibid., at 594−5.
154. Amitav ACHARYA, “Regional Institutions and Security in the Asia-Pacific: Evolution, Adaptation, and Prospects for Transformation” in Amitav ACHARYA and Evelyn GOH, eds., Reassessing Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007)Google Scholar
156. Press Release: Inaugural Relief Flight for Victims of Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar from Don Mueang Airport Thailand, 24 May 2008, online: ASEAN <http://www.aseansec.org/21566.htm>.
157. See UN SCOR, 63rd Year, 5898th mtg, UN Doc S/PV.5898 (27 May 2008) at 15 (Panama), 18 (France), 21 (Belgium, Croatia). See also Rebecca BARBER, “The Responsibility to Protect the Survivors of Natural Disaster: Cyclone Nargis, a Case Study” (2009) 14 Journal of Conflict & Security Law 3. Subsequently, the East Asian Summit issued a statement on disaster management on 25 October 2009 to enhance the regional preparedness for natural disasters, and on 24 December 2009, ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response came into force. See East Asia Summit, Cha-am Hua Hin Statement on EAS Disaster Management, 25 October 2009, online: Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade <http://www.dfat.gov.au/asean/eas/statement-disaster-management.pdf>; ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response, 26 July 2005 (entered into force 24 December 2009), online: ASEAN: <http://www.aseansec.org/17579.htm>.