Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-d2wc8 Total loading time: 0.336 Render date: 2021-10-16T22:03:58.312Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Revisiting the Principle of Non-Intervention: A Structural Principle of International Law or a Political Obstacle to Regional Security in Asia?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2012

Hitoshi NASU*
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Australia

Abstract

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.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Asian Journal of International Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

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.

References

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

ABASS, Ademola, “The New Collective Security Mechanism of ECOWAS: Innovations and Problems” (2000) 5 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 211CrossRefGoogle 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.

5. JONES, Lee, “ASEAN's Unchanged Melody? The Theory and Practice of ‘Non-Interference’ in Southeast Asia” (2010) 23 Pacific Review 479CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

RAMCHARAN, Robin, “ASEAN and Non-Interference: A Principle Maintained” (2000) 22 Contemporary Southeast Asia 60CrossRefGoogle 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), [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 14 at 106−9, paras. 202−7 [Nicaragua Case]; Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), [1949] 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 547550CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MANUSAMA, Kenneth, The United Nations Security Council in the Post-Cold War Era: Applying the Principle of Legality (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006) at 5155CrossRefGoogle 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, [1932] 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 348358CrossRefGoogle Scholar

SHAFFER, Ellen et al., “Global Trade and Public Health” (2005) 95 American Journal of Public Health 23 at 2324CrossRefGoogle 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 761762Google 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 126127Google 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 6768Google 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 1832Google Scholar

HIGGINS, Rosalyn, The Development of International Law Through the Political Organs of the United Nations (London: Oxford University Press, 1963) at 6874Google Scholar

RAJAN, M.S., United Nations and Domestic Jurisdiction (Bombay: Orient Longmans, 1958) at 6678Google Scholar

26. LAUTERPACHT, H., International Law and Human Rights (London: Stevens & Sons, 1950) at 167Google Scholar

27. GILMOUR, D.R., “The Meaning of ‘Intervene’ within Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter-An Historical Perspective” (1967) 16 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 330CrossRefGoogle 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

WRIGHT, Quincy, “Is Discussion Intervention?” (1956) 50 American Journal of International Law 102CrossRefGoogle 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.

35. D'AMATO, Anthony, “Trashing Customary International Law” (1987) 81 American Journal of International Law 101 at 102103CrossRefGoogle Scholar

CHARLESWORTH, H.C.M., “Customary International Law and the Nicaragua Case” (1991) 11 Australian Year Book of International Law 1 at 1819Google Scholar

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.

38. WATSON, J.S., “Autointerpretation, Competence, and the Continuing Validity of Article 2(7) of the UN Charter” (1977) 71 American Journal of International Law 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar

KELSEN, Hans, “Limitations on the Functions of the United Nations” (1946) 55 Yale Law Journal 997CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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 246248Google Scholar

40. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Advisory Opinion), [1996] 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), [2004] 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), [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 151 at 168.

43. TOMUSCHAT, Christian, “Asia and International Law - Common Ground and Regional Diversity” (2011) 1 Asian Journal of International Law 217 at 226CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44. WINFIELD, P.H., “The History of Intervention in International Law” (1922−23) 3 British Year Book of International Law 130Google Scholar

STOWELL, Ellery C., Intervention in International Law (Washington, DC: John Byrne & Co, 1921) at 317355Google Scholar

45. Naoko, SHIMAZU, “The Japanese Attempt to Secure Racial Equality in 1919” (1989) 1 Japan Forum 93 at 94CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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 244245Google 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).

51. BRIERLY, J.L., “Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction” (1925) 6 British Year Book of International Law 8 at 9Google Scholar

MILLER, David Hunter, The Geneva Protocol (New York: Macmillan, 1925) at 6465Google Scholar

52. LAUREN, Paul Gordon, The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998) at 126129Google Scholar

CORBETT, P.E., “What is the League of Nations?” (1924) 5 British Year Book of International Law 119 at 136138Google Scholar

53. Lauren, supra note 52 at 166−171Google Scholar

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 363365Google Scholar

58. WALTZ, Susan, “Universalizing Human Rights: The Role of Small States in the Construction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (2001) 23 Human Rights Quarterly 44 at 5366CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59. RICHARDSON, H.E., Tibet and Its History (London: Oxford University Press, 1962)Google Scholar

60. ANAND, R.P., Studies in International Law and History: An Asian Perspective (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004) at 127137CrossRefGoogle 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.

69. The Bangkok Declaration, 8 August 1967, online: ASEAN <http://www.asean.org/1212.htm>.

70. ACHARYA, Amitav, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order (London: Routledge, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71. SAIPIROON, Pranee, ASEAN Governments’ Attitudes Towards Regional Security 1975−1979 (Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies, 1982) at 57Google Scholar

72. Acharya, supra note 5 at 227−230Google Scholar

Funston, supra note 5 at 3−4Google 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).

74. Acharya, supra note 70 at 225Google Scholar

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

77. Archarya, supra note 70 at 59Google Scholar

78. Wu, supra note 5 at 12−14Google Scholar

79. JONES, Lee, “ASEAN Intervention in Cambodia: From Cold War to Conditionality” (2007) 20 Pacific Review 523 at 527528CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Narine, supra note 68 at 204−207Google Scholar

80. Wu, supra note 5 at 19Google Scholar

81. Jones, supra note 5Google Scholar

Funston, supra note 5 at 5−8Google Scholar

Ramcharan, supra note 5 at 66−70Google Scholar

82. LYON, Peter, War and Peace in South-East Asia (London: Oxford University Press, 1969) at 176Google Scholar

83. Jones, supra note 79 at 527Google 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>.

85. Wu, supra note 5 at 14Google Scholar

SEVERINO, Rodolfo C., Southeast Asia in Search of an ASEAN Community: Insights from the Former ASEAN Secretary-General (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2006) at 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

86. Wu, supra note 5 at 21−22Google Scholar

AVONIUS, Leena and KINGSBURY, Damieneds., Human Rights in Asia: A Reassessment of the Asian Values Debate (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

JACOBSEN, Michael and BRUUN, Oleeds., Human Rights and Asian Values: Contesting National Identities and Cultural Representations in Asia (Surrey: Curzon Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

GHAI, Yash, “Human Rights and Governance: The Asia Debate” (2000) 1 Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law 9CrossRefGoogle 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

92. Ibrahim, ANWAR, “Crisis Prevention” Newsweek International (21 July 1997) at 13Google Scholar

Ramcharan, supra note 5 at 75Google Scholar

93. THAYLER, Carlyle A., “Reinventing ASEAN: From Constructive Engagement to Flexible Intervention” (1999) 3 Harvard Asia Pacific Review 67 at 70Google Scholar

94. Funston, supra note 5 at 11Google Scholar

95. Acharya, supra note 70 at 152−153Google Scholar

HAACKE, Jürgen, “The Concept of Flexible Engagement and the Practice of Enhanced Interaction: Intramural Challenges to the ‘ASEAN Way’” (1999) 12 Pacific Review 581 at 584585CrossRefGoogle Scholar

96. Acharya, supra note 70 at 153−154Google Scholar

Haacke, supra note 95 at 592−597Google Scholar

97. KATSUMATA, Hiro, “From ‘Non-Interference’ to ‘Open and Frank Discussions’” (2004) 44 Asian Survey 237CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98. Mely CABALLERO-ANTHONY, “Southeast Asia's Points of Convergence on International Intervention” in Sorpong PEOU, ed., Human Security in East Asia: Challenges for Collaborative Action (London/New York: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar

Jones, supra note 79 at 535−538Google 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 129133Google 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 434435Google 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.

106. DUNN, James, Timor: A People Betrayed (Sydney: ABC Books, 1996) at 327Google Scholar

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).

111. COTTON, James, East Timor, Australia and Regional Order: Intervention and Its Aftermath in Southeast Asia (London/New York: Routledge Curzon, 2004) at 8283CrossRefGoogle Scholar

112. UN SCOR, 44th Year, 4043rd (Resumption) mtg, UN Doc S/PV.4043 (Resumption) (11 September 1999) at 19.

113. Acharya, supra note 5 at 230−231Google Scholar

Ramcharan, supra note 5 at 70−74Google Scholar

114. KATANYUU, Ruukun, “Beyond Non-Interference in ASEAN: The Association's Role in Myanmar's National Reconciliation and Democratization” (2006) 46 Asian Survey 825 at 827841CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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 406407Google 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>.

135. Ibid.

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 160163Google 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.

144. ORTIZ, Antonio, “Neither Fox Nor Hedgehog: NATO's Comprehensive Approach and the OSCE's Concept of Security” (2008) 4 Security and Human Rights 284 at 284285CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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).

149. HAACKE, Jürgen, “‘Enhanced Interaction’ with Myanmar and the Project of a Security Community: Is ASEAN Refining or Breaking with Its Diplomatic and Security Culture?” (2005) 27 Contemporary Southeast Asia 188CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

152. Haacke, supra note 95 at 586Google 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

155. Acharya, supra note 154 at 30−31Google 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>.

6
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Revisiting the Principle of Non-Intervention: A Structural Principle of International Law or a Political Obstacle to Regional Security in Asia?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Revisiting the Principle of Non-Intervention: A Structural Principle of International Law or a Political Obstacle to Regional Security in Asia?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Revisiting the Principle of Non-Intervention: A Structural Principle of International Law or a Political Obstacle to Regional Security in Asia?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *