![principle app no gradients principle app no gradients](https://www.slideteam.net/media/catalog/product/cache/1280x720/a/p/app_acquisition_integration_principles_ppt_slide_styles_Slide03.jpg)
While not expressly set out in the UN Charter, it is generally held to be implicit in various of its provisions, in particular the principle of the sovereign equality of States (Article 2.1). And it is also reflected in many treaties, such as the Charter of the Organization of American States and the Constitutive Act of the African Union. It is part of customary international law, as the International Court of Justice has reaffirmed on a number of occasions. There is no doubt that the principle of non-intervention remains well-established in contemporary international law. The sub-title “Non-interference in a state’s internal affairs used to be a rule of international law: is it still?” was intended to be rhetorical. Such terms are best avoided, at least in legal discourse.)
![principle app no gradients principle app no gradients](https://s3.amazonaws.com/paperform-blog/2021/04/Template-1.png)
![principle app no gradients principle app no gradients](https://richtarik.org/imgs/ProxSkip-thmb.png)
(‘Failed States’ and ‘rogue States’ are not legal categories. Another question could be intervention in a State which has no government capable of issuing an invitation. Whether there is an exception to the principle of non-intervention in the case of assistance to peoples seeking to exercise the right of self-determination remains controversial. Intervention on the side of those opposing the Government, on the other hand, is clearly prohibited. Does the requesting Government have to be in effective control of the territory of the State at the time it makes the request, when it may just have been evicted from the capital or even have departed the country? It is sometimes suggested that intervention in a civil war on the side of the Government and at its request is unlawful, but there is little support for this in practice. ‘Intervention by invitation’ is notoriously open to abuse. It should be noted at the outset that intervention (even military intervention) with the consent, duly given, of the Government of a State is not precluded.
![principle app no gradients principle app no gradients](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ua0KD.png)
But the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States also requires that a State not intervene in the internal affairs of other States in dictatorial ways not involving the use of force, for example making payments to political parties and other forms of interference in the internal political processes of the State. The general principle includes the prohibition on the use of force, as set forth in the Charter. One of these is the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and the formulation of foreign policy.” Since the reach of international law is constantly changing, so too is the line between what is, and what is not, covered by the principle of non-intervention. What is prohibited is dictatorial interference in what the International Court of Justice referred to in Nicaragua as “matters which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely. It is closely linked to the concept of domestic affairs, what the French tend to call domaine réservé and also to the international legal limits on a State’s jurisdiction to prescribe and to enforce. The the prohibition of intervention “is a corollary of every state’s right to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence”. The principle of non-intervention is the mirror image of the sovereignty of States. Interference pure and simple is not intervention” Yet “the interference must be forcible or dictatorial, or otherwise coercive, in effect depriving the state intervened against of control over the matter in question. In many contexts the two terms seem to be interchangeable, but “non-interference” suggests a wider prohibition, particularly when used in addition to intervention. The more common term for the legal principle is “non-intervention”, though “non-interference” is also used. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law. The Friendly Relations Declaration (UN General Assembly, 1970), included under the principle of non-intervention the following paragraph: No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.