Cecilia Yue Wu
Abstract
The principle of non-intervention, which prohibits states from coercively interfering in the domestic affairs of other states, is well-established in customary international law. Yet underneath the general support for the principle is substantial disagreement over its proper scope and application. The principle is subject to even greater challenge in a globalized world where the penetration of sovereignty is often taken as the goal of progressive development in areas of international human rights law, environmental law, trade and investment law, and beyond. This Note challenges the conventional doctrine of non-intervention that allows significant latitude for intervention in political and economic spheres. It examines a category of “paternalistic interference”—acts of intervention that purport to have beneficent purposes and do not involve the threat or use of force—and illustrates how this least controversial form of intervention shall nevertheless be subject to stronger scrutiny under international law.
This Note begins by tracing the development of the principle of non-intervention and examining the contours of its two elements: domaine réservé and coercion. Then, it presents a normative account of why paternalistic interference can be harmful to the targeted state and ought to sometimes be prohibited by international law. Specifically, paternalistic interference often uses lofty pretexts to cover up self-interested motives, reflects arrogance of Western actors with neo-imperialist assumptions, and deprives the targeted states of autonomy as political communities. This Note ends by exploring doctrinal avenues to strengthen the principle of non-intervention, including interpreting domain réservé as a set of states’ fundamental rights and developing a broad construction of coercion that accounts for power imbalance in international relations.
