The prospect of international intervention legitimacy: case study of 2011 libyan armed conflict

2.5.2.1.1. Limitations to the Principle of Non-Intervention

To the question of whether exceptions to the principles of non-interference can be considered; the affirmative answer can be brought but extremely narrowly. It seems to insist on that, given the natural tendency of the States to justify their interventions by different arguments. Referring to the customary international law, the International Court of Justice, in the Nicaragua case against United States, concluded that: "contemporary international law provides no general right of intervention of this kind in favor of the existing opposition party operating in another State».^97(*) International intervention is concerned with the intrusion motivated by allegedly illegitimate reasons such as qualifying as non democratic the State on whose territory on what the intervention takes place, they are not lawfully justified.

In practice, two reasons were traditionally advanced to justify the intervention and interference of a State on the territory and in the internal affairs of another State. One concerns the so-called 'unsolicited intervention'.^98(*)

2.5.3. The Use of Force in International Relations and Humanitarian Intervention

For the first time in history, the Covenant of the League of Nations reduced the rights of States, until there fully discretionary, of resorting to war to resolve their differences. The combination of articles 12, 13 and 15 of the Covenant created a complicated system of "war moratorium" which, in the event of violations, could be accompanied by economic or military sanctions (Art 16).^99(*) In a nutshell, this system made illicit any recourse to war in the event of disputes which are not related on the reserved domain of a State and during its consideration either by the Permanent Court of Justice, either by arbitrators or even by the League Council, the prior recourse to one of the three procedural stages being mandatory.

The famous convention Briand-Kellogg of August 26, 1928 went much further to the extent where it placed the war "outlaw". Article 1 condemned the use of the war for the settlement of international disputes, and abandoned it as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations.^100(*) This Covenant, even if it suffered many violations that it is known, would be accepted by all States and provide a basis for the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations in the matter.

It is in this context, the proponents of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention rely on an interpretation of 2§4 of the Charter of the United Nations, which prohibits the use of force against territorial integrity or independence of any State, or in any other manner which does not comply with the purpose of the United Nations, but support that the rule of the prohibition of the use of force does not concern humanitarian interventions. According the interpretation of article 2§4 of the Charter, some use of force are permitted. If a researcher reason in this way, the remedies which are not directed against the territorial integrity or political independence of a State "or are not «any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of United Nation are authorized.^101(*) As a result, armed actions to put an end to violations of human rights would be legitimate, since the protection of these rights is one of the goals of the United Nations.

* ⁹⁷ NGOYENQUOC DINH; A. PELLET and P. DAILLER, op. cit., p. 38.

* ⁹⁸ Hilpold, Peter, 'Humanitarian Intervention: Is there a Need for a Legal Reappraisal?', European Journal of International Law, 12 (2002), pp. 437 - 467.

* ⁹⁹Idem, p.439.

* ¹⁰⁰ Convention Briand-Kellogg of August 26, 1928.

* ¹⁰¹ M., BETTATI, The Right of Intervention, R.G.D.I.P, volume 95, 1991, p. 649.