Prohibition of intervention: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="background-color:#ffffcc;" |
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="background-color:#ffffcc;" |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| |
! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| Prohibition of intervention |
||
|- |
|- |
||
|[[File:Maki-baseball-15.svg|left|frameless|200x200px]]The obligation of non-intervention established by customary international law prohibits States from intervening in the internal or external affairs of other States. Prohibited intervention was authoritatively defined by the International Court of Justice in the judgment on the merits in the 1986 case ''Nicaragua v United States'':<blockquote>A prohibited intervention must … be one bearing on matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely. One of these is the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and the formulation of foreign policy. Intervention is wrongful when it uses methods of coercion in regard to such choices, which must remain free ones.<ref>''Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v US)'' (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para. 205.</ref></blockquote>In order for an act, including cyber-related act, to qualify as prohibited intervention, it must fulfil the following conditions: |
|[[File:Maki-baseball-15.svg|left|frameless|200x200px]]The obligation of non-intervention established by customary international law prohibits States from intervening in the internal or external affairs of other States. Prohibited intervention was authoritatively defined by the International Court of Justice in the judgment on the merits in the 1986 case ''Nicaragua v United States'':<blockquote>A prohibited intervention must … be one bearing on matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely. One of these is the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and the formulation of foreign policy. Intervention is wrongful when it uses methods of coercion in regard to such choices, which must remain free ones.<ref>''Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v US)'' (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para. 205.</ref></blockquote>In order for an act, including cyber-related act, to qualify as prohibited intervention, it must fulfil the following conditions: |
Revision as of 13:26, 18 September 2018
Definition
Prohibition of intervention |
---|
The obligation of non-intervention established by customary international law prohibits States from intervening in the internal or external affairs of other States. Prohibited intervention was authoritatively defined by the International Court of Justice in the judgment on the merits in the 1986 case Nicaragua v United States:In order for an act, including cyber-related act, to qualify as prohibited intervention, it must fulfil the following conditions:
|
Appendixes
See also
Notes and references
- ↑ Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v US) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para. 205.
- ↑ See, for example, KS Ziegler, “Domaine Réservé”, in R Wolfrum (ed), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (OUP 2008) (updated April 2013) (defining the domaine réservé as those “areas where States are free from international obligations and regulation”).
- ↑ ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v US) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 205.
- ↑ Tallinn Manual 2.0, commentary to rule 66, para. 19.
- ↑ Tallinn Manual 2.0, commentary to rule 66, para. 21.
- ↑ Tallinn Manual 2.0, commentary to rule 66, para. 24. The exact nature of the causal nexus was not agreed on.
Bibliography and further reading
- MN Schmitt (ed), Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (CUP 2017)
- Etc.