This descriptive-analytical study aimed to analyze and identify developments of human rights in recent years in addition to determining whether some important newly emerging norms of human rights affect non-interventionism by nature and its credibility in the current system of international law.Īccording to the findings, a new chapter of developments has come into view in the concept of non-interventionism since the beginning of the 21 st century. Moreover, procedural differences of countries and disagreements of lawyers encountering non-interventionism would require the more accurate analysis of this principle in terms of its consistency with transformations in the international system. At the same time, it is now more essential than ever before to revise and research into the concept of non-interventionism due to political military conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq as well as the military interventions of neighboring countries under the pretext of fighting with terrorism and protecting their territorial integrity in which the involved states seek their goals of interests through a dichotomous interpretation of non-interventionism. In the currently important era, some states resort to national governance for immunity to crimes against humanity and systematic violation of human rights in many cases, despite their international commitments to human rights. These norms include imposing purposive unilateral sanctions against the states that violate human rights and shouldering the responsibility for fighting against international terrorism, which is considered a crime against humanity. The most possible hypothesis is that the international law has managed to surpass national governance and weakened non-interventionism in recent years through newly emerging norms in human rights.
It is essential to determine what effects such a change in the contemporary approach to international law, especially the support for human rights and confrontation with international crimes against the maintenance of international state-oriented peace and security, will have on the foundation of non-interventionism or the domain of its penetration and authority. However, the penetration and authority of non-interventionism have faced serious challenges in the current paradigm of international law and its evolutional trend toward the humanization of rules and regulations as well as the assurance of human rights and basic freedoms against the aggression of states. Resulting from the principle of respect for the governance of states in accordance with Article 1 of Chapter 2 of the UN Charter, non-interventionism is among the important elements affecting the international legal-political order.
Known as the legacy of the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and an explicit principle of the UN Charter, the principle of non-interventionism is considered among the fundamental rights and duties of states. The finding showed that transforming sovereignty into responsibility, as well as the establishment of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), purposive sanctions, and military intervention under the guise of fighting terrorism, are examples that not only have theoretical contradictions with the non-intervention rule's absolutism, but have also significantly weakened states' undisputed power in terms of human rights.
In fact, the main question that arises is, within the context of expanding contemporary human rights norms, what normative and structural developments has the non-intervention rule seen, and what challenges have these changes faced? This descriptive-analytical study examined such changes and how they affect the nature and score of the non-intervention rule from a different perspective. Instead of resorting to sovereignty mechanisms of human rights, such changes, in an unprecedented movement and a turning point in the development of human rights, have targeted its fundamental principles and pushed them to the margins by circumventing national sovereignty. The non-intervention rule is one of the established principles of international law, particularly the United Nations Charter, Although that has endured Until the early years of the twenty-first century, However given the rapid evolution of human rights in the modern era, it appears that such a principle faces numerous challenges and constraints.
0 kommentar(er)
