Search results

The growing frequency of conflicts in the Caribbean and Central America reveals some new and significant aspects of the old problem of intervention. Failure to recognize these new and significant aspects accounts for much of the confusion evident at the Meeting of Consultation of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American States held at Santiago de Chile, in 1959.A number of strains have been placed upon the principle of nonintervention and it is important at the outset to note the forces behind them. Two developments which have been proceeding in opposite directions are basic here. The first of these is the mounting exactitude and breadth of the non-intervention doctrine itself. It has been applied to collective action as well as action by individual states; to indirect action such as diplomatic protests and economic pressure as well as to more direct action.

This book examines the international law of forcible intervention in civil wars, in particular the role of party-consent in affecting the legality of such intervention. In modern international law, it is a near consensus that no state can use force against another - the main exceptions being self-defence and actions mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. However, one more potential exception exists: forcible intervention undertaken upon the invitation or consent of a government, seeking assistance in confronting armed opposition groups within its territory. Although the latter.

This study tackles a controversial topic in international law and contemporary international relations, namely, the legality of intervention by a major power against weaker states within the same geographic region. Specifically, the author examines the practice of United States intervention in the Western Hemisphere, with particular emphasis on the relationship between the United States and its Latin American and Caribbean neighbours. The work highlights six cases of U.S. intervention-Guatemala in 1954, Cuba in 1961, the Dominican Republic in 1965, Grenada in 1983, Nicaragua in 1985, and Panama in 1989. In each case the United States arguably violated international law and the sovereignty of the states involved but claimed it had a right to intervene to protect the lives of its nationals or to defend its national security against an external threat. These cases amply demonstrate the conflict between international law on the one hand, and regional norms, power politics, and political doctrines on the other. They also illustrate how international law can be manipulated to advance the foreign policy goals of a major power. The author adopts an interdisciplinary approach, combining international law, political doctrines, international relations theory and historical antecedents, to provide a better understanding of the relationship between a major power and its subordinates and of the relevance of international law in such a relationship

Reactions of the international community to the waves of atrocities and genocidal acts of recent years; focus on the International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and proposals for a permanent international court to try crimes against humanity.

Discusses selective intervention, violation of state sovereignty, violence from state-making, security in newly established countries, and a "new formula" for the UN's Security Council.