Right of interference

The right of interference , term created by the philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979, is the recognition of the right which have one or more Nation S to violate the national Souveraineté of another State, within the framework of a mandate granted by the supranational authority.

In practice, in the name of the humane urgency , it is not rare that the mandate is provided retroactively; thus the intervention of the France in Ivory Coast in 2002 was done initially without mandate of the United Nations.

The most recent interferences took place with the Kosovo, in Afghanistan, in Iraq or in Darfur.

With the Middle Ages, this right could only be given by the Church within the framework of a crusade or a revolt of a prince.

Criticisms

The right of interference does not have basic legal solid. Moreover, the concept is not new.

The idea of going in a foreign country for there " aider" the population is old: at the 19th century, one spoke then about “intervention of humanity”. Europeans thus called their actions to go, officially, to save the Christians living in Turkey, but semi-officially, to destabilize the Sultan of Turkey, Abdul-Hamid II. In the name of this “intervention of humanity”, the worst atrocities were made.

But as Juvénal said it, celebrates it Latin poet: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (which will protect me from my guards?). At the time of intervention justified by the right of interference, the problem arises on the level of decision making: indeed, one can only note that in fact always the country most extremely will help the poorest country. Moreover let us recall that Napoleon was accustomed to saying that “the war is never done for ideas, but always for interests”…

But, it is not without recalling that number of people were saved and protected thanks to this right of interference

References

Random links: