Non-interventionism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 01:54, 16 December 2024

Non-interventionism or non-intervention is commonly understood as "a foreign policy of political or military non-involvement in foreign relations or in other countries' internal affairs".^[1]^[2] This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state as well as the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".^[3]

Non-interventionism became a norm in international relations before World War I. During the Cold War, it was often violated in order to instigate revolutions, prevent revolutions, or protect international security. Many countries have since adopted their own interpretation of non-interventionism or modified it according to the responsibility to protect any population from egregious crimes.^[4]

Terminology

In political science lexicon, the term "isolationism" is sometimes improperly used in place of "non-interventionism".^[5] "Isolationism" should be interpreted as a broader foreign policy that, in addition to non-interventionism, is associated with trade and economic protectionism, cultural and religious isolation, as well as non-participation in any permanent military alliance.^[6]

History

The term "non-intervention" was used in the context of United States policy in 1915.^[2]^: 118 The norm of non-intervention has dominated the majority of international relations and can be seen to have been one of the principal motivations for the US' initial non-intervention in World Wars I and II, and the liberal powers' non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War despite the involvement of Germany and Italy.^[7]^[8] The norm was then firmly established into international law as one of the United Nations Charter's central tenets, which established non-intervention as one of the key principles which would underpin the emergent post-World War II peace.^[9]^[10]

However, this was soon affected by the advent of the Cold War, which increased the number and intensity of interventions in the domestic politics of a vast number of developing countries under pretexts such as instigating a "global socialist revolution" or ensuring "containment" of such a revolution. The adoption of such pretexts and the idea that such interventions were to prevent a threat to "international peace and security" allowed intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. There must be a vote of nine member states out of fifteen, within the Security Council along with no vetoes from the five permanent members."^[11] Additionally, the UN's power to regulate such interventions was hampered during the Cold War due to both the US and USSR holding veto power in the United Nations Security Council.

In different countries

China

Mutual non-interference has been one of China's principles on foreign policy since 1954. After the Chinese economic reform, China began to focus on industrial development and actively avoided military conflict over the subsequent decades.^[12] As of December 2018, China has used its veto eleven times in UN Security Council.^[13] China first used the veto on 25 August 1972 to block Bangladesh's admission to the UN. From 1971 to 2011, China used its veto sparingly, preferring to abstain rather than veto resolutions indirectly related to Chinese interests.^[14] According to David L. Bosco, China turned abstention into an "art form," abstaining on 30% of Security Council Resolutions between 1971 and 1976.^[15]^: 140

Sweden

Sweden became a non-interventionist state after the backlash against the king following Swedish losses in the Napoleonic Wars; the coup d'etat that followed in 1812 caused Jean Baptiste Bernadotte to establish a policy of non-intervention, which lasted from the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 until the accession of Sweden into NATO in 2022.

Switzerland

Switzerland has long been known for its policy of defensively armed neutrality. Its neutrality allows for the protection of the state by strategically avoiding conflict to preserve the autonomy of the state, and prevent the large powers surrounding it from invading its borders. This strategy has kept Switzerland from joining conflicts that threaten its sovereignty as well as allow its diverse citizenry to form a sense of national unity.^[16]

United States

After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, the United States changed its foreign policy to support the idea that "norms of sovereignty" are not respected when there are threats of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.^[17]

In December 2013 the Pew Research Center reported that their newest poll, "American's Place in the World 2013," had revealed that 52 percent of respondents in the national poll said that the United States "should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own."^[18] That was the most people to answer that question this way in the history of the question, which pollsters began asking in 1964.^[19] Only about a third of respondents felt that way a decade earlier.^[19]

Russia

On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine and began to mobilize machinery, shelling operations, and continuous airstrikes in cities like Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Lviv.^[20] Following the intervention, the United Nations Security Council attempted to invoke a resolution in order to address the Ukrainian issue. Since Russia is one of the five permanent members, they could utilize their veto power to prevent the resolution from passing. Many countries imposed sanctions in response to the veto as an attempt to deter Russia from its intervention.^[21]

Decline

Since the end of the Cold War, new emergent norms of humanitarian intervention are challenging the norm of non-intervention, based upon the argument that while sovereignty gives rights to states, there is also a responsibility to protect its citizens. The ideal, an argument based upon social contract theory, has states being justified in intervening within other states if the latter fail to protect (or are actively involved in harming) their citizens.^[22] The R2P doctrine follows a "second duty" that employs states to intervene if another state is unwilling or unable to protect its citizens from gross human rights violations.^[4] Moreover, the International Criminal Court closely monitors states who are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens and investigate if they have committed egregious crimes. Non-intervention is not absolute. Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars, which identifies three instances for when intervention is justifiable: "1) a particular community seeks secession or "natural liberation" within a set of boundaries; 2) counter-intervention is necessary to protect boundaries that already have been crossed; or 3) a terrible "violation of human rights," such as "cases of enslavement of massacre" has occurred.^[17] Nations use these guidelines to justify violating the non-intervention norm.

That idea has been used to justify the UN-sanctioned intervention Operation Provide Comfort in Northern Iraq in 1991 to protect the Kurds and in Somalia, UNOSOM I and UNOSOM II from 1992 to 1995 in the absence of state power. However, after the US "Black Hawk Down" event in 1993 in Mogadishu, the US refused to intervene in Rwanda or Haiti. However, despite strong opposition from Russia and China, the idea of the responsibility to protect was again used to justify NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999 and the 2011 military intervention in Libya.

The new norm of humanitarian intervention is not universally accepted and is often seen as still developing.^[22]

References

^ Smith, M. (2010). "The Myth of American Isolationism, Part I: American Leadership and the Cause of Liberty". The Heritage Foundation. Washington D.C.: 2.
^ ^a ^b Hodges, Henry G. (1915). The Doctrine of Intervention. Princeton, The Banner press. p. 1.
^ Carpenter, Ted Galen (1997). The Libertarian Reader. Free Press. pp. 336–344. ISBN 978-0-684-83200-5.
^ ^a ^b Henderson, Stacy (2019). "The Evolution of the Principle of Non-Intervention: R2P and Overt Assistance to Opposition Groups". Global Responsibility to Protect. 11 (4): 365–393. doi:10.1163/1875984X-01104002. ISSN 1875-9858 – via Hein Online.
^ Romanov, V. V.; Artyukhov, A. A. (2013). "The Notion of "Isolationism" in U.S. Foreign-Policy Thought: Conceptual Characteristics" (PDF). Vestnik Vâtskogo Gosudarstvennogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta (in Russian) (3–1). Kirov, Russia: 67. ISSN 1997-4280.
^ Artiukhov, A. A. (2022). "The Conceptual Characteristics of the Notion "Isolationism" at the Current Historical Stage". Meždunarodnyj Naučno-Issledovatel'skij Žurnal [International Research Journal] (in Russian). 8 (122). Yekaterinburg, Russia: 2. doi:10.23670/IRJ.2022.122.54. eISSN 2227-6017. ISSN 1997-4280.
^ Corum, James S. (April 1998). "The Spanish Civil War: Lessons learned and not learned by the great powers". Journal of Military History. 62 (2): 313–334. doi:10.2307/120719.
^ Rodrigo, Javier (2017). "On fascistization: Mussolini's political project for Franco's Spain, 1937–1939". Journal of Modern Italian Studies. 22 (4): 469–487. doi:10.1080/1354571X.2017.1350024.
^ "Non-Intervention (Non-interference in domestic affairs)". The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination. Retrieved 28 September 2023.
^ "Purposes and Principles of the UN (Chapter I of UN Charter) | United Nations Security Council". www.un.org. Retrieved 28 September 2023.
^ Roth, Brad (2022). "Democratization's Discontents: Rediscovering the Virtues of the Non-Intervention Norm". Chicago Journal of International Law. 23 (1): 161–177.
^ Brown, Kerry (17 September 2013). "Is China's non-interference policy sustainable?". BBC News. Retrieved 17 September 2013.
^ Security Council – Veto List. Retrieved 17 December 2018.
^ Pei, Minxin (7 February 2012). "Why Beijing Votes With Moscow". The New York Times.
^ Bosco, David L. (2009). Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making of the Modern World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-532876-9.
^ Morris, Kate, White, Timothy J. (2011). "Neutrality and the European Union: The case of Switzerland". Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution. 3 (7): 104–111. S2CID 154842039.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ ^a ^b Elden, Stuart (2006). "Contingent sovereignty, territorial integrity and the sanctity of borders". SAIS Review of International Affairs. 26 (1): 11–24. doi:10.1353/sais.2006.0008.
^ Healy, Gene (10 December 2013). "It's not isolationist for America to mind its own business". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
^ ^a ^b Lindsay, James M.; Kauss, Rachael (3 December 2013). "The Public's Mixed Message on America's Role in the World". Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
^ Suarez Ortiz, Santiago; Henríquez Torres, Isabella; Angulo Medina, Ricardo (3 February 2023). "The Russia-Ukraine conflict: analysis of the international responsibility of the States, the principles of non-intervention, and prohibited use of force under the International Court of Justice jurisprudence". Revista Ruptura: 89–116. doi:10.26807/rr.v4i4.111. eISSN 2737-6346. ISSN 1390-7182.
^ Grant, Thomas D. (May 2024). "Russia in the United Nations Security Council: Charter Principles and Credentials Procedure". Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 57 (3): 837–875. ISSN 0090-2594.
^ ^a ^b Evans, Gareth (2004). "When is it Right to Fight?". Survival. 46 (3): 59–82. doi:10.1080/00396330412331343733. S2CID 154653540.

Bibliography

Kupchan, Charles A. (2020) Isolationism: A History of America's Efforts to Shield Itself from the World (Oxford University Press, 2020).
Romanov V. V., Artyukhov A. A. (2013) The Notion of "Isolationism" in U.S. Foreign-Policy Thought: Conceptual Characteristics / V. V. Romanov, A. A. Artyukhov // Vestnik Vâtskogo Gosudarstvennogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta. – № 3-1. – pp. 67-71.

Wheeler, N.J. (2003) "The Humanitarian Responsibilities of Sovereignty: Explaining the Development of a New Norm of Military Intervention for Humanitarian Purposes in International Society" in Welsh, J.M. Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online, pp. 29–50.
Walzer, M.J. (2000) Just and Unjust Wars New York: Basic Books, pp. 86–108.

External links

Media related to Non-interventionism at Wikimedia Commons
John Laughland: Non-interventionism: The Forgotten Doctrine on YouTube

[1] Smith, M. (2010). "The Myth of American Isolationism, Part I: American Leadership and the Cause of Liberty". The Heritage Foundation. Washington D.C.: 2.

[Hodges01-2] Hodges, Henry G. (1915). The Doctrine of Intervention. Princeton, The Banner press. p. 1.

[???-3] Carpenter, Ted Galen (1997). The Libertarian Reader. Free Press. pp. 336–344. ISBN 978-0-684-83200-5.

[:2-4] Henderson, Stacy (2019). "The Evolution of the Principle of Non-Intervention: R2P and Overt Assistance to Opposition Groups". Global Responsibility to Protect. 11 (4): 365–393. doi:10.1163/1875984X-01104002. ISSN 1875-9858 – via Hein Online.

[5] Romanov, V. V.; Artyukhov, A. A. (2013). "The Notion of "Isolationism" in U.S. Foreign-Policy Thought: Conceptual Characteristics" (PDF). Vestnik Vâtskogo Gosudarstvennogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta (in Russian) (3–1). Kirov, Russia: 67. ISSN 1997-4280.

[6] Artiukhov, A. A. (2022). "The Conceptual Characteristics of the Notion "Isolationism" at the Current Historical Stage". Meždunarodnyj Naučno-Issledovatel'skij Žurnal [International Research Journal] (in Russian). 8 (122). Yekaterinburg, Russia: 2. doi:10.23670/IRJ.2022.122.54. eISSN 2227-6017. ISSN 1997-4280.

[7] Corum, James S. (April 1998). "The Spanish Civil War: Lessons learned and not learned by the great powers". Journal of Military History. 62 (2): 313–334. doi:10.2307/120719.

[8] Rodrigo, Javier (2017). "On fascistization: Mussolini's political project for Franco's Spain, 1937–1939". Journal of Modern Italian Studies. 22 (4): 469–487. doi:10.1080/1354571X.2017.1350024.

[9] "Non-Intervention (Non-interference in domestic affairs)". The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination. Retrieved 28 September 2023.

[10] "Purposes and Principles of the UN (Chapter I of UN Charter) | United Nations Security Council". www.un.org. Retrieved 28 September 2023.

[11] Roth, Brad (2022). "Democratization's Discontents: Rediscovering the Virtues of the Non-Intervention Norm". Chicago Journal of International Law. 23 (1): 161–177.

[China-non-interference-12] Brown, Kerry (17 September 2013). "Is China's non-interference policy sustainable?". BBC News. Retrieved 17 September 2013.

[UNSC_Research_Guide-2015-13] Security Council – Veto List. Retrieved 17 December 2018.

[14] Pei, Minxin (7 February 2012). "Why Beijing Votes With Moscow". The New York Times.

[bosco2009-15] Bosco, David L. (2009). Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making of the Modern World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-532876-9.

[16] Morris, Kate, White, Timothy J. (2011). "Neutrality and the European Union: The case of Switzerland". Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution. 3 (7): 104–111. S2CID 154842039.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[:1-17] Elden, Stuart (2006). "Contingent sovereignty, territorial integrity and the sanctity of borders". SAIS Review of International Affairs. 26 (1): 11–24. doi:10.1353/sais.2006.0008.

[HealyExamDec10-18] Healy, Gene (10 December 2013). "It's not isolationist for America to mind its own business". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 13 August 2014.

[PewCommentaryDec3-19] Lindsay, James M.; Kauss, Rachael (3 December 2013). "The Public's Mixed Message on America's Role in the World". Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Retrieved 13 August 2014.

[20] Suarez Ortiz, Santiago; Henríquez Torres, Isabella; Angulo Medina, Ricardo (3 February 2023). "The Russia-Ukraine conflict: analysis of the international responsibility of the States, the principles of non-intervention, and prohibited use of force under the International Court of Justice jurisprudence". Revista Ruptura: 89–116. doi:10.26807/rr.v4i4.111. eISSN 2737-6346. ISSN 1390-7182.

[21] Grant, Thomas D. (May 2024). "Russia in the United Nations Security Council: Charter Principles and Credentials Procedure". Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 57 (3): 837–875. ISSN 0090-2594.

[:0-22] Evans, Gareth (2004). "When is it Right to Fight?". Survival. 46 (3): 59–82. doi:10.1080/00396330412331343733. S2CID 154653540.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{Use dmy dates|date=July 2024}}
-'''Non-interventionism''' or '''non-intervention''' is commonly understood as “a foreign policy of political or military non-involvement in foreign relations or in other countries’ internal affairs”.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Smith |first=M. |title=The Myth of American Isolationism, Part I: American Leadership and the Cause of Liberty |url=https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/the-myth-isolationism-part-1-american-leadership-and-the-cause-liberty |journal=The Heritage Foundation |publication-place=Washington D.C. |publication-date=2010 |page=2}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/stream/doctrineinterve01hodggoog#page/n24/mode/2up|title=The Doctrine of Intervention|last=Hodges|first=Henry G.|publisher=Princeton, The Banner press|year=1915|pages=1}}</ref> In the political science lexicon, there is also the term of “[[isolationism]]”, which is sometimes improperly used to replace the concept of “non-interventionism”.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Romanov |first=V. V. |last2=Artyukhov |first2=A. A. |year=2013 |title=The Notion of "Isolationism" in U.S. Foreign-Policy Thought: Conceptual Characteristics |url=https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_21336929_87848794.pdf |journal=Vestnik Vâtskogo Gosudarstvennogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta |language=ru |publication-place=Kirov, Russia |volume= |issue=3-1 |page=67}}</ref> “Isolationism” should be interpreted more broadly as “a foreign policy [[grand strategy]] of military and political non-interference in international affairs and in the internal affairs of sovereign states, associated with trade and economic [[protectionism]] and cultural and religious isolation, as well as with the inability to be in permanent  [[Military alliance|military alliances]], with the preservation, however, some opportunities to participate in temporary military alliances that meet the current interests of the state and in permanent [[International organization|international organizations]] of a non-military nature”.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Artiukhov |first=A. A. |title=The Conceptual Characteristics of the Notion “Isolationism” at the Current Historical Stage |url=https://research-journal.org/archive/8-122-2022-august/10.23670/IRJ.2022.122.54 |journal=Meždunarodnyj Naučno-Issledovatel'skij Žurnal [International Research Journal] |language=ru |publication-place=Yekaterinburg, Russia |publication-date=2022 |volume= |issue=8 (122) |page=2 |doi=10.23670/IRJ.2022.122.54}}</ref>
+'''Non-interventionism''' or '''non-intervention''' is commonly understood as "a foreign policy of political or military non-involvement in foreign relations or in other countries' internal affairs".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Smith |first=M. |title=The Myth of American Isolationism, Part I: American Leadership and the Cause of Liberty |url=https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/the-myth-isolationism-part-1-american-leadership-and-the-cause-liberty |journal=The Heritage Foundation |publication-place=Washington D.C. |publication-date=2010 |page=2}}</ref><ref name=Hodges01>{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/stream/doctrineinterve01hodggoog#page/n24/mode/2up|title=The Doctrine of Intervention|last=Hodges|first=Henry G.|publisher=Princeton, The Banner press|year=1915|pages=1}}</ref> This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state as well as the principles of [[state sovereignty]] and [[self-determination]]. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".<ref name="???">{{cite book | title=The Libertarian Reader| author=Carpenter, Ted Galen| year= 1997| isbn=978-0-684-83200-5 | pages=336–344| publisher=Free Press}}</ref>
+Non-interventionism became a norm in international relations before [[World War I]]. During the [[Cold War]], it was often violated in order to instigate revolutions, prevent revolutions, or protect international security. Many countries have since adopted their own interpretation of non-interventionism or modified it according to the [[responsibility to protect]] any population from [[Atrocity crime|egregious crimes]].<ref name=":2" />
-This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state as well as the principles of [[state sovereignty]] and [[self-determination]]. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".<ref name="???">{{cite book | title=The Libertarian Reader| author=Carpenter, Ted Galen| year= 1997| isbn=978-0-684-83200-5 | pages=336–344| publisher=Free Press}}</ref>
+==Terminology==
+In political science lexicon, the term "[[isolationism]]" is sometimes improperly used in place of "non-interventionism".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Romanov |first1=V. V. |last2=Artyukhov |first2=A. A. |year=2013 |title=The Notion of "Isolationism" in U.S. Foreign-Policy Thought: Conceptual Characteristics |url=https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_21336929_87848794.pdf |journal=Vestnik Vâtskogo Gosudarstvennogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta |language=ru |publication-place=Kirov, Russia |volume= |issue=3–1 |page=67 |issn=1997-4280}}</ref> "Isolationism" should be interpreted as a broader foreign policy that, in addition to non-interventionism, is associated with trade and economic [[protectionism]], cultural and religious isolation, as well as non-participation in any permanent [[military alliance]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Artiukhov |first=A. A. |title=The Conceptual Characteristics of the Notion "Isolationism" at the Current Historical Stage |url=https://research-journal.org/archive/8-122-2022-august/10.23670/IRJ.2022.122.54 |journal=Meždunarodnyj Naučno-Issledovatel'skij Žurnal [International Research Journal] |language=ru |publication-place=Yekaterinburg, Russia |publication-date=2022 |volume= 8|issue=122 |page=2 |doi=10.23670/IRJ.2022.122.54 |issn=1997-4280 |eissn=2227-6017}}</ref>
 ==History==
+The term "non-intervention" was used in the context of United States policy in 1915.<ref name=Hodges01/>{{rp|118}} The [[Norm (sociology)|norm]] of non-intervention has dominated the majority of international relations and can be seen to have been one of the principal motivations for the US' initial non-intervention in [[World War I|World Wars I]] and [[World War II|II]], and the liberal powers' [[non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War]] despite the involvement of [[German involvement in the Spanish Civil War|Germany]] and [[Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War#Italy|Italy]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Corum |first=James S. |date=April 1998 |title=The Spanish Civil War: Lessons learned and not learned by the great powers |journal=Journal of Military History |volume=62 |issue=2 |pages=313–334 |doi=10.2307/120719}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rodrigo |first=Javier |date=2017 |title=On fascistization: Mussolini's political project for Franco's Spain, 1937–1939 |journal=Journal of Modern Italian Studies |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=469–487 |doi=10.1080/1354571X.2017.1350024}}</ref> The norm was then firmly established into [[international law]] as one of the United Nations Charter's central tenets, which established non-intervention as one of the key principles which would underpin the emergent post-World War II peace.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Non-Intervention (Non-interference in domestic affairs) |url=https://pesd.princeton.edu/node/551 |access-date=2023-09-28 |website=The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Purposes and Principles of the UN (Chapter I of UN Charter) {{!}} United Nations Security Council |url=https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/purposes-and-principles-un-chapter-i-un-charter |access-date=2023-09-28 |website=www.un.org}}</ref>
+However, this was soon affected by the advent of the [[Cold War]], which increased the number and intensity of interventions in the domestic politics of a vast number of [[Developing country|developing countries]] under pretexts such as instigating a "[[Revolutionary socialism|global socialist revolution]]" or ensuring "[[containment]]" of such a revolution. The adoption of such pretexts and the idea that such interventions were to prevent a threat to "international peace and [[International security|security]]" allowed intervention under [[Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter|Chapter VII of the UN Charter]]. There must be a vote of nine member states out of fifteen, within the Security Council along with no vetoes from the five permanent members."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Roth |first=Brad |date=2022 |title=Democratization's Discontents: Rediscovering the Virtues of the Non-Intervention Norm |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/cjil23&i=165 |journal=Chicago Journal of International Law |volume=23 |issue=1 |pages=161–177}}</ref> Additionally, the UN's power to regulate such interventions was hampered during the Cold War due to both the US and [[USSR]] holding veto power in the [[United Nations Security Council]].
-The [[Norm (sociology)|norm]] of non-intervention has dominated the majority of international relations and can be seen to have been one of the principal motivations for the US' initial non-intervention into [[World War I|World Wars I]] and [[World War II|II]], and the [[Non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War|non-intervention of the liberal powers in the Spanish Civil War]], despite the intervention of [[German involvement in the Spanish Civil War|Germany]] and [[Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War#Italy|Italy]].{{Citation needed|date=September 2023}} The norm was then firmly established into [[international law]] as one of the [[United Nations Charter]]'s central tenets, which established non-intervention as one of the key principles which would underpin the emergent post-World War II peace.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Non-Intervention (Non-interference in domestic affairs) |url=https://pesd.princeton.edu/node/551 |access-date=2023-09-28 |website=The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Purposes and Principles of the UN (Chapter I of UN Charter) {{!}} United Nations Security Council |url=https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/purposes-and-principles-un-chapter-i-un-charter |access-date=2023-09-28 |website=www.un.org}}</ref>
-However, this was soon affected by the advent of the [[Cold War]], which increased the number and intensity of interventions in the domestic politics of a vast number of [[Developing country|developing countries]] under pretexts such as instigating a "[[Revolutionary socialism|global socialist revolution]]" or ensuring "[[containment]]" of such a revolution. The adoption of such pretexts and the idea that such interventions were to prevent a threat to "international peace and [[International security|security]]" allowed intervention under [[Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter|Chapter VII of the UN Charter]]. Additionally, the UN's power to regulate such interventions was hampered during the Cold War due to both the US and [[USSR]] holding veto power in the [[United Nations Security Council]].
 ==In different countries==
@@ Line 17: / Line 19: @@
 {{Main|Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence}}
 Mutual non-interference has been one of China's principles on foreign policy since 1954. After the [[Chinese economic reform]], China began to focus on industrial development and actively avoided military conflict over the subsequent decades.<ref name=China-non-interference>{{cite news|last1=Brown|first1=Kerry|title=Is China's non-interference policy sustainable?|work=BBC News|date=17 September 2013|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-24100629|access-date=17 September 2013}}</ref> As of December 2018, China has used its [[United Nations Security Council veto power|veto]] eleven times in [[United Nations Security Council|UN Security Council]].<ref name="UNSC Research Guide-2015">[http://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick/veto Security Council – Veto List]. Retrieved 17 December 2018.</ref> China first used the veto on 25 August 1972 to block [[Bangladesh]]'s admission to the UN. From 1971 to 2011, China used its veto sparingly, preferring to abstain rather than veto resolutions indirectly related to Chinese interests.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Pei |first1=Minxin |title=Why Beijing Votes With Moscow |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/why-beijing-votes-with-moscow.html |work=The New York Times |date=7 February 2012}}</ref> According to [[David Bosco|David L. Bosco]], China turned abstention into an "art form," abstaining on 30% of Security Council Resolutions between 1971 and 1976.<ref name="bosco2009">{{cite book |last1=Bosco |first1=David L. |title=Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making of the Modern World |date=2009 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-532876-9 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/fivetorulethemal00bosc }}</ref>{{rp|140}}
 ===Sweden===
 {{Main|Swedish neutrality}}
-Sweden became a non-interventionist state after the backlash against the king following Swedish losses in the [[Napoleonic Wars]]; the ''[[Coup d'état|coup d'etat]]'' that followed in 1812 caused [[Jean Baptiste Bernadotte]] to establish a policy of non-intervention, which lasted from the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 until the accession of Sweden into NATO in 2022.
+Sweden became a non-interventionist state after the backlash against the king following Swedish losses in the [[Napoleonic Wars]]; the ''[[Coup d'état|coup d'etat]]'' that followed in 1812 caused [[Charles XIV John|Jean Baptiste Bernadotte]] to establish a policy of non-intervention, which lasted from the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 until the accession of Sweden into [[NATO]] in 2022.
 ===Switzerland===
 {{Main|Swiss neutrality}}
+Switzerland has long been known for its policy of defensively [[armed neutrality]]. Its neutrality allows for the protection of the state by strategically avoiding conflict to preserve the autonomy of the state, and prevent the large powers surrounding it from invading its borders. This strategy has kept Switzerland from joining conflicts that threaten its sovereignty as well as allow its diverse citizenry to form a sense of national unity.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Morris, Kate |first=White, Timothy J. |date=2011 |title=Neutrality and the European Union: The case of Switzerland |journal=Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution |volume=3 |issue=7 |pages=104–111|s2cid=154842039 }}</ref>
-Switzerland has long been known for its policy of defensively [[armed neutrality]].
 ===United States===
@@ Line 33: / Line 35: @@
 {{Main|United States non-interventionism}}
+After the terrorist attacks on [[September 11 attacks|September 11th, 2001]], the United States changed its foreign policy to support the idea that "norms of sovereignty" are not respected when there are threats of [[terrorism]] or weapons of mass destruction.<ref name=":1" />
-In December 2013 the [[Pew Research Center]] reported that their newest poll, "American's Place in the World 2013," had revealed that 52 percent of respondents in the national poll said that the United States "should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own."<ref name=HealyExamDec10>{{cite news|last1=Healy|first1=Gene|title=It's not isolationist for America to mind its own business|url=http://washingtonexaminer.com/its-not-isolationist-for-america-to-mind-its-own-business/article/2540441|access-date=13 August 2014|publisher=Washington Examiner|date=10 December 2013}}</ref> That was the most people to answer that question this way in the history of the question, which pollsters began asking in 1964.<ref name=PewCommentaryDec3>{{cite web|last1=Lindsay|first1=James M.|last2=Kauss|first2=Rachael|title=The Public's Mixed Message on America's Role in the World|date=3 December 2013|url=http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/03/commentary-by-james-m-lindsay-and-rachael-kauss-of-the-council-on-foreign-relations/|publisher=Pew Research Center for the People & the Press|access-date=13 August 2014}}</ref> Only about a third of respondents felt that way a decade earlier.<ref name="PewCommentaryDec3"/>
+In December 2013 the [[Pew Research Center]] reported that their newest poll, "American's Place in the World 2013," had revealed that 52 percent of respondents in the national poll said that the United States "should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own."<ref name="HealyExamDec10">{{cite news|last1=Healy|first1=Gene|title=It's not isolationist for America to mind its own business|url=http://washingtonexaminer.com/its-not-isolationist-for-america-to-mind-its-own-business/article/2540441|access-date=13 August 2014|publisher=Washington Examiner|date=10 December 2013}}</ref> That was the most people to answer that question this way in the history of the question, which pollsters began asking in 1964.<ref name="PewCommentaryDec3">{{cite web|last1=Lindsay|first1=James M.|last2=Kauss|first2=Rachael|title=The Public's Mixed Message on America's Role in the World|date=3 December 2013|url=http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/03/commentary-by-james-m-lindsay-and-rachael-kauss-of-the-council-on-foreign-relations/|publisher=Pew Research Center for the People & the Press|access-date=13 August 2014}}</ref> Only about a third of respondents felt that way a decade earlier.<ref name="PewCommentaryDec3" />
+=== Russia ===
+On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded [[Ukraine]] and began to mobilize machinery, shelling operations, and continuous airstrikes in cities like Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Lviv.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Suarez Ortiz |first=Santiago |last2=Henríquez Torres |first2=Isabella |last3=Angulo Medina |first3=Ricardo |date=February 3, 2023 |title=The Russia-Ukraine conflict: analysis of the international responsibility of the States, the principles of non-intervention, and prohibited use of force under the International Court of Justice jurisprudence |url=https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_________::5d6f6e2f01f38eae429f33653960ad7e |journal=Revista Ruptura |pages=89–116 |doi=10.26807/rr.v4i4.111 |issn=1390-7182 |eissn=2737-6346|doi-access=free }}</ref> Following the intervention, the United Nations Security Council attempted to invoke a resolution in order to address the Ukrainian issue. Since Russia is one of the five permanent members, they could utilize their veto power to prevent the resolution from passing. Many countries imposed [[Sanctions (law)|sanctions]] in response to the veto as an attempt to deter Russia from its intervention.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Grant |first=Thomas D. |date=May 2024 |title=Russia in the United Nations Security Council: Charter Principles and Credentials Procedure |journal=Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law |volume=57 |issue=3 |pages=837–875 |issn=0090-2594}}</ref>
 ==Decline==
-Since the end of the Cold War, new emergent norms of humanitarian intervention are challenging the norm of non-intervention, based upon the argument that while sovereignty gives rights to states, there is also a [[responsibility to protect]] its citizens. The ideal, an argument based upon [[social contract]] theory, has states being justified in intervening within other states if the latter fail to protect (or are actively involved in harming) their citizens.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Evans|first=Gareth|author-link=Gareth Evans (politician)|year=2004|title=When is it Right to Fight?|journal=Survival|volume=46|issue=3|pages=59–82|doi=10.1080/00396330412331343733|s2cid=154653540}}</ref>
+Since the end of the Cold War, new emergent norms of humanitarian intervention are challenging the norm of non-intervention, based upon the argument that while sovereignty gives rights to states, there is also a [[responsibility to protect]] its citizens. The ideal, an argument based upon [[social contract]] theory, has states being justified in intervening within other states if the latter fail to protect (or are actively involved in harming) their citizens.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Evans|first=Gareth|author-link=Gareth Evans (politician)|year=2004|title=When is it Right to Fight?|journal=Survival|volume=46|issue=3|pages=59–82|doi=10.1080/00396330412331343733|s2cid=154653540}}</ref> The R2P doctrine follows a "second duty" that employs states to intervene if another state is unwilling or unable to protect its citizens from gross human rights violations.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Henderson |first=Stacy |date=2019 |title=The Evolution of the Principle of Non-Intervention: R2P and Overt Assistance to Opposition Groups |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/gloresp11&div=24 |journal=Global Responsibility to Protect |volume=11 |issue=4 |pages=365–393 |doi=10.1163/1875984X-01104002 |issn=1875-9858 |via=Hein Online}}</ref> Moreover, the [[International Criminal Court]] closely monitors states who are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens and investigate if they have committed egregious crimes. Non-intervention is not absolute. [[Michael Walzer]]'s ''[[Just and Unjust Wars]]'', which identifies three instances for when intervention is justifiable: "1) a particular community seeks secession or "natural liberation" within a set of boundaries; 2) counter-intervention is necessary to protect boundaries that already have been crossed; or 3) a terrible "violation of human rights," such as "cases of enslavement of massacre" has occurred.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Elden |first=Stuart |date=2006 |title=Contingent sovereignty, territorial integrity and the sanctity of borders |journal=SAIS Review of International Affairs |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=11–24 |doi=10.1353/sais.2006.0008}}</ref> Nations use these guidelines to justify violating the non-intervention norm.
 That idea has been used to justify the UN-sanctioned intervention [[Operation Provide Comfort]] in Northern Iraq in 1991 to protect the [[Kurds]] and in [[Somalia]], [[UNOSOM I]] and [[UNOSOM II]] from 1992 to 1995 in the absence of state power. However, after the [[Battle of Mogadishu (1993)|US "Black Hawk Down" event in 1993]] in [[Mogadishu]], the US refused to intervene in [[Rwanda]] or [[Haiti]]. However, despite strong opposition from Russia and China, the idea of the responsibility to protect was again used to justify [[NATO#Kosovo intervention|NATO intervention]] in Kosovo in 1999 and the [[2011 military intervention in Libya]].
 The new norm of humanitarian intervention is not universally accepted and is often seen as still developing.<ref name=":0" />
@@ Line 61: / Line 68: @@
 ===Bibliography===
 * Kupchan, Charles A. (2020) ''Isolationism: A History of America's Efforts to Shield Itself from the World'' (Oxford University Press, 2020).
-* Romanov V. V., Artyukhov A. A. (2013) The Notion of "Isolationism" in U.S. Foreign-Policy Thought: Conceptual Characteristics / V. V. Romanov, A. A. Artyukhov // Vestnik Vâtskogo Gosudarstvennogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta. – № 3-1. – pp. 67-71.
+* Romanov V. V., Artyukhov A. A. (2013) [https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_21336929_23442819.pdf The Notion of "Isolationism" in U.S. Foreign-Policy Thought: Conceptual Characteristics] / V. V. Romanov, A. A. Artyukhov // Vestnik Vâtskogo Gosudarstvennogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta. – № 3-1. – pp. 67-71.
 * Wheeler, N.J. (2003) "The Humanitarian Responsibilities of Sovereignty: Explaining the Development of a New Norm of Military Intervention for Humanitarian Purposes in International Society" in Welsh, J.M. ''Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations'' Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online, pp.&nbsp;29–50.

v t e Anti-war and peace movement
Peace advocates	Anti-nuclear organizations Anti-war movement Anti-war organizations Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Coalition of Women for Peace Code Pink Conscientious objectors Counterculture Culture of Peace ECOPEACE Party Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp Iraq War resisters in Canada List of pacifist organisations List of peace activists New Socialist Party of Japan Pacifist Socialist Party Peace and conflict studies Peace camp Peace churches Peace commission Peace conference Peace congress Peace education Peace movement Peace psychology Peace treaty Peaceworker React, Include, Recycle Social Democratic Party (Japan) Unity The Women's Peace Crusade War resisters Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Ideologies	Ahimsa Anarchism Anarcho-pacifism Anarcho-punks Christian anarchism Anti-imperialism Anti-nuclear movement Antimilitarism Appeasement Christian pacifism Deterrence theory Direct action Finvenkismo Green politics Hippie Isolationism Modern-war pacifism Non-interventionism Nonkilling Nonviolence Pacificism Pacifism Peace Satyagraha Soviet influence on the peace movement Testimony of peace World peace
Media and cultural	Art Books Concert Yutel for Peace Dances of Universal Peace Festival for Peace Films Imagine Piano Peace Project International Day of Non-Violence International Day of Peace Dialogue Among Civilizations List of peace prizes List of places named Peace Monuments and memorials Mother's Day Proclamation Nobel Peace Prize Concert Museums Peace & Love (festival) Peace journalism Peace News Promoting Enduring Peace Peace One Day Plays Promoting Enduring Peace Show of Peace Concert Songs Symbols The Non-Violence Project University for Peace World Peace Bell Association Japanese Peace Bell Women in Black World March for Peace and Nonviolence
Slogans and tactics	Bed-in Central Park be-ins Civil disobedience Conflict resolution Counter-recruitment De-escalation Demilitarisation Department of Peace Desertion Draft evasion Die-in Economic sanctions Flower power Global Day of Action on Military Spending Human Be-In Lesson of Munich "Make love, not war" Non-aggression principle Nonviolent resistance Non Violent Resistance (psychological intervention) Peace walk Peacebuilding Refusal to serve in the Israel Defense Forces "Soldiers are murderers" Swords to ploughshares Teach-in "The whole world is watching" Third Party Non-violent Intervention "Turn the other cheek" "Violence begets violence" War tax resisters
Opposition to specific wars or their aspects	War of 1812 (UK; US) American Civil War Second Boer War World War I World War II Vietnam War list of protests War on Terror Iraq War Criticism Protests Afghanistan War Military action in Iran Sri Lankan Civil War 2011 intervention in Libya Anti-war protests in Russia (2014) 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in Russia in Russian Far East Landmines Military taxation Nuclear disarmament International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons Nuclear weapons convention
Countries	Canada Costa Rica Germany Israel Japan Netherlands Spain Sudan Switzerland United Kingdom United States Peacebuilding in Jammu and Kashmir
Category