PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW-GROUP 1

Bajuyo, Murillo, Ampang, Mabale, Navarro, Pantanosas, Sarra,

Valendez

THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE ASEAN

Can the UN and ASEAN intervene with the internal conflicts of

other States?
In the case of Syria, the US’ intervention was caused by the
apparent use of chemical weapons by President Assad outside the
Syrian capital Damascus. However, the said attack was denied by
the Syrian government forces. Subsequently, it was followed by a
second attacked in Khan Sheikhoun. The main issue is that can UN
Members intervene with the internal affairs of the other States? The
UN Charter does not explicitly spell out the principle of non-
intervention as a rule governing relations between the member
States. It is rather implied in the Article 2, par. 2, of the Statement of
Principles of the United Nations that “The Organization is based on
the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members” and Par 4
in the same article provides that “All Members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
However, if a humanitarian crisis creates consequences significantly
disruptive of international order, including proliferation of chemical
weapons, massive refuge outflows, and events destabilizing to
regional peace and security of the region, that would likely soon
create an imminent threat to the acting nations; and Security Council
resolutions were not available because of persistent veto; and the
group of nations that had persistently sought Security Council action
had exhausted all other remedies reasonable available under the
circumstances, they would not violate Article 2(4) of the Charter.
Furthermore, the authority of the Security Council was mandated
under Article 34 of the Charter which gives them the power to
investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to
international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine
whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to
endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.
Non-interference is a principle based on the notion of equality of sovereign states in international
systems, which were established by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. In the “Treaty of Amity and
Cooperation in Southeast Asia”, ASEAN committed itself to certain principles, including “mutual
respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all
nations; the right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion
or coercion and; non-interference in the internal affairs of one another.” The concept of state
sovereignty defines that no sovereign may exercise authority in the domain of another. That means
within the territory of a political entity, the state is the supreme power, and as such no state from
without the territory can intervene, militarily or otherwise, in the internal politics of that state.
ASEAN’s principle of non-interference has allowed the member-states to concentrate on nation-
building and regime stability while maintaining cooperative ties with other states. However, ASEAN’s
practice of non-interference has never been absolute as the group had tried to intervene in the domestic
affairs of member states in some several cases. Scholars and policy makers around the region recently
came to agree that ASEAN is interpreting the principle flexibly. With its new policy of allowing for
public criticism of other states’ affairs where regional security is at stake, together with a more
assertive stance on human rights, ASEAN has moved beyond its traditional non-interference approach.
Yet, the non-interference principle, as it is interpreted today, still acts as a comparatively strong
restraint on ASEAN’s behavior in regional affairs. The principle’s guiding function is seriously
undermined, but to date a new code of conduct as an appropriate replacement for the non-interference-
policy proves difficult to develop in light of the continuing domestic instability in many of the
member-states.