November

15, 2017 Secession and Statehood

A. RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND UNILATERAL SECESSION Opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in re: Secession of Quebec [1998]:
Take note that Unilateral Declaration of Independence is different from Unilateral Question:
Secession. “is there a right to self-determination that would give the National Assembly,
• Unilateral Declaration – considered as a pretext to unilateral secession; it is a Legislature, or Government of Quebec the right to effect Quebec’s unilateral secession
declaration made by a group of people withdrawing their allegiance to the from Canada?”
State. • Secession is not authorized by the Constitution of Canada;
• Unilateral Secession – is both a process and an outcome. It involves complex • International law does not specifically authorize nor prohibit unilateral
methods secession;
The question whether a declaration or secession is legal involves the use of standards, • But, states have the implied duty (erga omnes) to recognize peoples’ “right to
norms, and the determination of whether these were violated in the course of self-determination;
declaration or secession. Legitimacy, on the other hand, depends largely on recognition. • Right to self-determination must be exercised within the framework of
Principle of Co-optation: recognition is not legally a requisite to statehood, factually and sovereign states and consistent with territorial integrity of those states
for all intents and purposes, it is essential. (“right to internal self-determination” vs “right to external self-determination”
– unilateral secession).
Unilateral Secession in Contemporary International Law o TN: unilateral secession almost always involves the use or threat of
Key Terms: use of force
• Non-self Governing Territories (colonial) vs Self-governing Territories (non- o Remedial Right Theory of Allen Buchanan (sp?)
colonial)
• Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination (Internal vs External) When “right to external self-determination” may be exercised
• Unilateral Declaration of Independence vs Revolution vs Irredentism vs
Annexation SC of Canada:
Issue: can the right to self-determination be the springboard to secession by a self- “the international law right to self-determination only generates, at best, a right to
governing territory? TN: the origin of the notion of secession as an exercise of the right to external self-determination in situations of former colonies; where a people is
self-determination is found in colonization oppressed, as for example under foreign military occupation; or where a definable
group is denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political,
People’s Right to Self-Determination economic, social, and cultural development” (meaning, where the people have been
denied the right to internal self-determination)
• A customary international law; a jus cogens and erga omnes norm;

o erga omnes:
November 22, 2017
o erga omnes inter partes: duty to the international community
ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo (2010)
• Set out in Art. 1(2) and Art. 55 of the UN Charter, and defined in Art. 2 of
Factual Background: Kosovo became largely muslim because it was under the Ottoman Empire for
G.A. Resolution entitled Declaration on the Granting of Independence several years. When the Ottoman Empire was defeated by Serbia and Montenegro, Kosovo was
(1960) [“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right given; however, Serbia is Orthodox. Systematic ethnic cleansing took place due to Miservich’s
they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, distaste towards these people and due to their religion. The ultimate goal was for Serbia to
social and cultural development”] in common Art. 1 of ICCPR and ICESCR, and penetrate the people of Kosovo, to which the latter responded by establishing the Kosovo Liberation
in 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations UN G.A. 2625. Army, which was supported by the US and NATO.
• Article 1(4) of Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Conventions make the laws of Main Question:
international armed conflict applicable to “armed conflicts in which peoples are “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-
fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?”
regimes in the exercise of the right of self-determination.” • Even during the 18th to early 20th centuries, state practices on secession had
• Any group within a territory claiming to be fighting against colonial not resulted in international law prohibiting “declarations of
domination, alien occupation or a racist regime (national liberation independence” as illegal.
movement) is now protected by the laws of war, and that its members are • Decolonization during the second half of the 20th century developed the
entitled to prisoners-of-war (POWs) status. concept of “right to self-determination” that justified declaration of
independence of peoples in non-self governing territories.
• The right to territorial integrity of States, a customary international law, is
relevant.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
M. ESCAÑO
 • The ICJ declares that “general international law contains no applicable
prohibition of declarations of independence”.

Secession Unilateral Secession
• The concept of “secession” has not been defined by any treaty or UN GA • Occurs without the existing state’s consent and may also involve the use or
Resolution; threat of force.
• The international community has viewed secession negatively; • It usually occurs in the absence of relevant constitutional provisions and
political negotiation. (Crawford)
• Only scholars have attempted to define the term;
• When unilateral secession occurs, the existing state’s claim to sovereignty over
• Very few works, however, have offered justifications for secession.
the seceding territory conflicts with that of the (putative) secessionist state.
Etymological and Conceptual Bases
This impasse attracts the supervening jurisdiction of international law, which
• From latin terms “Se” (“apart”) and “cedere” (“to go”)
then purports to employ legal principles to resolve the dispute. (Anderson)


The Concept of Secession
Secession as a Process and an Outcome and the Theories of Statehood
• “The withdrawal of territory (colonial or non-colonial) from part of an
• There is a problem in determining when exactly the process of secession
existing state to create a new state.” (Anderson)
concludes and the outcome begins.
• “The creation of a State by the use or threat of force without the consent of the
• This calls for the re-examination of the theories on statehood:
former sovereign.” (Crawford)
Declaratory, Constitutive, and Constitutive-Collective Theories.
• Secession must be distinguished from “unilateral declaration of independence”,
• The difference between the three recognition theories is important in the
“revolution”, “irredentism”, and “annexation”; limited to withdrawal of
context of secession, because depending on which one is accepted, the process
territory and sovereignty from part of a state to create a new state.
of secession ends and the outcome begins at different points. (Anderson)
• Secession may be “constitutional/consensual” or “unilateral”.


Secession as a “Process” and an “Outcome Secession and Theories of Statehood
• Secession is not at an instant fact. (Kohen) • For proponents of the Declaratory Theory, the critical point of statehood
• It is a “process” that may or may not result in the creation of a new state. prima facie occurs when a putative state satisfies the criteria for statehood
• Is there a relation between the “process” of secession and the “outcome”? based on effectiveness.
Are the process and outcome of secession treated separately by • For proponents of the Constitutive Theory, the point definitively occurs when
international law? a putative state satisfies the criteria for statehood based on effectiveness and
• Consensual vs. Unilateral Secession attains the recognition of other states.
o Co-optation: State recognition as an additional element (capacity of
December 6, 2017 one state to enter into relations with other states)
Two Kinds of Consensual Secession • For proponents of the Constitutive-Collective Theory, this point definitively
1. Constitutional: occurs with the existing state’s consent, and does not involve occurs when a putative state satisfies the criteria for statehood based on
the use or threat of force. (Kriptul) effectiveness and attains admission to the UN.
a. Negotiated – Constitution does not provide for secession as it would
prejudice the territorial integrity of the State. The Effectiveness Criterion
b. Explicit – the procedure and requirements for secession are provided • Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of State
for in the Constitution, e.g. number of votes required enumerates the traditional elements of statehood: permanent population,
DBL: however, some scholars would say that rather than being real definite territory, organized government and capacity to enter into relations with
constitutional secession, this form is merely illusory as some laws would other states.
require a more stringent process, rendering it virtually impossible. • An additional fifth criterion – independence – has also been widely held as
2. Politically negotiated – occurs with the existing state’s consent and does not essential to the satisfaction of the criteria for statehood based on
necessarily involve the use or threat of force. It requires that the existing state effectiveness, and is thus common to proponents of the declaratory,
and the secessionist entity be willing to politically negotiate the resolution of a constitutive and constitutive-collective recognition theories. (Crawford)
secessionist situation. (Cohen)
- presupposes an existing tension between the central government and
secessionist movements
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
M. ESCAÑO
Secession and the Effectiveness Criterion • Two elements: (1) that there must be an ‘intervention’ by one state in the
• In relation to the effective government criterion, it has been indicated that a affairs of another and (2) the intervention must bear on ‘matters in which each
state created by secession pursuant to the law of self determination will State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely’.
not, by virtue of the compensatory force principle”, be required to strictly o Human rights regimes are usually self-contained regimes. Hence,
satisfy the effective government criterion. (See RAI[#x010C], Browlie, violations of human rights do not engage state responsibility due to
Shaw). the absence of injured State.
o If these newly emerging states, as a result of secession, will have to be Military intervention
assessed based on whether it has complied with the effectiveness • Interference in the activities of another state through military or armed force.
criteria, the standards should be lower by reason of their emergence Humanitarian Intervention
through the exercise of the right to self-determination • “the threat or use of force by a state, group of states, or international
o If not through the exercise of the right to self-determination: the organization primarily for the purpose of protecting the nationals of the
threshold for effectiveness should be higher target state from widespread deprivations of internationally recognized
• In the case of unilateral secession, however, the situation is more nuanced. (See human rights.” (Sean Murphy [1996])
Dugard) • Also termed “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P)
Unilateral Humanitarian Intevernation
December 13, 2017 • “military intervention undertaken by a state or group of states outside the
Primary Right Theories on Secession framework of the UN in order to secure human rights in another country”
• Do not require “injustice” as pre-condition for the exercise of the right to
The concept of of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention dates back to even before the UN Charter of 1935
secede;
was created. However, during those times, Unilateral Military Intervention had been used to secure the
• Two types: rights, security and safety of the intervening State’s nationals abroad. These forms of intervention had been
o Ascriptivist (predominantly nationalist): we just look at whether a justified through the invocation of self-defense. Although this is not to say that such exercise was legitimate,
particular group of people can really be distinguished form the rest of but that is how it was justified in the past. Now, applying the Ca ro line t est of self-defense, anticipatory
the state; if it can, it should be given the right to separate on that basis self-defense has not reached the level of customary international law even at present. To this day, it is still
alone highly controversial.
o Plebiscitary (majoritarian): requires a decision by the people
attempting to secede (eg. Constitutional court of Spain declared the Arguments on the propriety of self-defense: FIRST ARGUMENT. No, it is not legitimate. Apply the Ca ro line
referendum as unconstitutional but the people of Catalonia proceeded test. This is also called the “Webster formula”. When is self-defense considered justifiable in relation to an
because under the plebiscitary theory, a decision needs to be made to armed attack? Self-defense under Article 51 is permissible in the event that a member of the UN is subjected
justify secession.) to armed attack. The nature of an armed attack, following the threshold as set in the Nicaragua case, has to
be that kind of attack that is of a high level use of force. The Webster formulation on the conduct of an
The “Remedial Right Theory” as an emerging norm armed attack must also be complied with; that is, the attack or the aggression must be swift, overwhelming,
• Forwarded by Prof. Allen Buchanan (Professor of Philosophy of Law at the and leaves no choice of either the use of the weapons and the modality of the defense. Applying the
University of Wisconsin-Madison USA). threshold in the Caroline case, pre-emptive self-defense cannot be accepted as legitimate in international
• The ICJ in Kosovo Advisory Opinion (2010) and the SC of Canada (1998) law. A new norm, however, may be created as the Caroline incident took place in 1937. Most developed
acknowledged the development of this theory in relation to the so-called states would advance the theory of doing away with such test. NOTE that nuclear attacks are now mounted
“Wavier Theory” (John Locke). by the mere push of a button, hence rendering the determination of “swift attack” nugatory.
• This theory posits that the right of secession can validly be invoked (1) to SECOND ARGUMENT. Yes, it is legitimate. By the doctrine of self-preservation, a state may be permitted ti
rectify past injustices, (2) to preserve the culture of the seceding group, perform pre-emptive self defense only in highly exceptional cases. The Lotus Principle says, “in the absence
(3) to combat “discriminatory redistribution”, and (4) for self-defense of a clear conventional or customary international law, restrictions to a State’s sovereignty should never be
when the state perpetuates serious injustices upon a group. presumed”.

B. UNILATERAL HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AND THE USE OF FORCE
Intervention Codification of Principles of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention
• the “forcible or dictatorial interference by a State in the affairs of another • Should unilateral humanitarian intervention remain de facto or de jure? Should
State calculated to impose certain conduct or consequences on that other international law simply permit the practice or should it codify a regime of
States” (Oppenheim); unilateral humanitarian intervention?

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

M. ESCAÑO
 • There has been a discussion on the suggestion for the codification of the • Where non-forceful means are inadequate, the Security Council may, under
principles on unilateral humanitarian intervention. It has been discussed that Article 42, “take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary” to
NATO admitted to conducting unilateral humanitarian intervention in Kosovo. achieve that goal, including demonstrations, blockade and other operations by
Later on, the officials of NATO argued that the situation in Kosovo called for a the forces of U.N. members.
highly exceptional response by the international community, whether
international or regional (what happened? Ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Authorized Action By States
Albanians). • Although the Security Council may not generally order a state to take military
• Some scholars have advanced the argument that perhaps it is right to put a stop action under Article 39 or 42, it may authorize a state to do so pursuant to
to the illegitimacy of the practice and establish guidelines to be invoked by those Articles.
States. Several reasons were given, one of which is Predictability. • If the Security Council authorizes such action, the target state cannot lawfully
o The law must predict the outcome or consequence of a particular retaliate in self-defense or claim reparations. Authorization of humanitarian
behavior. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “law is noting but a action is subject to the same set of requirements that govern U.N. action.
system of prediction”; hence, predictability is one thing that makes a Authorized Actions by Regional Organizations
law legitimate. If it is agreed upon, then, that unilateral humanitarian • Art. 53 (Charter) specifically allows for “regional arrangements or agencies” to
intervention is acceptable, it should be legitimized. take enforcement action, including military action, with the authorization of the
• Another significant factor is Deterrence. Misbehaving states would understand SC.
that the violation of the human rights of their own citizens would merit • Art. 52, paragraph 2, contemplates regional arrangements in the form of
unilateral intervention, assuming the guidelines would be formulated in the intergovernmental organizations, composed of U.N. member states.
event that the Security Council cannot act on the problem. With that in mind, • Such organizations may deal with “matters relating to the maintenance of
States would be prevented, in the psychological aspect, from further violating international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action,”
the human rights of its own citizens. This would add legitimacy to the practice, provided that they and their activities are consistent with U.N. purposes and
which is needed in international law for effectiveness. principles.
o Legitimacy – acceptability Self-Defense
• Article 51 of the U.N. Charter preserves the “inherent right of individual or
Relevant UN Documents collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the U.N.,
until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international
Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter:
peace and security.”
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
Limitations to Collective self-defense
against the territorial integrity and political independence of any state, or in any other
1. Self-defense when implemented is limited only until the Security Council has taken
manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
measures. So when the UNSC has already done so, continued use of force may no
- The case of Nicaragua v USA explains the kind of “force” contemplated in
longer be justified;
this article. It must be a high level use of force so you have to analyze the
2. The state exercising self-defense must report the measures taken to the Securiy
scope of its use.
Council.
- Use of force may be accepted or considered valid in two ways: (1) the
Substantively, self-defense may be justified if the requirements of armed attack and
collective decision of the UN in case of breaches of peace or acts of
principles of military proportionality and necessity are complied with. These are
aggression. Outside the framework of collective decision of the UN, it may
thresholds that the state invoking self-defense has to comply with.
be done (2) when states enter into collective self-defense.

Summary: when use of force is permitted
1. Self-defense Lex Lata Norm on Intervention
2. Collective decisions of UN Oppenheim: not all forms of intervention or interference are prohibited, only those
3. UN Security Council permitting use of force in favor of States which are of forceful or dictatorial in character – if it is calculated to impose a certain
4. UN Security Council authorizing use of force in favor of a regional organization conduct or consequence on another state.
UN Action Two elements:
• Chapter VII, Article 39 assigns to the Security Council the role of determining 1. there must be an act of intervening; and
“the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of 2. the intervention must bear matters on which each state is permitted on the
aggression” and recommending or deciding measures to be taken to “maintain principle of state sovereignty to decide freely.
or restore international peace and security.” Take note of the internationalization of human rights. Application of erga omnes is
important; it becomes the duty of the international community to prevent oppression
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
M. ESCAÑO
and violation of human rights by other states. Human rights matters are no longer within legitimate, it is ultimately illegal. “Closing the gap” meant harmonizing the illegality of the intervention
the exclusive prerogative of a state. This could justify humanitarian intervention since it with its apparent legitimacy.
is basically for the purpose of promoting human rights abroad. • To close this gap, the author analyzed the intervention by dividing it into 3 stages:
1. The Decision to Intervene – during this stage, these factors are taken into consideration
Material sources for non-intervention a. Rights and lives at stake: the intervening state must assess whether there really are
1. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: use of force is intervention if it is against the extensive violations of basic human and civil rights. Here, the media plays a large
territorial integrity and political independence of any state or in any manner role since it exposes and focuses on these atrocities
inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. b. Identities of intervening party and target
2. General Assemby Resolution 26-25 or the 1970 Declaration on Friendly i. Identities of the intervening party and target – it is widely accepted that
Relations: declares that armed intervention and all forms of interference or humanitarian intervention is justified when it is the fruit of a multilateral
attempted threats against the personality of a state and against its cultural, decision-making process. Here, it is ascertained whether the
political, and economic elements are in violation of international law. intervening state takes action after engaging with other states
3. UN General Assembly Resolution of 1981 (A declaration on the ii. Relationship between intervening party and target – factors such as
inadmissibility of intervention and interference in the internal affairs of geographical proximity and historical ties may help justify the
States): every state must refrain from promoting or encouraging indirect or intervening party’s role as intervenor
direct rebellious and secessionist activities within other states in any pretext iii. Hegemony – dominance of one state in a particular region of the glove.
whatsoever or through any action which aims to subvert the political order of Some writer believe that intervention would be more justified if it was
other states. committed by states which are not western hegemons; if western
Some Factors to consider: hegemons take the role of intervening state, they would be perceived
• The UN Charter neither expressly allows nor prohibits “unilateral intervention” as abusing dominance.
for humanitarian reasons; c. Non-humanitarian interests: as long as the primary motivation of the intervention is
humanitarian, it would still be legitimate. Even if there are non-humanitarian
• But international law recognizes the “right to self-determination” as part of
interests, these do not reduce the legitimacy of the intervention so long as they are
human rights that States are mandated to protect or promote, rather than
merely secondary and not primary. Another way of ascertaining what the
violate;
intervening party’s motives are is to analyze the manner by which they intervene.
• It is not “intervention” if the third State merely protects its own nationals
d. Whether it is done as a last resort
abroad who are victims of injustice (Extraterritorial Protective Jurisdiction);
e. Consistency: ascertain whether or not other states in the past, which were in the
• It is not “intervention” in armed conflict if the support by third State is granted same situation, took the same course of action.
in favor of the Government in the armed conflict and against the rebels or other 2. Conduct of Intervention: the manner by which the intervening state conducted its operations is
belligerents. analyzed
a. Compliance with international humanitarian law – jus ad bellum – refers to the rules
Summary of Articles which govern the use of force and when armed conflict may be resorted to; jus in
Closing the Gap Between Legitimacy and Legality of Humanitarian Intervention: bello, on the other hand, refers to the rules governing the actual conduct of armed
Lessons from East Timor and Kosovo conflict. Under international humanitarian law, the obligations of the intervening
• Definition of Humanitarian Intervention: threat or use of force employed by a state, group of states or part are:
international organization primarily for the purpose of protecting the nationals of the target state i. To distinguish between civilian and military populations and objectives
from widespread deprivations of internationally recognized basic human rights and to direct operations against the latter only
• Prohibition of the Use of Force: Article 2(4) of the Charter prohibits states from employing force ii. To take precautions in order to avoid incidental injury to civilians
against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. This is regarded as being iii. To refrain from engaging in indiscriminate attacks
iv. To attempt to ensure that any incidental damage caused to civilians is
part of CIL and is binding even on states that are not members of the UN. There are three ways for
military intervention to be legal under international law: proportionate to the military advantage to be attained
o Actions sanctioned by the UN Charter, Articles 39-41 b. Protecting Civilians – if the intervening party fails to protect civilians, its statistics,
o Individual or Collective self-defense, Article 51 when exposed by the mass media is likely to affect the legitimacy of the intervention
o Actions of Regional Organizations authorized by the Security Council, Article 53 3. Outcome of the Intervention
a. Humanitarian outcomes – success in achieving a stated goal or halting/preventing
• How the gap was closed between the legitimacy and legality of unilateral humanitarian intervention:
the widespread violations of human rights adds to the legitimacy
what the word “gap” meant in this article – while the bombings in Kosovo were done to stop
b. Military outcomes
widespread abuse of basic human rights, it was never sanctioned by the UNSC. Although it may be

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

M. ESCAÑO
 c. Resolution, reconciliation, reconstruction – the conclusion of a formal agreement or 3. Purpose of the Charter – there is no hierarchy which ranks the different purposes of the charter,
decision making process between the intervening state, target and preferably, the therefore, it cannot be said that the maintenance of international peace and security is the sole
victims add to the symbolic legitimacy of the intervention itself purpose of the charter.
Note: the most important factor is the number of lives and rights at stake. As long as this is present, other factors “Specific Tests” used by the author to ascertain the legality of UHI
may serve to add to its legitimacy, especially if the intervention is done in a manner which promotes humanitarian 1. there isn’t any subsequent agreement between states which modified how Article 2(4) is to be
elements. interpreted
Harmonization is done in the following ways: 2. there is no subsequent uniform practice between states which justify the formation of a new CIL which
1. Codification of the norms of intervention in an international treaty legalizes unilateral humanitarian intervention.
2. To allow jurisprudence surround the UN charter in connection with threats to the peace to develop Q: How may unilateral humanitarian intervention be justified as legal?
without amendment to the text of the Charter. 1. Speaking of law de lege ferenda, it may be legalized in three ways:
3. To reform the law in order to ensure a clear and consistent response to humanitarian crises a. New CIL
according to agreed principles. b. Interpretation through practice
Is Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention Compatible with the UN Charter? c. Formal procedure under Articles 108 and 109 of the Charter
Concept of Humanitarian Intervention: 2. Speaking of law de lege lata, international lawyers have to rely on the illegal but legitimate view
1. It is based on the existence of erga omnes inter partes or the obligations of a state towards the since the legal system has to allow a means to prevent the good law, when enforced, from creating
international community as a whole. Once a state commit acts which violate basic human rights, any excessive chasm between law and common moral sense.
other state may consider itself legally injured and take countermeasures.
2. A short-term initiative aimed only at stopping massive human rights violations. Once the human rights
violations cease, it is no longer justified.
Two types of Humanitarian Intervention:
1. Humanitarian Intervention authorized by the Security Council under Chapter 7 of the Charter: these
threats are classified as threats to peace
2. Humanitarian Intervention without Security Council authorization: Unilateral Intervention.
Legal Approaches to Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention:
1. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter has to be interpreted restrictively, which means that the only exception
to the use of force is self-defense as ensconced in Article 51 of the Charter. There is no
authority on Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention since no new CIL modified Article 2(4).
2. Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention is illegal but legitimate. This is the Excusable Breach
doctrine. Under said doctrine, there are times when states should act outside positive law in order the
uphold the greater good.
3. Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention is legal since CIL which allowed self-help survived the Charter. In
other words, the Charter was merely the lex posterior . However, there is no hard evidence to
support this.
4. Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention is legal due to the emergence of new CILs. This approach
adhered to the doctrine of lex posterioir derogate legi priori . This rule requires two elements
a. Material element (State Practice)
b. Psychological element (opinion juris sive necessitates)
5. The last approach suggests that Article 2(4) is perfectly compatible with UHI.
Analysis of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention:
1. Textual Analysis – the keywords of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter are “territorial integrity” and
“political independence”. Territorial integrity means inviolability, while political independence means a
state’s freedom to conduct its external and internal affairs without intervention from other states.
HOWEVER, the last part which reads “in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN”
may be interpreted to prohibit or allow unilateral humanitarian intervention.
2. Systematic Analysis – if Article 2(4) is interpreted in relation to other treaties, unilateral humanitarian
intervention is incompatible with the UN Charter since UNGA provides that the main responsibility of
the UNSC is to maintain international peace and security.

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

M. ESCAÑO