1. Definition and Scope of Intervention and Sovereignty
Intervention refers to external actions by one state affecting the internal affairs of another. Broadly, it includes any direct or indirect influence on a sovereign state’s domestic policy. Narrowly, it denotes forcible and unauthorized interference. The intensity and methods vary across cases. Low-level interventions typically involve political statements or declarations aimed at influencing internal processes. For example, in 1990, U.S. President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam Hussein, exemplifying low-intensity intervention. Economic aid can also constitute intervention when used to sway internal affairs, as seen in U.S. support to El Salvador and Soviet aid to Cuba during the Cold War. Bribery, election manipulation, and policy shaping are associated tactics. [1]
Joseph Nye highlights that intervention is a complex term, describing events and conveying moral and political judgments. Hence, international law addresses intervention mainly through the principle of non-interference in sovereign states’ internal affairs. Sovereignty guarantees states’ rights to act independently within their borders and holds a central place in the international system. The lack of a global authority compels states to safeguard their interests. [2]
James Rosenau defines intervention as “actions breaking conventions and targeting political authority.” [3]Oren Young views it as “organized, systematic actions crossing boundaries to influence political authority structures.” [4]
Intervention sometimes occurs with the target state’s consent, though this is legally disputed and blurs intervention limits. Intervention methods are generally categorized into diplomatic/economic tools, covert/destructive acts, and military actions.
Sovereignty means “supreme power.” It emerged as a foundational concept in the 16th century with the decline of feudalism and rise of centralized states. It entails a state’s authority to govern independently within its borders and protection from external interference. Absoluteness, indivisibility, and inalienability are core sovereignty principles recognized in international law. [5]
Intervention is the external influence or interference by one state in the internal affairs of another, ranging from diplomatic pressure and economic aid to military actions, and is fundamentally constrained by the principle of sovereignty, which guarantees a state’s independent authority within its borders and protection from unauthorized interference under international law.
2. Medium and High-Level Interventions
Medium-level interventions typically involve providing military advisory support and assistance to a target state. This form of intervention stops short of direct combat involvement but plays a crucial role in shaping the recipient country’s defense capabilities and strategic decisions. Such military aid often includes training, logistical support, intelligence sharing, and provision of equipment. These actions can significantly influence the balance of power within the state without overtly breaching its sovereignty through direct armed conflict. [6]
Higher-level interventions go a step further by offering support to internal opposition groups. This type of involvement aims to alter the political landscape from within by empowering actors who challenge the existing regime. Support to opposition forces may take various forms, including financial aid, political backing, training, and even covert operations. A notable example of this dynamic occurred after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, where the United States and the European Union provided substantial support to opposition groups in several Eastern European countries. Ukraine stands out as a prominent case, where Western support has been linked to efforts aimed at promoting democratic reforms and countering Russian influence. Such interventions are often contentious, as they raise complex questions regarding legitimacy, sovereignty, and the potential for escalating internal conflicts.
At the highest end of the spectrum, interventions involve more overt and forceful measures such as economic blockades, limited military strikes, and full-scale military invasions. These actions represent direct challenges to a state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Blockades can cripple a nation’s economy and restrict access to vital resources, while limited military operations may target specific military or strategic assets to compel political change. Full military invasions constitute the most extreme form of intervention, involving the deployment of combat forces to occupy territory and potentially replace or overthrow the existing government. These high-level interventions carry significant legal and ethical implications and often provoke international condemnation, sanctions, or even armed response from other states or international organizations.
In sum, the gradation of intervention methods, from military advising to full-scale invasion, reflects a spectrum of foreign involvement, each with varying degrees of impact on the targeted state’s sovereignty and internal stability. Understanding this continuum is essential for analyzing international conflicts and the evolving norms of state behavior in global politics.Intervention and sovereignty are pivotal concepts for maintaining state independence, international legal order, and global peace. The norm of non-intervention is essential to prevent conflicts and foster cooperation. Nonetheless, evolving global politics continuously challenge the boundaries of intervention and interpretations of sovereignty. Thus, ongoing scrutiny of these concepts’ definitions and applications in international law remains crucial.
[1] Nye, J. S., & Welch, D. A. 2011. Küresel Çatışmayı ve İşbirliğini Anlamak. Çev. Renan
Akman, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, s. 280-281.
[2] İbid, s. 283.
[3] Rosenau, J. N. (1968). The concept of intervention. Journal of International Affairs, 165-176.
[4] Young, O. R. (1968). Intervention and international systems. Journal of International Affairs, 177-187.
[5] Gülsoy, T. (2015). Milletin Temsili. Kamu Hukuku Arşivi–KhukA, 2.
[6] İbid., 281.
