International Liberalism and Intervention

International Liberalism and Intervention
As the international system moved towards interdependent interaction between the individual, the State, the international government organisation, the non government organisation and the multinational corporation, there has been a requirement for States as the main actors to develop modern global governance institutions to ensure the integrity of the system. This is based on the requirement for States to meet their international responsibilities. It also assures that they can be afforded their rights within the international system by the various international institutions. These institutions, aided by the States, international organizations and civil society have assisted with maintaining equality between the States for decision-making and economic advancement. Although each State is afforded an equal opportunity, each developed independently resulting in different levels of wealth, military assets, available commodities or domestic investment opportunities.

Independent State development is representative of the effect of international liberalism. It is the State’s choice to determine their advancement rate. The resultant competition between the States has provided for an environment that may not be conducive to legitimate or moral activity by non-state actors. The emergence of power attributed to non-governmental organizations has placed State governments in a unique position. They have to perform as either a facilitator or coordinator to ensure that the activities undertaken by these organisations are assured of legitimacy, integrity and are in the best interest of the individual as a collective whole. States are able to perform this role individually or within the construct of an international organisation as the United Nations or international institution.

To date, the ability of an international organisation to intervene within the operations of a State has been severely restricted due to the over arching requirements for State sovereignty to be respected. International organisations are subjected to the authority of national governments as member States have the ability to veto any decision or choose not to support the organisation. Intervention is associated with military activity as opposed to economic sanctions. Yet both are in fact forms of intervention with the later being the preferred option. The former may have the ability to prevent conflict escalation and the associated humanitarian issues.

“A Security Council enforcement action can authorise preventative war under Article 42 of the United Nations Charter. This presumes that at least nine of the fifteen members vote in favour and that none of the permanent members decides to exercise veto power. If the Security Council is deadlocked then the General Assembly can authorise the use of force under the Uniting for Peace Resolution passed in 1950 or the right to military intervention on the part of regional alliances and regional security organizations could be recognised.” (refer footnote 1) The sensitivity surrounding the loss or leakage of nuclear technology or fissile material warrants alternative action to be granted by the Security Council.

The loss or leakage of nuclear technology or fissile material does not result in war but may result in a nuclear incident. This action would need to be prompt, preventative and dependent on the situation may not necessarily incorporate military activity. It could be civilian only action or a combination of both military and civilian action that utilises both the State’s organic security infrastructure and international resources. This would assist with action being prompt to ensure that the loss or leakage does not result in a nuclear incident. It would be in the State’s best interest to assist with such action but would not necessarily be a requirement, as justification for intervention would be related to the fact that a nuclear incident would impact the State, the region and possibly be felt internationally. The United Nations Security Council, by granting alternative action for nuclear issues removes the requirement for the State to assist. Sovereignty would be maintained for the State with the exception of strategic nuclear assets.

Footnote
1 Thomas J. Schroenbaum, International Relations The Path Not Taken: Using International Law to Promote World Peace and Security. 2006. New York. p114