The necessary themes in this context will include a discussion of the general doctrine of non intervention and then go on discuss the legal aspects of the use of armed force and how the world peace and security legislation prevents and regulates such behaviour by a state. The question then goes on to ask if there is a difference in the national and international repercussions for a state embarking upon the use of armed force or the divide is merely an arbitrary one .After definitions and analysis the essay then discusses the application or rejection of these laws in the light of recent and historical events.
From the perspective of international law the sovereignty of the states confers upon them a right to conduct their affairs free from the interference from other states.This is also known as the doctrine of non-intervention in the sovereign affairs of the other states. In Nicaragua v United States1( The existence in the opinio juris of states of the practice of non-intervention is backed by established practice.It has moreover been presented as a corollary of the principle of the sovereign equality of the states.
“dictatorial interference by a state in the affairs of another state for the purpose of maintaining or altering the actual condition of things ….Intervention can take place in the external as well as the internal affairs of a state….But it must be emphasised that intervention proper is always dictatorial interference not interference pure and simple” 2
“the court can only regard the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a policy of force such as has in the past given rise to most serious abuses and such as cannot whatever be the present defects in international organisation…find a place in international law ….”
It should also be noted that before the First World War there was not much of an international effort to regulate and prevent