The Meaning and Significance in International Law of Non-Inter(ference/vention)

The purpose of this study is to provide an orthodox answer to the question: 'what is the meaning and significance in international law of the principle of non-inter(ference/vention)?' The study breaks that question down into the following more specific questions: what is the difference, if any, between interference and intervention? What defines a prohibited inter(ference/vention)? Is the principle binding? To whom or what does it apply? What is the 'purpose' or 'end' associated with the principle? What other principles is it associated with?

The study's response to those questions is divided into seven chapters, two of which are the Introduction (Chapter I) and Conclusion (Chapter VII). The five remaining chapters each focus on a separate source of knowledge of international law: treaties (Chapter II), custom (Chapter III), 'general principles of law recognized by civilized nations' (Chapter IV), decisions of the ICJ (Chapter V), and teachings of the most qualified publicists of the UKGBNI (Chapter VI). Each chapter is structured by nine parts: an introduction which situates the chapter within the literature (Parts 1); an account of the materials studied (Parts 2); an account of the methods used for studying those materials (Parts 3); three specific findings from the application of that method to those materials in relation to the thesis questions (Parts 4, 5, and 6, being each chapter's most substantive parts); a case-study with regards to the UKGBNI (Parts 7); an evaluation of the study conducted in each chapter (Parts 8), and finally the conclusions that can be drawn from the chapter regarding the thesis question (Parts 9).

The study concludes that two false premises have been prevalent in the literature with which it engaged: the first is that there is a difference in law between interference and intervention; the second is that coercion defines what is prohibited by the principle. Instead, the study shows that there presently appears no possible distinction between interference and intervention, and that the principle is better understood in terms of consent than coercion. In addition, the study concludes that the principle (and the principles with which it is inherently associated in international law) is significantly more important for the rule of law, peace, co-operation, and human rights than is currently presented in the literature.