Fading Authority of the Non-Intervention Principle

The book "Fading Authority of the Non-Intervention Principle: Analysis of Uganda's Intervention in South Sudan under International Law" focuses on the consequence of international politics in regard to the non-intervention principle and international law violations. In its formal definition, non-intervention is an international law principle and a foreign policy characterized by prohibition or absence of interference by state in the domestic affairs of another sovereign state without its consent with certain exceptions. In 2013 Uganda militarily intervened in South Sudan conflict and consequently interfered with the latter's internal politics. The author intends to demonstrate that the aforesaid intervention was executed in breach of the non-intervention principle without noteworthy reactions by international community. As the principle's application is predominantly driven by states' foreign policies, such intervention in South Sudan shows that the principle, to some extent, is deprived of its strength. It suggests that South Sudan's sovereignty is at stake due to Uganda's military intervention and its consequential human rights violations. Meanwhile, the international community did not properly react or intervene despite South Sudan territorial integrity and political independence are threatened as a result of Uganda's use of force and the non-intervention principle's fading authority in international relations. It critically studies, analyzes, exposes and calls for action on Uganda's military interference with South Sudan's territorial integrity and political independence and the violation of international law in South Sudan which is able to cause threat to international peace and security. This book provides new and multi-dimensional insights into international law and foreign policy and their application or contempt by sovereign states and the international community as a whole. It applies a complex mix of methods and studies international legal literatures on international law to explain the status of non-intervention principle under international law with special reference to the UN Charter and the AU Constitutive Act, contrasting legal theory with the principle's application and state practice and foreign policies. It seeks to shed more light on Uganda's intervention in South Sudan and how intervention in South Sudan civil war was perceived by the UN and AU and triggered international reactions. Its findings demonstrate that non-intervention principle has been violated in South Sudan and its authority is weakened as a new exception to the principle is emerging. It alluded, Uganda's legitimization of dictatorship in South Sudan, in tandem with the West (US & UK) and East (Russia & China), and the change in the UN, a simmering change from its original intention to a new political dawn in Africa and the Middle East, has a diminishing effect on the principle's authority and the likelihood of the emergence of a new justification i.e. the Uganda's collusive intervention and state practice. The study defines Uganda's collusive intervention as an agreement that is dictatorially concluded between two or more leaders (e.g. Museveni and Kiir) which creates loopholes and gaps in the international law. The study approaches the research problem by using Uganda's military intervention in South Sudan as a case of study in order to show how the fading authority of the non-intervention principle constitutes a threat to international law and state sovereignty. It tested all Uganda's arguments forwarded as a legitimization for its military intervention against the existing international legal standards in order to ascertain whether the intervention was executed illegally and in a violation of the non-intervention principle and as a consequence constitutes a threat to international peace and security. It further proves that non-intervention authority is eroded as a result of inapplicability and unenforceability of the United Nations Charter.