Where does your interest in the non-intervention principle come from?

We all know that the non-intervention principle in international law is a prohibition of intervention from one state into the affairs of another state. The principle is so old and sometimes considered useless and dead. However, a year before I started my PhD, Donald Trump was elected as the president of the United States in an election that was tainted by the scandal of external electoral intervention. Media outlets in the US and elsewhere were shocked that the Western democratic system can be subjected to political intervention as well. This raised my interest in the principle of non-intervention as a revived principle in the Western context of international law. In particular, there is a perceived understanding that the principle of non-intervention is a defence card only used by authoritarian countries. The revival of this principle raises a lot of interesting questions that delve into the essence of international relations, theories of international law and political philosophy. 

Can you describe your thesis questions and the methodology you use to approach those questions?

My thesis starts with an observation that in scholarly discussions the non-intervention principle is seen as outdated, inutile and controversial. My research questions stem from the above-mentioned scholarly assumptions and are as follows:

1. What is the state of the non-intervention principle in international legal discourses?
2. Have there been any changes in its content and, if so, what prompted them? 

The first question involves many aspects, including (a) whether interest in the non-intervention principle has increased or abated with globalisation, (b) who references the non-intervention principle, and (c) in which circumstances. 
In order to answer these questions, I conduct empirical research: I employ computational legal analysis to extract data from the digital UN archives in order to analyse the discourse surrounding the non-intervention principle. I limit my area of study to the UN because the UN provides a database that can epitomise the role of non-intervention in the bigger context of international legal discourses. The empirical support provides solid footing before proceeding to answer the second question – understanding the discursive change of the non-intervention principle within the UN over the years and analysing the sociolegal elements that affect and lead to the potential discursive change. 

What are your major findings?

My study shows that the non-intervention principle is frequently used in many international law sectors, demonstrating its persistent significance in shaping the international legal order. Yet it also shows that the understanding of non-intervention underwent some changes. Through the analysis, it identifies two narratives of non-intervention: defensive and symbolic. In defensive usage, non-intervention serves to defend sovereign autonomy and to object to any other state’s intervention, whereas, in symbolic usage, non-intervention is seen as an overarching principle such that the promotion of human rights, international cooperation, and collective security is consistent with it. The study shows that there are more references to the symbolic usage of non-intervention than to its defensive usage at the UN. Additionally, over the years, there is an increase in the symbolic usage of non-intervention. These observations are symptomatic of a strong liberalist tendency. On this basis, the study brings forward that liberalist ideologies, such as neoliberalism and liberal internationalism, are profoundly ingrained in the understanding of the non-intervention principle. 

In view of your findings, how should we interpret the current situation in Ukraine? ¨

In my findings, Russia is one of the countries that invoked the non-intervention principle most frequently at the UN, which stands in stark contrast to its action in Ukraine. Though my thesis does not provide an analysis on this contentious issue, it points to this character of the non-intervention principle as a multipronged argument that is open to the interpretation of its users and largely influenced by power politics. That is why Lord Talleyrand’s comment on non-intervention in the 19th century is still insightful today: “[Non-intervention,] c’est un mot métaphysique et politique qui signifie à peu près la même chose qu’intervention.”

What are you doing now?

I am a postdoctoral fellow funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation mobility grant to conduct my research project “China, International Development and the Non-intervention Principle since 1949” in the University of Kent and the University of Melbourne. 

*  *  *

Yilin Wang defended her PhD thesis in International Law in June 2022. Professor Andrea Bianchi presided the committee, which included Associate Professor Fuad Zarbiyev, Thesis Supervisor, and Professor Sarah Nouwen, Department of Law, European University Institute, Florence, Italy.

Citation of the PhD thesis:
Wang, Yilin. “The Non-intervention Principle in Contemporary International Law.” PhD thesis, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, 2022.
For access, please contact Dr Wang at yilin.wang@graduateinstitute.ch.

Interview by Nathalie Tanner, Research Office.
Banner picture: excerpt from an illustration by nexus 7/Shutterstock.com.