International Law on Overt and Covert Interventions

The overt intervention with reference to the international law framework is the tentative military actions done openly against another state. Framed differently, overt intervention is done in a plain sight with a clear manifestation of using military intervention against another state. The U.S. military intervention against Iraq in the 1990s following the Iraqis occupation of Kuwait is an example of overt intervention. Moreover, North Korea has demonstrated a hostile action against South Korea in a full display.

On the other hand, covert intervention is the act of using military, economic and political forces to influence the actions of other states without using the open manifestation. Berkeley Law (1984) defines convert action as a sort of military assault that a state carried out against another state to influence the conduct of another state. In most cases, covert actions are the foreign policy options against the Third World countries or the weaker nations. Moreover, the superpowers such as the United States and France generally take advantages of their economic superiorities to exploit the economic dependencies of the third world countries. Typically, increasing number of states prefer using the covert interventions and refrain from the open warfare. Under the international law, covert intervention is generally forbidden because nation states take the advantages of the secret actions associated with convert interventions to influence the actions of other states. Consequently, both overt and covert interventions are threats to the international peace and security.

Different principles of the international law focus on the covert and overt interventions. The United Nation Charter prohibits the use military intervention against another state unless when a state acts as a self-defense or where the UN Security Council authorizes such intervention to maintain international peace and security. Under the Article 51 of the UN Charter, a nation state has the right to use the act of force in response to an attack from another state. The Article 51 further stipulates that a state may exercise an overt military intervention as a self-defense when an armed attack is imminent or ongoing. The armed attacks are not the only attacks against nation-states, however, an attack can focus on a state's entities such as the embassies or government agencies. Such acts are also considered an attack on a state. In this case, a state can exercise an overt military intervention to protect itself against such attack. For example, overt military action against the Al Qaeda in 2001 was supported and has been considered as a principle of self-defense based on the imminent terrorist attacks, thus, it was critical to carrying out the military action against Taliban to prevent an imminent attack from the Taliban organization. Indeed, Section 1373(2001) and 1368(2001) of the Security Council resolutions view the military intervention against Taliban as a self-defense to prevent large-scale terrorist attacks such as an attack on Trade Center on September 2001. The principle of international law also allows the nation states to use the overt intervention to protect their sovereignties. Stratton, (2009) states that the right of a state includes sovereignty, equality and political independence. The concept sovereignty allows states to exercise military and political control over their territories and refrain from intervening the internal affairs of other states. In the contemporary international environment, states have the responsibilities to protect their territorial integrities, and can exercise overt military interventions against any state that intends to interfere in their internal affairs.

Similar to the overt interventions against other states, the international law also discusses the issue of covert intervention where a state uses secrecy to intervene in other country's affairs. The major purpose of the covert action is to influence the affair of other states. Many states use the covert actions to achieve their foreign policy objectives. Examples of the covert intervention were the Operation Ajax where the United Kingdom worked with the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) to remove the Iranian elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq. The United States and the United Kingdom carried out this operation because both countries had a considerable interest in the Iranian crude oil. (Kinzer, 2008).

After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989, the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supplied military weapons secretly for the Afghanistan to resist the Soviet military interventions. (Johnson, & James, 2008). Despite the comprehensive covert interventions carried out by the nation states, the international law does not support the use of the covert interventional against other states based on the numerous resolutions passed in the General Assembly. Since the end of the World War II, the United Nations has become the major sources of rules that guide the international behaviors. The Article 2(4) of the international law condemns the use overt and covert military actions against other states. The Article 1 of the United Nation Charter stipulates that the main purpose of setting up the United Nations is to maintain the international peace and security. Moreover, the Articles 2(3) mandates all member states to use peaceful resolutions to settle their disputes amicably. The Article 2(4) also mandates the member states to refrain from using the act of force or threat that can jeopardize the political independence and territorial integrity of other states. Moreover, the Article 2(4) prohibits the use of armed forces or threat that can provoke a war because the primary purpose of the United Nations is to prevent war in the international system. Thus, several resolutions of the United Nations have condemned the covert interventions by asserting a non-intervention in the affair of other states. For example, the Resolution 1236(XII) and Resolution 213 1(XX) of the General Assembly condemn the inadmissible intervention in the domestic affairs of other states. Under the Resolution of 213 1(XX), the United Nations stipulates that a subversion or direct intervention of a state against another state is a violation of the UN Charter. The resolution also reveals that no state has the legal right to intervene directly or indirectly in the internal affairs of other states. Consequently, all form of subversions, either directly or indirectly against other states is a violation of the UN charter.

Resolution 213 1(XX) also stipulates no state should use all form of economic, cultural and political elements to intervene in the affairs of another state. Resolution 2225(XXI) also affirms that no state should foment, assist, organize, incite, or finance armed activities or terrorists in order to interfere on the civil strife of other states or overthrow the regimes of other states. The United Nations passed these resolutions in order maintain international peace and security and prevent the act that can provoke war in the international system.

While the principles of international law do not support the overt and covert intervention unless to be used as self-defenses, however, the United States and dissolved the Soviet Union used the subversive covert interventions during the cold war that nearly provoked the Third World War. Moreover, United States, France and Great Britain used the overt and covert military interventions to overthrow the regime of Gadhafi in Libya despite that the international law condemns such interventions.