All for one and one for all?

About the right to intervene and obligations erga omnes

Abstract

In certain cases, States have the power to claim before an international jurisdiction when another State fails to fulfill an erga omnes obligation. Such action, focused on ensuring that the infringing State ceases its illegal attitude, is usually done "in the name of the international community". However, in carrying out this kind of action, it is inevitable to suppose that there is a collision between the faculty of intervention of the claimant State to redress the offender in the context of his obligations, and the right not to intervene in the domestic affairs of a sovereign State, which disallows any intrusion in the territory of another. Initially, the present work will try to answer if the formulation of these claims could represent (or not) a violation of the Principle of non-interference established in art. 2.7 of the Charter of the United Nations. Next, we will explore whether the States - on behalf of third parties or represented by third parties - have come to different international jurisdictions, to assert their objection, while we will examine the response provided by the jurisdiction to which it was addressed. Finally I will offer some final thoughts.