In recent years, with the rapid progress of China’s peaceful development, China’s national interests are covering a much broader area with an increasingly complicated international environment, and the Principle of Non-intervention in the Internal Affairs (non-intervention principle) that China has long pursued has been challenged. Therefore, rethink on the Principle of Non-intervention in the Internal Affairs and put forward the corresponding countermeasures will be of great theoretical value and practical significance under the new situation of the change and development of international relations and the transformation of China’s diplomacy. This paper is divided into four parts: the introduction mainly describes the research meaning and value of the subject, the Principle of Non-intervention in the Internal Affairs; then the author analyzes this principle in international law; the third part mainly explains challenges facing the principle; the fourth part expounds that China should rethink and adjust the principle and proposes of the “protective intervention” as China’s choice; finally the fifth part is a short conclusion.

I. Non-intervention Principle in International Law

Non-intervention in the Internal Affairs refers to that “states shall not intervene in any form or for any reason directly or indirectly whatsoever in the internal or external affairs of any other state within the sovereignty jurisdiction in international relations, international organizations shall not intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any member states.”[①]

The Principle of Non-intervention in the Internal Affairs is one of the earliest principles in international law which has been stipulated as early as 1793 in French Constitution. In fact, “as a basic principle of international law, the Principle of Non-intervention in the Internal Affairs, has been reflected in various international legal documents.”[②] For instance, Article 15 (8) of the Covenant of the League of Nations stipulates, “If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them, and is found by the council, to arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party, the Council shall so report, and shall make no recommendation as to its settlement.” Compared with the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Principle of Non-intervention in the Internal Affairs has developed a lot in the Charter of the United Nations.[③] Article 2 (7) of it stipulates, “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.”

In 1970, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations in a unanimous way, solemnly declared seven principles including the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs. The Declaration declares: “No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law. ” It is the first time for the international community to enumerate and confirm basic principles of international law through declaration on the United Nations General Assembly. It is of great significance for all nations to abide by international law and fulfill the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. Some scholars believe that Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations “have direct legal effect as authoritative interpretation and application of principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.[④]

In addition, in 1946 the Draft Declaration on the Right and Duties of States adopted by the General Assembly listed explicitly in Article 3 that “Every State has the duty to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other State.” In 1965, Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty proclaimed that “No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are condemned.” The Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States adopted by the General Assembly in 1981 solemnly declared that “No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of other States”; “Considering that full observance of the principle of non-intervention and non-interference on the internal and external affairs of States is of the greatest importance for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the fulfillment of the purposes and principles of the Charter.” The Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations in 1987 restated that “Every State has the inalienable right of to choose its political, economic, and social and cultural systems without interference in any form by another State;” “States have the duty to abstain from armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements.”

It is worth noting that the Principle of Mutual Non-interference in each other’s Internal Affairs included in the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence jointly proposed by China, India and Myanmar in the 1950s not only reiterate but also further develop the Principle of Non-intervention in the Internal Affairs. The Principle of Mutual Non-interference in each other’s Internal Affairs emphasizes that no State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of other States; every State has the right to choose its political, economic, and social and cultural systems without interference in any form by another State; States shall not organize, assist, incite subversion or terrorism aiming at overthrowing regime of other States or intervening or interfering in the internal and external affairs of other States.

II. Challenges on the Non-intervention Principle

As a basic principle of international law, the non-intervention principle is now facing the following major challenges brought about by the change of international relations.

1. Divergence on the Definition of Internal Affairs

The answer to what are “internal affairs” and/or “domestic jurisdiction” is still unsettled. As argued by Alfred Verdross, an Austrian scholar of international law, “Which affairs belong to domestic affairs is disputable. In this regard, one of the doctrine advocates believes that no affairs are essentially reserved for states, since any object could be regulated by international law. Therefore, only the following two events may be distinguished: the general or special affairs have already been regulated by international law, and affairs have not or before been regulated devolved to states by international law. Therefore, ‘domestic affairs’ only refers to the second event if the term is really meaningful. International Law Association also expressed the same opinion in the Aix Session on 29th April 1954, namely, ‘the reserved scope refers to that of the state activities, and the jurisdiction of the state is not legally binding by international law within the scope’.”[⑤]

Generally internal affairs “refers to matters that a country can dispose of freely without being confined by obligations regulated by international law including a country’s form of government, internal organization and relationship with its people”.[⑥] Nonetheless, the definition of internal affairs is subject to the development of international relations. For example, in 1923 the Permanent Court of International Justice points out in “Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco ” that “the question whether a certain matter is or is not solely within the jurisdiction of a State is an essentially relative question; it depends upon the development of international relations.”[⑦] In 1952 the Yearbook of the International Law Institute also clarified that “territories kept under domestic jurisdiction refer to those free from restraint caused by accordance to international law, and the scope of them is determined by international law and changes with the development of the international law.”[⑧]

It is worth noting that according to the Article 2(7) of UN Charter, the enforcement methods regulated in Chapter 7 have been excluded from matters of domestic jurisdiction. In another word, actions according to the enforcement methods in Chapter 7 are not regarded as intervention of internal affairs. Furthermore, developing international relations and the increasingly organized international community are reducing the scope of Internal Affairs. Therefore, the jurisdiction of sovereignty states is shrinking; matters under domestic jurisdiction are shifting to hands of the international community, and the Principle of Non-intervention in the Internal Affairs is facing challenge.

2. Extension of the Concept of International Peace and Security

According to Chapter 7 of UN Charter, if practice that threatens or breaks peace, or invasion has been confirmed, the Security Council (UNSC) has the right to intervene with enforcement measures. In this chapter peace and security means international peace and security. Meanwhile, there are wide disputes in the international community on the problem that whether massive human rights violation inside a country will threaten world peace and security.[⑨] Despite the disputes, practices of UNSC show a tendency to recognize that civil conflict, especially human rights violation, is related to world peace and security. In January 1992, the UNSC held a special meeting and reiterated that “the absence of war and military conflicts amongst states does not in itself ensure international peace and security. The non-military sources of instability in the economic, social, humanitarian and ecological fields have become threats to peace and security. The UN membership as a whole, working through the appropriate bodies, needs to give the highest priority to the solution of these matters.”[⑩] Nonetheless, up until 1990s there had been only two relative cases in which UNSC decided to implement binding sanctions on Southern Rhodesia and South Africa according to Chapter 7 of UN Charter in the above-mentioned situation, which are frequently cited as precedents to illustrate that if domestic human rights conditions of a country are confirmed as becoming threats to peace, the UNSC can enforce collective economic sanctions on that country.

Nonetheless the number of similar cases has been growing since 1990s, which include the Kurds in Iraq, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sierra Leone and Kosovo. The case of Somalia is especially typical and deserves our attention. In December 1992, the 794th resolution was adopted in which the UNSC firstly determined that “the magnitude of human tragedy caused by the conflict in Somalia constitutes a threat to world peace and security”, then authorized UN Secretary General and related member countries to “use all necessary means to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia.”[11] In a word, the practice of the UNSC in the 1990s shows that the threat to world peace and security is not limited to emergency of military invasion or threat; if an emergency, such as genocide and ethnic cleansing, caused by human factors occurs in a member country and the government of that country collapses like that of Somalia, the UNSC, regardless of whether it has influenced neighboring countries, is most likely to recognize it as a threat to world peace and security. In addition, some scholars believe that massive human rights violation severely deviates from the nature of “international value system”, and for this reason alone it has constituted a threat to peace designated in Chapter 7 of UN Charter.[12]

Since the beginning of the 21st century the international community has reached new consensus on threats to peace and security which include not only international warfares and military confrontation, but also internal violence, organized crimes, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, extreme poverty, lethal infectious diseases and environmental degradation. Under this situation various threats are interrelated and promote each other; security and human rights are interdependent. None of the countries can protect themselves totally on their own; all the countries need a practical and efficient collective security system established in accordance with purposes and principles of UN Charter.[13] In this view, the extended concept of “international peace and security” could lead to more mandatory interventions taken by the UNSC.

3. Increasing “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P)

In December 2001 the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty(ICISS) of Canada officially submitted a report entitled The Responsibility to Protect. The core content of this report concerns the R2P which notes that sovereign states have the responsibility to protect their people from avoidable disasters, massacre, rape and famine, and if these states are unwilling or powerless to do likewise, this responsibility shall be shouldered by the wider international community.[14] In December 2004 the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change made it clear in its report A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility that “We agree with the new practice that when genocide or other large-scale killings occur, the whole international community has the responsibility to provide protection.”[15] In March 2005 Annan, the then UN Secretary-General, also believed in his report In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All that “We must embrace the responsibility to protect, and, when necessary, we must act on it.”[16] In January 2009 Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, proposed in report Implementing the Responsibility to Protect his “Three Pillar Strategy”--“state responsibility; assistance to states; and timely and decisive action by the international community.”[17] Moreover the R2P has become the topic for discussion of GA for many times. For instance, in July 2011 the GA held an informal interactive dialogue on issues concerning “The Role of Regional and Sub-regional Arrangements in Implementing the Responsibility to Protect”, in which the Secretary-General emphasized that effective global and regional cooperation is crucial for the realization of promises embodied in the R2P.[18]

The R2P challenges the non-intervention principle in the way that the latter is subject to the former one.[19] Nowadays an increasing number of people admit that though sovereign states have the major responsibility to prevent their people from various man-made disasters, if they are unwilling or powerless to do so, the broader international community should take up this responsibility and do the job deriving from this responsibility including prevention, reacting to violence when necessary, reconstructing fragmented society.[20] For instance, according to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, all the nations confirm that genocide, committed in time of peace or time of war, is a crime under international law; that genocide, regardless of where it occurs, is a threat to all human beings which is absolutely impermissible. Therefore the non-intervention principle cannot be used to cover genocide and other violence. On the other hand, numerous humanitarian disasters happened in Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Kosovo, and Darfur of Sudan have shifted people’s attention from sovereign immunity to responsibility they shoulder for their people and the wide international community. People are increasingly aware that the problem lies not in whether a nation has the right to intervene or not, but every nation has “the responsibility to protect” those who are involved in avoidable disasters and facing massacre and rape, ethnic cleansing carried out through forcible eviction and menace, intentionally created famine and disease spread on purpose. Some scholars name this R2P as “the Humanitarian Responsibility of Sovereignty”.[21]

It is worth noting that the intervention NATO conducted in Libya in 2011 was regarded as being based on the R2P. However, it is different from the previous preemptive or preventive humanitarian intervention; it is called “Preclusive Humanitarian Intervention”.[22] This action is granted by the UNSC Resolutions 1973 which agrees to impose a “non-fly zone” on Libya and allows member states to protect civilians by all necessary means. The UNSC does not directly choose NATO, but leave options to any “authorized member states acting nationally or through regional organization or arrangements (to take action)”. Besides, the Security Council Draft Resolution on Syria that was vetoed by China and Russia in February 2012 includes requirements that all parties in Syria stop all violence and reprisals; the Syrian Government should implement the plan set out by the League of Arab States, release all persons detained, withdraw all military and armed forces from cities and towns, guarantee the freedom to hold peaceful demonstrations, allow the Arab League Observer Mission to work freely in Syria and start dialogue with Opposition hosted by Arab League according to the timetable set by Arab League and initiate the process of political transition.

4. Greater Attention to the Value of Democracy and Rule of Law in International Law

(1) Democracy. The traditional international law seldom touches upon topics about democracy. Nonetheless, after the cold war Samuel Huntington raised the Third Wave of Democratization theory, followed by Thomas Franck who also noted that “The Norm of Democratic Governance” or “The Right to Democratic Governance” is emerging in international law.[23] Frank believes that firstly the norm of democratic governance means the Government’s legitimacy is determined by international standards rather than sheer domestic ones, that secondly only democratic governments will be accepted as legitimate governments, that thirdly to acquire the right to democratic governance is confirmed as a human right and this right should be protected through proper supervision and execution procedures.[24] In this sense “The Norm of Democratic Governance” will make the access to democratic governance an universal right whose executive force is applied to all states, be they members of human right treaties or not. This point has been approved by measurable famous Euro-American scholars including Christina Cerna, James Crawford, Geregory Fox and George Nolte. Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter from Harvard University even points out that “theories of international law are deficient for not giving enough attention to democratic peace.”[25]

The theory of “The Norm of Democratic Governance” is gaining attention in the international community.[26] For example, in the United Nations Millennium Declaration 2000, it is demanded that every member state should promise to improve their capacity to implement democratic principles and promote democracy. At the same year the UNSC adopted another resolution to promote and strengthen democracy and more than a hundred states signed the Community of Democracy and Warsaw Declaration.[27] In addition many regional organizations also see promoting democracy as a central task; for instance, in June 2001 the Organization of American States (OAS) unanimously passed the Inter-American Democracy Charter in the 28th special session. This charter officially states the view on democracy held by OAS and becomes the guide for OAS to promote democracy in the Western Hemisphere. In 2005 Annan explicated in the report In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All that “democracy does not belong to any country or region but is a universal right”; he also stated that “I support the creation of a democracy fund at the United Nations to provide assistance to countries seeking to establish or strengthen their democracy”.[28] In the same year the United Nations World Summit reaffirmed that “Democracy is one of the universal and indivisible core values and principles of the United Nations. It is based on the freely expressed will of people and closely linked to the rule of law and exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.”[29] The modern international law takes democracy as a new value orientation which will undoubtedly improve the general level of world governance.

(2) Rule of law. The rule of law is closely related to democracy and includes two levels—national and international. Every state that declares itself a state ruled by law must also respect the rule of law abroad, and vice versa. Different from the Vienna System of the 19th century and the League of Nations System of the early 20th century, the United Nations System, built upon the wasteland of the Second World War, is based on the UN Charter and inclines to “rule by law”, so as to promote the development of international law.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, there has been an increasing outcry from the international community to strengthen the rule of law. In 2000 the United Nations Millennium Declaration restated all the countries’ promise to rule by law and regards rule by law as an active and important framework to promote human security and prosperity. In 2005 in the report In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, Annan called upon all the member states that “support for the rule of law must be strengthened by universal participation in multilateral conventions”, and suggested “to create a dedicated Rule of Law Assistance Unit, drawing heavily on existing staff within the United Nations system, in the proposed Peace building Support Office to assist national efforts to re-establish the rule of law in conflict and post-conflict societies.”[30] In the same year the United Nations World Summit recognized “the need for universal adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at both the national and international levels, and Reaffirmed commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law and international law, which is essential for peaceful coexistence and cooperation among States.”[31] It is worth noting that in recent years various criminal-justice institutions including International Criminal Court are being set up one after another. Besides this committee of experts and board of inquiry are especially established to handle issues on Darfur, East Timor and Ivory Coast. These above-mentioned actions will help promote the rule of law in the international community.

To sum up, with the transformation of the international system, the value of democracy and rule of law in international law will draw more attention, and thus deeply influence the non-intervention principle. “With the decline of the national power differences between countries in the world, the correlation of international law is increasing …international agreements and jurisdiction of the international law are truly useful to the rational use of public areas of the world as well as self-control and collective implementation of international order which guided by common agreed principles.”[32] Since Obama took office, foreign policies of the United States have been regulated and changed. It shows, to some extent, that even as a powerful country, it should also consider and follow the trend of democracy and rule of law in the international community.

III. China’s Response

As everyone knows, the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence included the Principle of Non-interference in Internal Affairs, which has been regarded as basic principle in China in handling international relations since the founding of the People’s Republic of China. Undoubtedly, as an important part in China’s independent foreign policy of peace, the principle of non-interference in internal affairs has played a significant and irreplaceable role in China’s history of safeguarding sovereignty and territorial integrity, integrating into the international community and achieving the international acceptance.[33] As international law to adjust international relations especially relations among states, the continued existence of them should be in accordance with the time of the reality.[34] The Principle of Non-interference in Internal Affairs, as one of the basic principles of international law, has no exception. As Engels noted that: “The theoretical thinking of each era including that of ours, is a historical product, which has very different form with different content at different times. ”[35]

1. Change and Development of International Relations Call on China to Rethink and Adjust the Non-intervention Principle.

Nowadays, China faces many difficulties when adhering to the non-intervention principle with the change of international balance of power, China’s rising and its expanding national interest.

(1) China is facing greater international pressure when adhering to the Non-intervention Principle with the rising international status. “In the last 20 years a member of the vast majority of influential international organizations and mechanisms for negotiating emerged.”[36] Especially since the beginning of global financial crisis in 2008, the international power has changed profoundly shifting from the developed countries to emerging economies. In particular, China’s GDP in 2010 surpassed Japan for the first time to become the world’s second largest economy.[37] As one of the five permanent members of the UNSC and with its enhanced economy, China is expected to play a much more important role in global governance, regional cooperation and domestic conflicts in international community. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “We and others around the world are looking for even greater leadership from China. China and the US cannot solve all the problems of the world together. But without China and the US, I doubt that any of our global problems can be solved.”[38] However, China is unwilling or unable to play the global leading role that most countries might expect because of the Non-intervention Principle. Therefore, “the Chinese government has being reined in its strategy and public relations because of the Non-intervention Principle, which increased risk of inconsistency in its foreign policy and compounded credibility gap in regional and global level, it does no help in eliminating the anxiety of its neighboring countries in territorial disputes in the regional level, and marginalize its position in the international community in international level so that the government in Beijing has to take negative stance in many important multilateral negotiations.  A much broader problem is that the Non-intervention Principle undermines the credibility of its peaceful rise and lead to geopolitical rivalries.”[39]

(2) Hard position to stay out of any international affairs and adhere to the Non-intervention Principle with its expanding national interests. As a scholar said, “the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence itself is very conservative, including the Non-intervention Principle. China is hoping to maintain the status quo as the big power in the world, as well as the national, regional and international order which could get political and economic profit from.”[40] However, since the beginning of the 21st century, China’s national interest has been covering a much broader area. On the one hand, issues related to Chinese protection of overseas citizens become more urgent and complicated due to the increasing flow of Chinese capital and labor overseas.[41] On the other hand, the growing dependence on major international commodities such as oil makes China face test in keeping with the Non-intervention Principle. For example, the transit fees issue between South Sudan and Sudan in February 2012 not only endangered China’s investment and supply of oil, but also tested China’s Non-intervention Principle. South Sudan’s government wanted to force Chinese government to persuade Sudan to reduce transit fees by cutting of oil. “Instead of just sitting there they should pressure their friends in Khartoum. The onus is still on the Chinese,” says Henry Odwar, chairperson for South Sudan’s parliamentary committee on energy and mining. Daniel Large, research director at the Africa Asia Centre of the School of Oriental and African Studies says, “The problem for China is that Sudan and South Sudan are trying to use it for their own purposes, China has ultimately very limited room to maneuver.”[42]

Thus we can see that rethink and adjust the Non-intervention Principle is “absolutely necessary” with the change of international and domestic environment. A Chinese scholar says: “It’s hard for China to get any convenience from the international community due to its size and the docking capacity with the outside world, China has to take the initiative so as to conduct creative intervention.”[43]

2. “Protective intervention” — China’s Inevitable Choice in Coping with the Challenge of the Non-intervention Principle

“Protective intervention” refers to the intervention China conduct for implementing international rule of law and democratic values and protecting China’s national interest under the circumstances of serious humanitarian disasters in the international relations, or serious threat or damages to China’s national interest. Therefore, there are two preconditions for the implementation of “Protective intervention”: serious international crimes such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity; threats to China’s national interest.

(1) China’s support for the R2P provides a theoretical premise for “protective intervention”. As mentioned before, the R2P, proposed by the ICISS of Canada won support not only from the former UN Secretary-General and be written into his report “In Larger Freedom: towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All”, but also from more than 150 heads of state in 2005 World Summit and was enshrined in the 2005 World Summit Outcome.[44] China basically holds supportive attitude. For example, in June 2005, China explicitly put forward in China’s Stand on the Reform of the United Nations: “The government of a given state bears the primary responsibility for protecting its citizens, to ease and curtail the crisis will be the common aspiration on the part of the international community when a massive humanitarian crisis emerges.”[45] In addition, statement by Ambassador Liu Zhenmin at the Plenary session of the General Assembly on the Question of R2P in July 2009, explicitly pointed out that “the government of a given state bears the primary responsibility for protecting its citizens; The Outcome Document strictly limited the scope of application of R2P to four serious international crimes, namely, ‘genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity’------ When a crisis involving one of the four crimes emerges, to ease and curtail the crisis will be the common aspiration and legitimate demand on the part of the international community------There is a need for the General Assembly to continue to carry out discussions on the concept based on the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. We are open-minded towards the discussions, and are prepared to communicate with others, in an effort to forge a common view on questions relating to the implementation of the R2P”[46]. To sum up, China’s support and acceptance of the R2P means the Chinese government will no longer resist legitimate international intervention steadfastly. It also means that China will adjust and change its attitude to the Non-intervention Principle, which will lay a theoretical foundation for the Chinese government to implement the R2P.

In particular, Information Office of the State Council issued a white paper on peaceful development in September 2011, explicitly pointed out: “Actively living up to international responsibility --- as a responsible member of the international community, China abides by international law and the generally recognized principles governing international relations, and eagerly fulfills its international responsibility. China has actively participated in reforming international systems, formulating international rules and addressing global issues. It supports the development of other developing countries, and works to safeguard world peace and stability. As countries vary in national conditions and are in different stages of development, they should match responsibility with rights in accordance with their national strength. They should play a constructive role by fulfilling their due international responsibility in accordance with their own capability and on the basis of aligning their own interests with the common interests of mankind. For its part, China will assume more international responsibility as its comprehensive strength increases.”[47]

(2) China’s flexibility in the practice of Principle of the Non-intervention creates a realistic possibility for further implementation of the R2P. First of all, the Chinese government actively participated in UN peacekeeping operations. The UN peacekeeping operations have played an irreplaceable role in the maintenance of international peace and security. The government of China continues to support the work of UN peacekeeping operations although to some extent the UN peacekeeping operations conflict with China’s position on overseas troops. On the one hand, according to the financial contribution scheme for the Member States adopted at the UN General Assembly in December 2009, from 2010 to 2012, China’s financial contribution accounted for 3.939% of the total amount of financial contribution, amounting to US$3000 million or so per year, ranking 7th among the member states, surpassing Canada.[48] On the other hand, “In total, China participated in 18 UN peacekeeping missions, sending abroad more than 11 thousand peacekeepers from them in 11,000 military observers from 1990 to 2009.”[49] In addition, China has sent 2117 and 2037 personnel in peacekeeping operations respectively in 2010 and 2011.[50]

Secondly, the Chinese government actively promoted the solution of international hot-spot issues. In recent years, China played an important role in resolving international issues such as the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, the Burma crisis, the Iranian nuclear issue and Sudan’s Darfur issue. For example, China held a number of six party talks on the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula with the United States, Russia, South Korea, and Japan since the beginning of 2003 which was the first time for China to intervene actively and push forward vigorously the establishment of the regional multilateral security mechanisms. For another example, Burma finally opened the door after talks with the Chinese special envoy at the outbreak of “Saffron Revolution” in September 2007, and the crisis had been defused to a certain extent. In addition, China together with the international community conducted negotiations on the Iranian nuclear issue. At the same time, the Chinese government not only appointed “Special Representative on the Darfur Issue”, but also recommended the government of Sultan to contact domestic political forces, and convinced Sultan to finally accept the troop contributors of “Annan Plan”.[51] It is worth noting that China established links with the Libyan opposition party “National Transition Council”, and maintained contact with the Col. Gadhafi regime during the 2011 Libyan war. Coincidentally, China held bold stances on the Syrian issue in February 2012, and in the meantime increased diplomatic efforts. China vetoed the UN resolution on the Syrian problem, announced not to participate in conference of “Friends of Syria”, sent diplomats to Syria and the Middle East for the solution of crisis between China and Russia; the Chinese government also took other actions to keep distance with Russia, shaped itself a mediator but not an associate of Bashar and maintained contact with Syrian opposition.[52]

The above-mentioned diplomatic practices of the Chinese government had overstepped the traditional non-intervention principle, “subtly shifted from this policy in increasingly challenging circumstances.”[53]

Finally, the Chinese government devoted itself to safeguarding world peace and regional stability. For instance, It is the first time that a PLA Navy ship has been deployed on an active naval escort mission in the Gulf of Aden and waters off Somalia in December 2008, it’s not only the first time of expedition by sea for Chinese fleet, but also the first step of safeguarding overseas right for the Chinese Navy, which did established the image of a responsible big country to fulfill obligations and safeguard regional stability and peace. For another example, China together with Laos, Burma and Thailand conducted United Nations’ law enforcement actions and patrol in the Mekong region in order to ensure the safety of navigation in Mekong in December 2011, which was the first time of overseas armed law enforcement for China. In addition, China initiated and established the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, actively participated in the regional security and cooperation mechanism such as East Asia Summit and etc.

(3) “Protective Intervention” is of great benefit for China to further establish the image of a responsible big country, so as to better safeguard the national interests. In recent years, some European and American countries have veiled criticism on China’s foreign policy in particular the policy toward Africa, accused China’s “new colonialism” in Africa for “grabbing resources” and “disregarding human rights”.[54] Therefore, China should take actions to reverse this trend in the international relations, spread the good image so as to resolve misunderstanding in the international community, promote the image of a responsible country. In other words, it has become a strategic task involving national interests for China to claim the moral high ground, promote soft strength, and undertake the role of competition for the right to speak through “Protective Intervention”.

In addition, since the beginning of 21stt Century, “From the ‘silent worker’ China has evolved into one of the most constant defenders of the UN-proclaimed goals of global social and economic development, an active participant in most of the negotiating mechanisms for disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. China has become more likely to use the UN podium for the announcement of some of their own principles.”[55] At the same time, China needs to rethink its national interests due to the scale, impact, and rising speed of China.[56] Among them, overseas interests including that of overseas Chinese citizens have become an essential part of national interests of China. Therefore, “Protective Intervention” is conducive to better safeguarding the national interests of China.[57]

Conclusion

To sum up, as a basic principle of international law, the Principle of Non-Intervention is facing serious challenges. China’s choice to implement “Protective Intervention” not only complies with the trend that the Principle of Non-Intervention should be subordinate to the R2P, but also follows the trend of pursuing value of democracy and rule of law in the international community. In essence, “Protective Intervention” is a selective intervention which is not simply denying but in a sense transcending and discarding the Principle of Non-Intervention.[58] Chinese diplomacy could be more active and initiative, and the international responsibilities and obligations China undertakes could be highlighted by implementing “Protective Intervention”, so as to establish Chinese image as a responsible big country and better safeguard the national interests of China.

Source of documents：