As Oppenheim's International Law puts it, "the interference must be forcible or dictatorial, or otherwise coercive, in effect depriving the state intervened against of control over the matter in question.
Chomsky writes that even "individuals of the highest intelligence and moral integrity succumb to the pathology" of taking exception to universal human standards.
But there assuredly are cases in which it is allowable to go to war, without having been ourselves attacked, or threatened with attack; and it is very important that nations should make up their minds in time, as to what these cases are He cultivated his connection with the Edinburgh Review, for example, despite the defects of its increasingly hide-bound Whiggism, because appearing in its pages conferred greater authority and respectability than any of its lesser rivals could offer; on the other hand, Edition: current; Page: [xi] particularly contentious or merely slight pieces were seen as needing more congenial company.
For example, it seems to be still well-established the diplomats should not interfere in the internal affairs of the State to which they are accredited.
And this would be conclusive, if the intervention recommended would really give them freedom. Coleridge: Carlyle, and Newman might be taken as obvious nineteenth-century examples of this type, their very heterogeneity ensuring that it will not be understood to imply a set of common doctrines.He then moves to the more contentious situation of wars for liberation. It was not simply that the upper classes largely sided with what was perceived as the aristocratic or gentlemanly character of plantation society, nor even that for many in all classes commercial self-interest seemed to dictate a prudent regard for the prosperity and independence of the cotton-exporting states. It went on to say that "the principle forbids all States or groups of States to intervene directly or indirectly in the internal or external affairs of other States" and that "a prohibited intervention must accordingly be one bearing on matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely. Much may depend upon the context, and on relations between the States, the general state of society in the States concerned and their level of political development. And this would be conclusive, if the intervention recommended would really give them freedom. But England and France together could have done it; and if they had, the Russian armed intervention would never have taken place, or would have been disastrous to Russia alone: while all that those Powers gained by not doing it, was that they had to fight Russia five years afterwards, under more difficult circumstances, and without Hungary for an ally. In DRC V. But there assuredly are cases in which it is allowable to go to war, without having been ourselves attacked, or threatened with attack; and it is very important that nations should make up their minds in time, as to what these cases are
Intervention to enforce non-intervention is always rightful, always moral, if not always prudent. No people ever was and remained free, but because it was determined to be so