不干预主义

1946年12月6日，联合国大会决议通过《国家权利义务宣言草案》，认为各国对任何他国之内政外交，有不加干涉之义务。1965年12月21日，联合国大会决议通过《关于各国内政不容干涉及其独立与主权之保护宣言》，该宣言规定，无论任何理由，各国均无权直接或间接干预他国内政和外交。

Non-interventionism or non-intervention is commonly understood as "a foreign policy of political or military non-involvement in foreign relations or in other countries' internal affairs". This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state as well as the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".

Non-interventionism became a norm in international relations before World War I. During the Cold War, it was often violated in order to instigate revolutions, prevent revolutions, or protect international security. Many countries have since adopted their own interpretation of non-interventionism or modified it according to the responsibility to protect any population from egregious crimes.

Terminology

In political science lexicon, the term "isolationism" is sometimes improperly used in place of "non-interventionism". "Isolationism" should be interpreted as a broader foreign policy that, in addition to non-interventionism, is associated with trade and economic protectionism, cultural and religious isolation, as well as non-participation in any permanent military alliance.

History

The term "non-intervention" was used in the context of United States policy in 1915. The norm of non-intervention has dominated the majority of international relations and can be seen to have been one of the principal motivations for the United States initial non-interventionist policy in World Wars I and II, and the liberal powers' non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War despite the involvement of Germany and Italy. The norm was then firmly established into international law as one of the United Nations Charter's central tenets, which established non-intervention as one of the key principles which would underpin the emergent post-World War II peace.

However, this was soon affected by the advent of the Cold War, which increased the number and intensity of interventions in the domestic politics of a vast number of developing countries under pretexts such as instigating a "global socialist revolution" or ensuring "containment" of such a revolution.

In different countries

China

Mutual non-interference has been one of China's principles on foreign policy since 1954. After the reform and opening up, China began to focus on industrial development and actively avoided military conflict over the subsequent decades. As of December 2018, China has used its veto eleven times in UN Security Council. China first used the veto on 25 August 1972 to block Bangladesh's admission to the UN. From 1971 to 2011, China used its veto sparingly, preferring to abstain rather than veto resolutions indirectly related to Chinese interests. According to David L. Bosco, China turned abstention into an "art form," abstaining on 30% of Security Council Resolutions between 1971 and 1976.

Sweden

Sweden became a non-interventionist state after the backlash against the king following Swedish losses in the Napoleonic Wars; the coup d'etat that followed in 1812 caused Jean Baptiste Bernadotte to establish a policy of non-intervention, which lasted from the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 until the accession of Sweden into NATO in 2024.

Decline

Since the end of the Cold War, new emergent norms of humanitarian intervention are challenging the norm of non-intervention, based upon the argument that while sovereignty gives rights to states, there is also a responsibility to protect (R2P) its citizens. The ideal, an argument based upon social contract theory, has states being justified in intervening within other states if the latter fail to protect (or are actively involved in harming) their citizens. The R2P doctrine follows a "second duty" that employs states to intervene if another state is unwilling or unable to protect its citizens from gross human rights violations. Moreover, the International Criminal Court closely monitors states who are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens and investigate if they have committed egregious crimes. Non-intervention is not absolute.