State Intervention in Environmental Crises: From the Principle of Non-Intervention to Global Solidarity for Environmental Protection

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Prof in public of international law, Department of law, Faculty of humanities, Bu-Ali Sina university, Hamadan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Environmental disasters have increasingly emerged as one of the major global challenges, and this has led to a great deal of attention being paid to the impacts and consequences of these disasters beyond national borders. In the current era, understanding and analyzing the relationship between the environment and international law has gained particular importance, especially in the context of third-party state intervention in environmental crises and disasters. Such a situation creates a need to examine the conditions for legal intervention by states in response to environmental disasters. The aim of the present study, which is expressed in a descriptive-analytical manner, is to examine the conditions and legal frameworks in which states can intervene in response to environmental disasters in another country without the use of force. Given the various aspects of environmental disasters and their transnational impacts, the concept of common concern of humanity and the principle of do no harm are examined as key tools for addressing these challenges. The findings of the study show that the principle of do no harm and the concept of common concern of humanity can actually lead to a reduction in the scope of exclusive jurisdiction of states. The reduction of jurisdiction, especially in situations where environmental disasters have transboundary and threatening consequences, allows states to intervene in response to these situations. Based on these results, the actions of states in response to environmental disasters can be legitimate under the principle of non-intervention and will be justified not only from moral but also from legal aspects.
 
Methods
This research has been conducted using a descriptive-analytical approach. The collection of information in the present research was carried out using the document-library method, including available books and articles.
 
Results and Discussion
Since environmental disasters can severely affect human and ecological security, governments need to seriously consider practical measures and intervention strategies whenever there is a threat to the environment and, consequently, human security. Therefore, this study has attempted to identify the type of interventions that can be effective and sustainable, based on historical experiences and international cooperation. In addition to principles such as do no harm and common concern of humanity, other legal rules and concepts should also be relevant to intervention in environmental crises, emphasizing the importance of international mediation and cooperation. In many cases, third countries should not only observe the status quo but should also actively take action in areas that can help improve the environmental situation.
 
Conclusions
In particular, the principle of do no harm reduces the scope of domestic jurisdiction by restricting the freedom of states to engage in activities that could significantly harm the territory of another state. The common concern of humanity can achieve the same effect, but its impact remains ambiguous due to the lack of clear normative and operational consequences. States often resort to self-help measures, such as retaliation and countermeasures, to change the course of another state. These are well-established and accepted practices under international law and among states themselves. Environmental intervention can be described as a retaliatory measure if the intervention is lawful under the principle of non-intervention. In situations where environmental intervention violates the principle of non-intervention, the intervention may be justified as a countermeasure. Consequently, the reduction of the scope of domestic jurisdiction and self-help measures are the circumstances in which environmental intervention can occur lawfully. Although the scope of domestic jurisdiction and coercion are cumulative elements, it is desirable that both elements be met for environmental intervention to be legitimate. States should refrain from intervening in any environmental matter, even in cases that are clearly outside the scope of domestic jurisdiction.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References
Aghaei, G. (2004). Humanitarian intervention from prohibition to necessity, Journal of Public Law Research, 6(11), 55-111. [In Persian]
Aminian, M. R. (2018). Security council humanitarian intervention in the environment from the perspective of International law, Journal of Human Rights Research, (14), 105-132. [In Persian]
Barral, V. (2016). National sovereignty over natural resources: environmental challenges and sustainable development. In: Morgera, E, Kulovesi, K (eds) Research handbook on international law and natural resources, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Bendel, J., & Harrison, J. (2017). Determining the legal nature and content of EIAs in International Environmental Law: What does the ICJ decision in the joined Costa Rica v Nicaragua/Nicaragua v Costa Rica cases tell us? QIL, 42, 13-21.
Birnie, P., Boyle, A., & Redgwell, C. (2009). International Law & the Environment, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bogdanova, I. (2022). Unilateral sanctions in international law and the enforcement of human rights: the impact of the principle of common concern of humankind, Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
Brunnée, J. (2008). Common areas, common heritage, and common concern. In: Bodansky D, Brunnée J, Hey E (eds) The Oxford handbook of international environmental law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buchan R, & Tsagourias, N. (2017). The crisis in Crimea and the principle of non-intervention, Int Community Law Rev, 19(2–3),165–193.
Corthay, E. (2016). The ASEAN doctrine of non-interference in light of the fundamental principle of non-intervention, Asian-Pacific Law Policy, 17(2),1–41.
Cottier, T. (2021). The principle of common concern of humankind. In: Cottier, T., Ahmad, Z., (eds), The prospects of common concern of humankind in international law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cottier, T., & Matteotti-Berkutova, S. (2009). International environmental law and the evolving concept of ‘common concern of mankind’. In: Cottier, T., Nartova, O., Bigdeli, S., (eds) International trade regulation and the mitigation of climate change: World Trade Forum, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawidowicz, M. (2007). Public law enforcement without public law safeguards? An analysis of state practice on third-party countermeasures and their relationship to the UN Security Council, Br Yearb Int Law, 77(1),333–418.
Dupuy, P., & Vinuales, J., (2018). International environmental law, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duvic-Paoli, L., Vinuales, J. (2015). Principle 2. In: Vi ٌ uales J (ed) The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: a commentary, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farkhondehnejad, S., Arashpour, A., & Raeisi, L. (2018). An analysis of the philosophical foundations of international environmental law, Philosophical Journal of Knowledge, (79), 247-262. [In Persian]
Faryadi, M. (2023). Minimization of waste production in Iran's environmental law, Journal of LegalStudies, 15(1), 263-296. [In Persian]
Farzaneh, M.R., & Bani Mustafa Arab, F. (2023). Analysis of climate change adaptation laws in developing countries, Climate Change Research Journal, 4(13), 35-54. [In Persian]
Henderson, S. (2019). The evolution of the principle of non-intervention? R2P and overt assistance to opposition groups, GR2P, 11(4), 365–393.
Higgins, P., et al (2013). Protecting the planet: a proposal for a law of ecocide, Crime Law Soc Change, 59(3), 251–266.
Hofer, A., (2017). The developed/developing divide on unilateral coercive measures: legitimate enforcement or illegitimate intervention? Chin J Int Law, 16(2), 175–214.
Jamnejad, M., & Wood, M. (2009). The principle of non-intervention, Leiden J Int Law, 22(2), 345–381.
Joyner, C. (2006). Coercion. Max Planck encyclopaedia of international law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koivurova, T. (2011). Transboundary Environmental Impact assessment in International Law in Marsden, S. & Koivurova, T. (eds.), Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment in the European Union: The Espoo Convention and its Kiev Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment, London: Earthscan.
Lieblich, E. (2013). International law and civil wars: intervention and consent, London: Routledge.
Mashadi, A., & Kovsari, V. (2020). global environmental pact; From resource inconsistency to the development of UN environmental norms, Journal of Legal Research, 23(90), 59-80. [In Persian]
Milanovic, M. (2023). Revisiting coercion as an element of prohibited intervention in international law, Am J Int Law, 117(4), 601–650.
Mohamadi, S., Jafari, M.J., & Azadbakht, F. (2020). Examining the principles of international environmental law in the light of environmental disputes, Journal of Political and International Research, 11(45), 303-323. [In Persian]
Nakavukaren Schefer, K., & Cottier, T. (2014). Responsibility to protect (R2P) and the emerging principle of common concern. In: Hilpold P (ed) Responsibility to protect: a new paradigm of international law, Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
Norouzi, M., & Eskandari Khoshguo, M. (2024). Explaining the function of blockchain technology in international environmental law with an emphasis on dealing with climate change, Journal of Legal Studies, 16(3), 425-462. [In Persian]
Norouzi, M. (2025). The interrelationship between international humanitarian law and international criminal law, Hamedan: Bu-Ali Sina University Publishing Center.
O’Connell, M.E. (1992). Enforcing the new international law of the environment, Ger Yearb Int Law, 35, 293–332.
O’Connell, M. E. (2011). The power and purpose of international law: insights from the theory and practice of enforcement, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Proukaki, E. K. (2009). The problem of enforcement in international law: countermeasures, the noninjured state and the idea of international community, London: Routledge.
Pourhashemi, S. A., & Parandeh Mutlaq, A. (2017). Methods of dealing with scientific uncertainty in the precautionary principle from the perspective of international environmental law, environmental science and technology, 19(2), 179-188. [In Persian]
Ruozzi, E., (2017). The Obligation to Undertake an Environmental Assessment in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ: A Principle in Search of Autonomy” European Journal of Risk Regulation, 8(1), 158-169.
Ruys, T. (2017). Sanctions, retortions and countermeasures: concepts and international legal framework, In: Van den Herik L (ed) Research handbook on UN sanctions and international law, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Salari, A. (2020). Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment in International Environmental Law, Public Law Studies Quarterly, 50(4), 1331-1355. [In Persian]
Salimi Torkamani, H. (2017). From the legal responsibility of governments to their moral responsibility in dealing with climate change, Journal of Legal Studies, 10(2), 105-133. [In Persian]
Saluzzo, S. (2021). The principle of non-intervention and the battle over Hong Kong, Quest Int Law, 79:27–51.
Sand, P. (2013). Enforcing CITES: the rise and fall of trade sanctions, Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law, 22(3):251–263.
Sands, Ph., & Peel, J. (2012). Principles of International Environmental Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tams, C. (2005). Enforcing obligations erga omnes in international law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tams, C. (2011). Individual states as guardians of community interests. In: Fastenrath U, Geiger R, Khan DE, Paulus A, Von Schorlemer S, Vedder C (eds) From bilateralism to community interest: essays in honour of Bruno Simma, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tay, X. (2022). Reconstructing the principle of non-intervention and non-interference—electoral disinformation, Nicaragua, and the Quilt-work approach, Berkeley J Int Law, 40(1), 39–94.
Tzanakopoulos, A. (2015). The right to be free from economic coercion, Camb Int Law J, 4(3), 616–633.
Valdez, A.I. (2019). Beyond the Arbitral Ruling: A Trans boundary Environmental Impact Assessment in the South China Sea, Asian Journal of International Law, 9, 251-274.
Watts, S. (2015). Low-intensity cyber operations and the principle of non-intervention, Baltic Yearb Int Law Online, 14(1), 137–161
Yang, T. (2019). The Emergence of the Environmental Impact Assessment Duty as a Global Legal Norm and General Principle of Law, HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL, 70, 525-572.
Ziaee, S.Y., & Rashidi, M. (2021). The nature and content of the obligation to environmental impact assessment in the light of the ICJ case law, Journal of Legal Studies, 13(3), 131-160. [In Persian]
Zeinali, B., Salahi, B., & Norouzparast, H. (2021). Investigating the relationship between rotation fluctuations and climatic changes of precipitation in northwest Iran (case study: Sardasht station), Climate Change Research Journal, 2(8), 35-54. [In Persian]
Ziegler, K. (2013). Domaine réservé. Max Planck encyclopaedia of international law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Journal of Legal Studies
Volume 18, Issue 3 - Serial Number 58
October 2026
Pages 549-594

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics