Todos para uno y ¿uno para todos? A cerca del derecho a intervenir y las obligaciones erga omnes
Archivos
Fecha
2017-12
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
SeIDeSoC
Resumen
Descripción
En ciertos casos, los Estados tienen la facultad de reclamar ante una sede jurisdiccional internacional cuando otro Estado incumple una obligación erga omnes. Tal acción, centrada en lograr que el Estado infractor cese su inobservancia, suele hacerse en “nombre de la comunidad internacional”. Sin embargo, al llevar adelante esta clase de acciones es inevitable suponer la colisión entre la potestad de intervenir del Estado reclamante, que intentará reencausar al infractor en el marco de sus obligaciones, y el principio de no injerencia en los asuntos internos del Estado soberano, que desautoriza toda intrusión en territorio ajeno. Inicialmente, el presente trabajo intentará resolver si la formulación de estos reclamos podría representar (o no) una vulneración del Principio de no injerencia previsto en el art. 2.7 de la Carta de Naciones Unidas. Seguidamente, exploraremos si los Estados –a nombre de terceros o representados por terceros- han acudido a diferentes jurisdicciones internacionales, para hacer valer su objeción, mientras que examinaremos cuál ha sido la respuesta brindada por la jurisdicción a la cual se acudió. Finalmente ofreceré unas reflexiones finales.
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.
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.
Palabras clave
Obligaciones erga omnes, Principio de no injerencia, Jurisdicciones internacionales, Derecho a intervenir