Abstract

The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and various unrests across the globe have cast doubts on whether states still comply with the provision of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. This is due to states’ covert and overt involvement in these conflicts and unrests. Hence, the binding force of Article 2(4) appears highly compromised, although opinio juris on this is divided. The divided opinion is natural but most importantly reflects the division often seen in the Security Council and which has rendered the Council inactive over time. The remnant potency of Article 2(4) has been drastically eroded by the inertia of the Council. Consequently, state parties unilaterally intervene in the internal affairs of other states but still claim civil disciples of the norm codified in Article 2(4). This trend is risky and could extinguish the lifeline of the United Nations as it concerns the maintenance of international peace and security. To save the situation, an evolutive interpretation of Article 2(4) appears cogent now than ever. Time has changed unlike 1945 when the Charter was drafted. It is crucially important to re-evaluate the potency of the restrictive interpretation of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations. This paper does just that; it has analysed the travaux preparatoires of Article 2(4) and come to the conclusion that respect of the inviolability of State Territory was intended by the drafters of the UN Charter.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.