By Sarath Wijesinghe President’s Counsel (LL.M (UCL London)), former Ambassador to UAE and Israel, former Chairman of the Consumer Affairs Authority, President of the Lanka Ambassador’s Forum – United Kingdom, Solicitor in England and Wales

The question of whether the United Nations can intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign states is a complex and contentious issue that has been debated extensively. On paper, sovereign states are considered to have exclusive authority over their internal affairs, and no other country, organization, or even the United Nations itself, should interfere. This principle of non-interference is enshrined in international law and is a fundamental aspect of state sovereignty.
However, in practice, the situation is more nuanced, and there are several factors that can influence the extent to which a state’s sovereignty is respected. One key factor is the strength of the state, both politically and economically. Stronger states are often able to assert their sovereignty more effectively and are less likely to face external interference in their internal affairs. For example, Sri Lanka, being a small island nation with limited economic resources, may find itself in a situation where its sovereignty is not fully respected. The Sri Lankan Accord, which was seen by some as an invasion of the country’s sovereignty, received little international intervention due to the perceived strength and power of India, which was a party to the accord.
Another factor that can influence the extent of a state’s sovereignty is the actions of other states, particularly powerful ones. Ambassadors from powerful countries, for example, may directly or indirectly intervene in the internal affairs of other states, violating the principle of non-interference. This kind of intervention can undermine the sovereignty of the affected state and can lead to tensions between countries.
Despite these challenges, it is important to note that the principle of non-interference remains a cornerstone of international relations. While there may be instances where intervention occurs, such as in cases of humanitarian crises or violations of international law, these interventions are typically justified on the grounds of protecting human rights or maintaining international peace and security.
The question of external intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states, particularly in the context of human rights issues, is a highly complex and contentious issue that has garnered significant attention in recent times. Sri Lanka, a small island nation with a history of internal conflict, has found itself at the center of this debate, especially concerning the role of the United Nations and other international bodies in addressing alleged human rights violations within its borders. Ambassadors from influential countries, particularly those with strong human rights records, have been vocal in their criticism of Sri Lanka’s human rights practices. This has led to accusations of hypocrisy, as these countries themselves face scrutiny for their own human rights records. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), in particular, has been a focal point for these discussions, with Sri Lanka often being the subject of resolutions and investigations regarding its human rights practices.
One of the key figures in this debate is Professor G.L. Pieris, a former professor and current opposition figure in Sri Lanka. Professor Pieris has written extensively on the issue of external intervention in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs, arguing that such intervention is detrimental to the country’s sovereignty. However, it is notable that Professor Pieris has himself sought assistance from the UNHRC, an organization that he has criticized for its perceived bias against Sri Lanka. This apparent contradiction has raised questions about the consistency of Professor Pieris’s stance on external intervention. In addition to Professor Pieris’s views, the role of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) has also come under scrutiny. A report in “The Island” by Shaminda Ferdinando highlights concerns about the potential impact of laws such as the Online Safety Bill and others on human rights in Sri Lanka. Fernando suggests that the introduction of such laws could provide foreign bodies with ammunition to criticize Sri Lanka’s human rights record, further complicating the issue of external intervention.
The appointment of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) in Sri Lanka has become a contentious issue, drawing scrutiny from UN officials and international bodies. This external questioning of an internal matter adds to a growing list of concerns that are being raised about Sri Lanka’s governance and human rights record. While it is natural for international bodies to take an interest in such matters, it is crucial for Sri Lanka to address these concerns internally, without allowing them to escalate into larger disputes.
Internal matters, such as the appointment of the IGP, should ideally be resolved within the framework of Sri Lanka’s legal and institutional mechanisms. This approach not only upholds the principles of sovereignty and self-determination but also allows for a more nuanced and context-specific resolution of the issue. By addressing these concerns internally, Sri Lanka can demonstrate its commitment to good governance and the rule of law, which are essential for maintaining its credibility and reputation on the international stage. Moreover, airing internal disputes in public can be detrimental to Sri Lanka’s interests, as it can be exploited by external actors for their own purposes. It is therefore imperative for Sri Lanka to handle these matters discreetly and professionally, ensuring that they are resolved in a manner that is fair, transparent, and in accordance with international standards.
While it is important for Sri Lanka to address concerns raised by international bodies, it is equally important for these matters to be resolved internally, in a manner that upholds the country’s
sovereignty and dignity. By doing so, Sri Lanka can demonstrate its maturity and commitment to good governance, which are essential for maintaining its standing in the international community.