The Non-Interventionary Norm Prevails: an Analysis of the Western Sahara

The Non-Interventionary Norm Prevails: an Analysis of the Western Sahara

Karin von Hippel argues that the norm of non-intervention did not disappear after the Cold War, and that it helps explain why some territorial disputes last so long. When a powerful state could act but holds back, she writes, its inaction can prolong the conflict. She also notes that states treat irredentist disputes, where one state claims another’s territory, differently from secessions.

Her case study is Western Sahara. She looks at four outside powers. The Soviet Union balanced phosphate and fishing deals with Morocco against its ties to Algeria. The United States supplied Morocco with arms and aid while keeping economic links with Algeria. France armed Morocco while trading heavily with Algeria, and Spain weighed its enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, its energy needs and its arms sales. She also covers Saudi aid to Morocco, the defensive walls Morocco built from 1980 and the repeated delays to the UN referendum.

Von Hippel concludes that this “ambiguous neutrality” turned the conflict into a regional one and kept it going through a steady flow of arms and trade, with no serious push for a settlement.

Full article

Read the full article on Cambridge Core

Support our work