Non-Alignment and Third-World Approach to International Law: A Case of Legal ‘Alterity’

Born as a reaction to the post-war global polarisation, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) gathered developing countries with different geopolitical positions, ideologies, and socio-political systems, most of whom had just escaped the vestiges of colonialism. A country’s determination to pursue an independent foreign policy based on active and peaceful coexistence was an essential criterion for the NAM membership. Active and peaceful coexistence did not mean a neutral stance towards third-party conflicts but an active involvement in preventing and maintaining international peace.

The non-alignment movement finds a legal corollary in the TWAIL (Third World Approach to International Law). Both the Non-Aligned Movement and TWAIL are instances of ‘alterity’ in international law that challenge the neo-imperialist nature of international law. TWAIL, when interpreted as a legal counterpart of NAM, challenges the patronising tone of humanitarian intervention and “responsibility to protect” (R2P). It is argued that a selective application of R2P is nothing but an instance of ‘imperial gaze’. Both NAM and TWAIL dwelled on the importance of ‘economic self-determination’. The third dimension of R2P, i.e. “responsibility to rebuild”, which focuses on a post-conflict situation, says very little about the economic hardships a society may face after an intervention. An argument will be made that instead of focusing on a Eurocentric state building in a post-conflict society, the world community shall resort to the ‘local ownership’ of societal assets espoused by NAM and TWAIL.

The paper aims to contribute to contemporary research on alternatives to the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, reflecting non-Western views of international law paths towards global peace.