

In an article with the above title to the Sunday Island of March 28, 2010, Mr. Nihal Jayawickrama states: "The erosion of the doctrine of state sovereignty, in so far as it related to the treatment by a state of its own nationals, began as far back as in the early nineteenth century with the incorporation of certain humanitarian norms in international law".
He states that the first instance of such erosion relates to slavery, and the second is that "the series of Geneva Conventions that now regulate the treatment of combatants and victims of war, including the victims of internal armed conflict, such as between armed forces of a government and dissidents or other organized groups which control part of its territory".
He has however failed to distinguish between the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977. For instance, Additional Protocol II of 8 June, 1977 deals with internal conflicts such as between government forces (e.g. GOSL) and dissidents or organized groups (e.g. LTTE). Protocol II relate to "Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts" which is additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949.
Article 3 of this Protocol titled "Non-intervention" states:
1. "Nothing in this Protocol shall be invoked for the purpose of affecting the sovereignty of a State or the responsibility of the government, by all legitimate means, to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the national unity and territorial integrity of the State".
2. "Nothing in this Protocol shall be invoked as a justification for intervening, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the armed conflict or in the internal or external affairs of the High Contracting Party in the territory of which that conflict occurs".
It is clear from the foregoing that the concept of State sovereignty has not eroded, and that it is an accepted concept when it comes to conflicts of a Non-International character. The question as to why the Sri Lankan Government has not invoked this provision has been raised; but no satisfactory answer has been offered by officials of successive Governments. Had the provisions of Protocol II been invoked, would not the conduct of the Sri Lankan Government been judged by Humanitarian Law and not Human Rights Laws?