The Egyptian anti-Mubarak protests captivated the world’s attention earlier this year when, in only 18 days, the largest Arab state in the Middle East went through an unexpected political transformation. Inspired by the events in Tunisia, over one million Egyptians took to the streets and successfully pressured Hosni Mubarak, who had served as the President of Egypt for 30 years, to resign. What makes this burgeoning revolution so remarkable is that it reveals something rarely seen under the many dictatorial leaders in the Middle East: the powerful will of the people.

Recognizing the undeniable forces behind the protest movement, leaders from around the world, either heads of state or of multi-national organizations, increasingly called on Mubarak to resign before the scheduled September elections. This international pressure was exerted by prominent figures, including United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who repeatedly urged reform and an “orderly and peaceful transition.” While many considered this global interest to be an affirmation of the legitimacy of the developments in Egypt, this considerable attention prompted some to call on the UN Security Council to intervene. However, in this context it is important to remember national sovereignty, a key principle championed by the UN.

National sovereignty forms the basis of much international law, and is clearly enshrined in the UN Charter. Article 2, Chapter 1 of this charter states that “nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state” and that “the [UN] is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all of its Members.” More plainly said, the UN is dedicated to upholding the national sovereignty of each of its members equally and will not intervene in their domestic affairs. The Secretary General made this commitment clear when, in response to questions regarding the situation in Egypt, he said that it “cannot be characterized as a threat to international peace and security” and thus did not warrant UN involvement.

Over the years, however, the meaning behind this simple language has changed with shifting international attitudes and norms regarding intervention and the concept of international human rights. While the 1945 United Nations Charter contains language which echoes these modern sentiments, such as the statement in Article 1, Chapter 1 that “[the UN shall] encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms,” the attitude that human rights violations are an exception to national sovereignty emerged more recently. The rising prominence of human rights issues in the international discourse on national sovereignty has paralleled a rise in humanitarian interventions. In particular, since the end of the Cold War the number of humanitarian interventions undertaken by the UN has grown significantly, as such operations are now considered a standard option for international actors instead of an exceptional undertaking.

The United Nations, as the principle international organization dedicated to maintaining global peace and security, is often looked to in times of domestic crises. Most recently in Egypt, Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who heads the World Muslim Scholars’ Union, urged the UN to “intervene in Egypt and protect innocent civilians.” While the deaths and injuries of Egyptian protesters is deplorable, the fact is that the situation in Egypt never reached a level consistent with current standards for humanitarian intervention. In general, it is inadvisable for the UN to intervene in such situations due to the dangerous precedent it would set.

An intervention by the UN during the protests in Egypt would have introduced a new and unnecessarily aggressive policy in international interventions, in which the UN could determine the winner in a domestic political battle. Such interference would not only undermine the idea of national sovereignty but also the authenticity of the Egyptian protesters and their achievements. These were clearly mass protests of the Egyptian people, by the Egyptian people and for the Egyptian people. They deserve the chance to determine their own future without a meddling UN intervention.

This article is adapted from an original blogpost on TRCommons.org. To read more of Quinn’s work, visit the blog where she is a contributing writer at http://www.trcommons.org/author/unagbtufts.