LINCOLN-DOUGLAS | March/April 2013
Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses.
Victory Briefs Topic Analysis Book: Lincoln-Douglas March/April 2013 – 12NFL4-Humanitarian Intervention © 2013 Victory Briefs, LLC Victory Briefs Topic Analysis Books are published by: Victory Briefs, LLC 925 North Norman Place Los Angeles, California 90049 Publisher: Victor Jih | Managing Editor: Adam Torson | Editor: Adam Torson | Topic Analysis Writers: Stephen Babb, Mollie Cowger, Adam Torson, Nate Zerbib-Berda | Evidence: Jeff Liu, Adam Torson For customer support, please email firstname.lastname@example.org or call 310.472.6364.
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com
Page 2 of 158
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. 2 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY STEPHEN BABB ......................................................................... 7 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY MOLLIE COWGER .................................................................... 17 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY ADAM TORSON ........................................................................ 22 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY NATE ZERBIB-BERDA.............................................................. 29 FRAMEWORK EVIDENCE ........................................................................................... 36
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS ONLY LEGITIMATE WHEN IT MEETS THE TRANDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR JUST WAR ..........................................................................................................................36 THE PRINCIPLE OF LAST RESORT REQUIRES STATES TO WEIGH THE COSTS OF INTERVENTION AGAINST THOSE OF OTHER POSSIBLE MEANS ......................................................................................37 THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY RESTRAINS THE MEANS OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION ............................................................................................................................................38 HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS ONLY JUSTIFIED IF IT HAS A REASONABLE CHANCE OF SUCCESS......................................................................................................................................................39 TO BE LEGITIMATE HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS .........................................................................................................................................40 THE ETHICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR JUST WAR THEORY COMES FROM NATURAL LAW ....................41 JUST WAR THEORY IS NOTORIOUSLY DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET .......................................................42 THERE ARE FIVE CORE PROVISIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF JUST MILITARY INTERVENTION ........43
AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE ........................................................................................... 44
THE LIMITS OF SOVEREIGNTY ........................................................................................................... 44
SYSTEMATIC GOVERNMENT OPPRESSION AND ATROCITY BOTH UNDERMINES A STATE’S CLAIM TO SOVEREIGNTY AND JUSTIFIES INTERVENTION TO STOP PRACTICES THAT “SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE” ..............................................................................................................................................44 IN THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASING EMPHASIS ON HUMAN SECURITY RATHER THAN NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY .............................................................................45 STATES FORFEIT THEIR RIGHTS TO SELF-GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THEIR PEOPLE .............................................................................................................................................46 NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO SOVEREIGNTY.................................................................................................47
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT........................................................................................................... 48
THE IDEA OF A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT REFRAMES THE NATURE OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ................................................................................................................48 RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT EXTENDS BEYOND THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE TO THE PROMOTION OF PEACE, SECURITY, AND SELF-GOVERNANCE ............................................................49 RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IS LESS ABOUT EXPANDING LEGAL RIGHTS AS IT IS REMOVING POLITICAL IMPEDIMENTS TO ACTION IN THE FACE OF ATROCITY – LIBYA PROVES ........................50 INCONSISTENT APPLICATION OF HUMANITARIAN NORMS IS A POOR REASON NOT TO ACT WHEN WE CAN.........................................................................................................................................................51
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com
Page 3 of 158
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMUNITY .................................................................................... 52
THE OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS BASED ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COMMUNITY OF NATIONS .....................................................................52 IN THE 1990S, MANY HUMANITARIAN EMERGENCIES SHATTERED THE HOPE FOR A NEW POSTCOLD WAR PEACE ......................................................................................................................................53 THE 1990S SAW A TURN TOWARD MORALLY-ORIENTED FOREIGN-POLICY NORMS.........................54 MORAL DISCOURSE HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY ACCEPTED IN GLOBAL POLITICS ......................55 THE ORTHODOX CONCEPTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ASSUMES THAT THEY ARE UNIVERSAL RIGHTS DERIVED FROM MORAL REASONING .........................................................................................56 HUMAN RIGHTS ARE BY THEIR NATURE MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN OTHER MORAL CLAIMS ......57 HUMAN RIGHTS IS CLOSELY TIED TO AN INTERNATIONAL CULTURE OF RIGHTS THAT HAS DEVELOPED SINCE WORLD WAR II ..........................................................................................................58 AFTER THE COLD WAR, THE POLITICAL REALITIES OF ETHNIC CLEANSING AND THE ADVANCE OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY MADE HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION A PRESSING POLITICAL PROBLEM .....................................................................................................................................................59 THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT HAS BEEN UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED BY THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY ...........................................................................................................................60 HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE IN THE CONTEXT OF STRIVING FOR A MORE PEACEFUL WORLD ..........................................................................................................................61
LIBERAL HUMANITARIANISM AND COSMOPOLITANISM ......................................................................... 62
THE HUMANITARIAN NARRATIVE IS CLOSELY TIED TO LIBERAL IDEAS OF INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SOCIETY AND PROTECTION FROM STATE AGGRESSION .....................................................................62 TRADITIONAL LIBERAL CONCEPTIONS OF HUMANITARIAN NORMS HAVE BEEN SUPPLEMENTED BY MODERN COSMOPOLITANISM .............................................................................................................63 IT IS POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP A SENSE OF HUMAN IDENTITY THAT MAKES ONE WILLING TO DIE FOR THE SAKE OF SOMEONE ELSE SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE IS HUMAN ..............................................64 COSMOPOLITANISM HAS ITS ORIGINS IN GREEK STOICISM ................................................................65 CLASSICAL COSMOPOLITANS EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF AVOIDING PAROCHIALISM IN SUCCESSFUL POLITICAL ORDERS ...........................................................................................................66 COSMOPOLITANISM EMPHASIZES THE VALUE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL HUMAN ...................................67 STOIC COSMOPOLITANS ALLOW FOR THE RICHNESS OF LOCAL AFFILIATIONS BUT INSIST ON IDENTIFICATION WITH A COMMON HUMANITY ........................................................................................68 STOIC COSMOPOLITANS PUSH BACK AGAINST THINKNIG OF OTHERS IN THE WORLD AS ALIEN AND HOSTILE ...............................................................................................................................................69 KANTIANISM ENTAILS A UNIVERSAL COSMOPOLITAN LAW ..................................................................70 FOR RAWLS, HUMAN RIGHTS ARE DISTINCT FROM OTHER LIBERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THAT THEY GENERATE A JUSTIFICATION FOR FOREIGN INTERVENTION ..........................................71 FOR RAWLS HUMAN RIGHTS SET STANDARDS FOR THE ACTIONS OF NON-STATE ENTITIES AS WELL AS GOVERNMENTS IN MANY DIFFERENT CONTEXTS .................................................................72 HABERMAS ARGUES THAT THE TENSION BETWEEN NATIONALISM AND A COSMOPOLITIAN ETHOS IS OVERSTATED ..........................................................................................................................................73 HABERMAS MAINTAINS THAT RATIONALITY AND THE CULMINATION OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT WILL PROPEL THE WORLD TOWARD MORE COSMOPOLITAN IDENTIFICATIONS ..............................74
JUST WAR THEORY .......................................................................................................................... 75
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS JUSTIFIED ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN IMMINENT EMERGENCY 75
..............................S....................................................................................................... BUT EGRIOUSLY VIOLATIONS OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS DO ..............81
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION WORKS .... HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN SYRIA .............................................85 HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION HAS LED TO A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN VIOLENCE FROM CIVIL WAR ............................80 HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS JUSTIFIED UNDER JUST WAR THEORY—SUBJECT TO CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................93 HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION SAVES LIVES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................S..90 THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HAS LEARNED THE IMPORTANCE OF EFFECTIVELY ENGAGING LOCAL CONSTITUENCIES IN INTERVENTION .......................................79 JUST WAR THEORY IS THE ONLY FRAMEWORK THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THE IMPORTANCE OF MORALITY IN DETERMINING WHETHER INTERVENTION IS JUSTIFIED .84 SINCE THE MODERN ERA OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION.....87 THE MILITARY INTERVENTION IN LIBYA DEMONSTRATES THAT HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION CAN PROTECT VITAL MORAL NORMS ........................................................................................... 82
NATIONS HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY ADEPT AT USING INTERVENTION AS A TOOL TO PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS RATHER THAN VIOLATE THEM...................................................................................................................................................................78 INTERVENTION WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IF CONSISTENT WITH THE TENETS OF JUST WAR THEORY ........ IT’S TRY OR DIE ....................................................89 INTERVENING GOVERNMENTS HAVE LEARNED THE LESSONS OF UNDERDEPLOYMENT IN PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS .............................83 HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS GENERALLY SUCCEED IN PREVENTING MASS ATROCITIES AGAINST CIVILIANS ...............................92 INTERVENING STATES HAVE LEARNED THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A MEANINGFUL EXIT STRATEGY..........94 MULTIPLE VARIANTS ARE DETERMINANTS OF SUCCESS OF US INTERVENTION—EMPIRICAL MODEL SHOWS ........................................77 VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS DO NOT ALWAYS WARRANT INTERVENTION............................................com
Page 4 of 158
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS JUSTIFIED ONLY WHEN IT AIMS ONLY TO STOP THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF THE CRISIS............................................................................99 POSSIBLE PLAN FOR U............................................................................................................................................................................96 THE CREATION OF THE ICTY IN YUGOSLAVIA EFFECTIVELY DELEGITIMIZED LEADERS WHO HAD VIOLATED HUMANITARIAN NORMS ........................................................... VIOLENCE AGAINST CIVILIANS IS DOWN MARKEDLY ..................................................victorybriefs........................................86 THE INTERVENTION IN COTE D’IVOIRE DEMONSTRATES THE INCREASING EFFECTIVENESS OF MODERN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION ............................................................................................................98 THE U.......................................................Humanitarian Intervention www.................................82 CRITICISMS ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION ARE OUTDATED ............................. 98
INTERVENTION IN SYRIA WOULD IS PREMATURE NOW BUT COULD BE EFFECTIVE .....97
SYRIA ..95 MULTIPLE MODELS SHOW THAT US INTERVENTION HAS A POSITIVE EFFECT ON RIGHTS ...................................................................................100 EVEN IF US INTERVENTION IN SYRIA WOULD BE INEFFECTIVE.......................................................... SHOULD CONSIDER INTERVENTION IN SYRIA IF OPPOSITION FORCES UNITE ...............12NFL4...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................101 HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN SYRIA IS A PREREQUISITE TO SUCCESSFUL DIPLOMATIC ACTION ..88 THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY LEARNED IMPORTANT LESSONS FROM ITS EARLY FAILURES IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION ...................................................................91 THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HAS LEARNED THE IMPORTANCE OF COALITION BUILDING ........................................................................102
.....................................................................................................................................................108 THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF STATISM COMMON TO THE ANTI-HUMANITARIAN NARRATIVE ......................................... 120
WHEN NATIONS ENGAGE IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION THEY OFTEN FAIL TO SECURE A PEACEFUL TRANSITION AFTER THE CONFLICT ............................................................ 106
NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW..............118 US INTERVENTION IN LIBYA WAS UNJUSTIFIED—THREE WARRANTS .............................................................................................................................................................................12NFL4.......................................105
NEGATIVE EVIDENCE ....................................................................112 INTERVENTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED SIMPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DEMOCRACY 113 THE UN CHARTER PERMITS INTERVENTION ONLY IN SELF-DEFENSE OR WHEN THE SECURITY COUNSEL AUTHORIZES IT ON THE GROUNDS THAT A STATE IS A DANGER TO INTERNATIONAL PEACE ...103 US SUPPORT FOR OPPOSITION GROUPS IN SYRIA IS KEY............................................................................................................................................................................................... ...........................109 STATE SOVEREIGNTY IS DESIGNED TO CHECK THE MORALIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS .................................................................................................122 THE IRAQ WAR DEMONSTRATES THE DANGER OF INVADING A NATION WHERE INTELLIGENCE IS DIFFICULT TO GATHER .................................................................victorybriefs......................................................................................107 REALISTS’ STATIST CRITIQUE OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION ARGUES THAT SOVEREIGN STATES THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ...................110 HUMANITARIANISM UNDERMINES THE SYSTEM OF SOVEREIGN STATES THAT LIMITS THE SCOPE OF WAR......................................... SO ADVOCATES OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION SHOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE RISK OF AN INSURGENCY IS OUTWEIGHED BY THE ADVANTAGES OF INTERVENTION ..............................................................................................................................................................121 THE WAR IN IRAQ SHOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY BE CONSIDERED A DISASTER ...........................................................................................................................................................................Humanitarian Intervention www....120 THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT WILL POLITICIZE HUMANITARIAN OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................123 INSURGENCIES LIKE THOSE IN IRAQ ARE FORESEEABLE..............114 US INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO IS AN EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE OF VIOLATION OF JUST WAR THEORY..................................................................................117 THE US SHOULD NOT PROMOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS DOCTRINE IN ILAW ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................111 THE SOVEREIGN NATION IS INSTRUMENTAL IN DESACRALIZING POLITICS AND THEREFORE CONTROLLING VIOLENCE .................................... 106
THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION DERIVES FROM THE VALUE OF SELF-DETERMINATION106 THE PRESUMPTION OF NON-INTERFERENCE HELPS TO MAINTAIN INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND STABILITY .......................................................................................................125 IRAQ DEMONSTRATES THAT LOCAL POPULATIONS DON’T ALWAYS GREET INTERVENING FORCES AS LIBERATORS ...................................................115 NO INSTITUTION OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION CURRENTLY EXISTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW ..................................................................116 IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO ACCOMMODATE HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION DOCTRINE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW..............119
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION DOESN’T SOLVE...............................................................................................................104 US INTERVENTION IN SYRIA WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL—SHOULD NOT BE PARALYZED BY WORST CASE SCENARIO THINKING ..................................com
Page 5 of 158
BRINK IN SYRIA IS NOW – CANNOT AFFORD INACTION ...............126
....................................................................................................................................................................124 IRAQ DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE ARE LIMITS TO WHAT WE CAN PREDICT ABOUT WAR AND SO IN GENERAL WE SHOULD BE WEARY OF IT.................................................................................................................................................
......134 HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION HAS NO DETERRENT EFFECT .............com
Page 6 of 158
INTERVENOR STATES ARE UNLIKELY TO SUPPORT DEMOCRATIC FORMS OF GOVERNMENT ...........................................147 HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOMPLISH IMPARTIALLY .............................137 SOME THEORISTS CHALLENGE THE ORTHODOX VIEW THAT HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL AND REASON-BASED......................................................................................................................132 MILITARY INTERVENTION SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED THE LIKELIHOOD OF VIOLATIONS FOR WOMENS RIGHTS ...........victorybriefs.............................................146 STATES AND THE UN REMAIN UNWILLING TO ENGAGE IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AGAINST ENTRENCHED GOVERNMENTS LIKE THAT OF SYRIA............................................................Humanitarian Intervention www............................... ARGUING THAT THIS ACCOUNT PAYS TOO LITTLE ATTENTION TO THE POLITICAL COMPONENT OF RIGHTS .......................................................................................... THEREFORE REGIONAL EFFORTS ARE CRUCIAL TO STOPPING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES ......................................................127 THE LIKELIHOOD THAT INTERVENOR STATES WILL SUPPORT UNDEMOCRATIC REGIMES MEANS THAT IT IS UNLIKELY THAT SUCCESSOR STATES WILL RESPECT WOMENS’ RIGHTS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12NFL4.......................140 THE CONCEPT OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS INCONSISTENT BECAUSE IT IS NOT APPLIED TO NATURAL DISASTERS .. 149
AFRICA’S COLONIAL HISTORY MAKES MANY STATES SUSPICIOUS OF FOREIGN INTERVENTION.....................................................135 MILITARY INTERVENTION IS HISTORICALLY INEFFECTIVE .........................133 MILITARY INTERVENTION IS GENERALLY FUTILE AND INEFFECTIVE ...........149 THE FAILURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO ADDRESS SHAMEFUL HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN AFRICA HAS PROMPTED REGIONAL ACTION ...........................................................................................129 THE PURSUIT OF WOMENS RIGHTS IS HARMED BY THE INSTABILITY THAT ATTENDS ANY FOREIGN MILITARY INTERVENTION...............................................................138 RAWLS ACCOUNT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IS PREMISED ON THE VALIDITY OF WESTERN LIBERALISM .............. SUCCESSOR STATES TEND TO BE LESS RESPONSIVE TO DOMESTIC LOBBYING AND INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE TO IMPROVE HUMAN RIGHTS .......................................................................................................................................................................................141 INTERVENTION FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS MAKES A MOCKERY FOR THE VERY RIGHTS IT IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT ..........................142 MILITARY INTERVENTION FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS EMBRACES HYPOCRISY ....................................................148
MULTILATERIALISM AND REGIONALISM BETTER................................................................................................................................................................131 THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT MILITARY INTERVENTIONS CAN IMPROVE WOMENS RIGHTS .........................................145 UNILATERAL INTERVENTION IS LIKELY TO BE STRONGLY SELF-INTERESTED.............................130 IN STATES TARGETED FOR MILITARY INTERVENTION WOMEN TEND TO BE SUBJECT TO MORE FORMS OF VIOLENCE ......................................................................................................... 137
PHILOSOPHICAL CRITICS OF LIBERALISM TEND TO OPPOSE HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION ..............128 BECAUSE UNILATERAL INTERVENORS TEND TO SUPPORT REPRESSIVE REGIMES............................................................................................................................................144 THE DESIRE TO AVOID PUTTING TROOPS ON THE GROUND CAN DRIVE INTERVENING NATIONS TO TACTICS THAT ACTUALLY HARM HUMAN RIGHTS ..................143
STATES ARE SELF-INTERESTED............................................................. 144
THE DOCTRINE OF JUST ANTI-TOTALITARIAN WAR (JAW) MAY BE UNDERMINED BY THE SELFINTERESTED MOTIVES OF INVADING STATES ............139 RAWLS JUSTIFICATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS DOES NOT COHERE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CULTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS ..................................................................................136
A2 LIBERAL COSMOPOLITANISM..
..................... Reasons are not in and of themselves justifications...............................................158
Topic Analysis by Stephen Babb
This topic may sound like a mouthful at first......Humanitarian Intervention www.. It's quite another. In my view.......... appeals to cultural relativism are little more than academically situated fashionable nonsense — and about as fashionable as bell-bottoms at that...................... but don't expect especially evenhanded treatment....................... Put simply.152 IGO INTERVENTIONS ARE MORE LIKELY TO PRODUCE STABILITY AND DEMOCRACY ............ Now for some quick clarification regarding what this topic is and isn't about.........................................................155
US STRATEGIC INTERESTS ...........
"Intervening in Internal Political Processes"
The topic framers clearly attempted to go beyond the question of military action..............154 US INTERVENTION IN SYRIA WILL SOUR US-RUSSIA RELATIONS ........................................ however................victorybriefs..............................com
Page 7 of 158
MULTILATERAL INTERVENTIONS ARE PREFERABLE TO UNILATERAL ONES BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS LIKELY TO ADVANCE A SELF-INTERESTED AGENDA ......153 HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY SUCCESSFUL AS MORE REGIONAL FORCES HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED AS PEACEKEEPERS .......... We'll explore (rant about?) this line of 'thinking' more later........ 154
INTERVENTION IN SYRIA WOULD LEAD TO PROLONGED CONFRONTATION AND BLOODSHED .............. or as complicated as weighing the manifold costs and benefits associated with actual interventions......... Taking sides can be as simple as espousing a straightforward moral commitment to protecting rights we hold as universal............................................................... to naturalize those difference as acceptable on face...................... Fair warning....................12NFL4.................... but that's nothing when compared to the wide range of domestic and international policy questions it raises —much less the underlying philosophical problems included therein............ instead referencing intervention and offering little-to-no explanation of what that intervention would entail
........................................................................................ and they have their reasons to be sure...151 IGO INTERVENTIONS ARE MORE LIKELY TO IMPROVE WOMENS RIGHTS BY INCREASING INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF THE PROBLEM .............. this debate is a can of worms............................... To be completely honest up front...........................................................154
SYRIA .. 157
NO STRATEGIC INTEREST IN INTERVENTION—REGIONAL CONFLICT POSE NO SECURITY THREAT TO THE US ....... I approach this topic with some unmitigated biases.......................... It's one thing to note the origins of cultural idiosyncrasies....157 GLOBAL INSTABILITY IS NOT A THREAT TO THE US.......................................
at least.. may not even use its air assets in an offensive capacity.com
Page 8 of 158
in concrete terms. More importantly. "The topic implies my world solves the problem automatically.Humanitarian Intervention www.
"Justified" and the Looming Meta-Ethical Nightmare
. but nor is it fully multilateral in the traditional sense of cooperating with allied nations. Including these kinds of scenarios as part of the debate is an important step in approaching this topic with any measure of realism and accuracy. government from political disapproval at home along with the perception abroad of imperialism. is (or isn't) acting unilaterally.g. we've all seen it happen. but debaters are oft to sidestep 'solvency' burdens with semantic justifications like.. rebel groups in Libya or Syria). In practice." Bush-league though such tendencies may be. these kind of interventions serve a very practical function. we're left with a range of ambiguities concerning the severity of human rights abuses in question and the extent to which the U. ya know. This topic's wording makes that nonsense a bit harder with this explicit language "attempt to stop." That means affirmative debaters will either need to demonstrate that their policy options needn't be 100% efficacious in order to be worthwhile. these are important considerations. the policy isn't quite unilateral. or otherwise bite the bullet and instead demonstrate that that they are in fact efficacious (or. Though the topic may not address them head on. When the United States works through proxy actors (e.. In many instances. In many analysts' minds. There may be no American boots on the ground. Such attempts also straddle the fence in terms of whether they properly constitute military force. efficacious enough).S. For those more interested in absurd semantic claims.S. it's probably worthwhile for debaters to sort out what exactly they're advocating — especially when charged with affirming the topic.12NFL4. and yet. Real life is littered with examples of intervention that don't fit neatly into a particular category. shielding the U.victorybriefs. you'd be hard-pressed to ignore the fact we're providing material support to groups who aren't exactly busy negotiating.. actually debating. life just got a bit more difficult.S. and the U. This shouldn't pose any serious problem for debaters who are used to. it could means a number of different things—from diplomatic pressure all the way to more robust options like economic sanctions and military force.
The "Attempt to Stop" and Why It Matters
It's never been in the spirit of clean argumentation.
Of course there are circumstances in which one side or the other has taken an especially lazy approach to their normative framework. It would.victorybriefs. fine. Somehow I doubt it. and so you should be especially vigilant about these kinds of tactics rearing their heads." Some human rights abuses are far less tolerable than others. Unfortunately. and there's something to be said for keeping them in check. the problem with this one is that just about anyone outside a debate round would respond to the resolution with "it depends. overcome by a horde of gamesmanship in the guise of 'rigorous philosophy. To the extent they force debaters to be a bit more precise in their argumentation. countries like China are no strangers to any number of well-known human rights abuses." And so on.12NFL4.. however. this particular topic doesn't suggest that intervention is an obligation—only
"Human Rights Abuses"
Like so many unnecessarily vague LD topics. "shame" isn't in many debaters' vocabularies.' Maybe the pendulum has swung to some degree since I've been away. there will be great temptation to make some issue out of what it really means for a policy to be "justified.. but they increasingly became fewer and further between. There may indeed be something to these kinds of arguments sometimes. In any event. While the emergence of meta-ethics wasn't the reason for my departure from the debate world. but the United States remains in no position to intervene in any meaningful sense. if not all out military conflict. but you haven't proven them justified. ill-conceived framework debates made the activity enjoyable enough. How can we possibly offer a blanket answer? After all. Of course." Debaters will parse out disingenuous distinctions between the normative terms used to evaluate these interventions and the supposed necessary qualifications for them to be considered justified or unjustified: "You may have proven these interventions to be a good thing.com
Page 9 of 158
I haven't judged many rounds in the last year or so. Maybe this particular varietal of shenanigans is no longer so mercilessly in season. it's certainly made said departure less painful. and some scenarios are far riper for intervention than others. The handful of debaters who could engage in a substantive debate without making recourse to endlessly circular. Such an attempt could result in a dangerous deterioration of economic relations.Humanitarian Intervention www. be a shame were valuable debate about policy consistently sidetracked by strategically motivated nit picking.
" In the eyes of most.S. to what extent jurisdiction matters. namely all-out genocide. it's similarly unreasonable to expect the NC to defend a world in which the U. and that includes the judge. Most would concede that the United States (and/or some amalgamation of the international community) should take action to stop the most extreme atrocities.S. As usual. etc. the failure to deliver a topic with more specific.12NFL4. The question up for debate largely becomes about to what extent governments have special relationships with their own citizens. this position holds that they are similarly obligated to do what they can for non-citizens. most frequently "sovereignty.
One of the more popular affirmative positions is sure to be the cosmopolitan notion that borders are of no consequence for our obligations to others. ever puts a stop to mass atrocity.S. descriptive wording will result in an excess of theory debates about equitable ground. would sit on its hands in the midst of a clear-cut genocide (see Rwanda).
. If that's unfathomable in reality. the 1AC shouldn't be responsible for defending it. If governments are obligated to respect the human rights of their own citizens.victorybriefs. Though it's less inconceivable that the U. Debaters may be largely to blame to instigating these exchanges. It's highly unlikely that the U. never. it's also a debate at the very heart of this topic. So there's no reason affirming necessarily entails taking on these kind of untenable situations.com
Page 10 of 158
that it's justified. However debaters opt to resolve this division of ground. but there's something to be said for the fact that it's very difficult to assess what it would even mean to affirm or negate this topic 'on balance'. On the other hand.Humanitarian Intervention www. it's really in the best interest of both debaters to use the empirical record as a guide for reasonable distribution of ground. allowing the 1AC to carve out especially narrow disaster scenarios and defend those alone is problematic. Once again. It's a debate that goes by many names. will embark upon a substantial interventionist campaign in any case that would put our own national security at great risk. a reasonable proposal will make everyone's quality of life far better. When the human rights abuses at hand are less horrific or more complicated —think Syria—opinions tend to be far more mixed.
If the United States' global responsibilities should be an extension of its domestic responsibilities. The right not to be murdered. costs shouldn't enter into the equation—at least not to the same degree they might in other policy decisions. "Negative rights.victorybriefs. however. there's a good chance the NC will go here. negative rights are more important precisely because all one need do in order to respect them is refrain from certain actions. As a class. The essential premise is that "positive rights" create obligations for other to proactively protect the interests covered by those rights.com
Page 11 of 158
We shouldn't be especially surprised that policy-makers and philosophers alike often seem to adopt an implicit threshold with respect to when and how we should handle these kinds of situations. I might have a positive right to shelter while having a negative right to not be murdered. also means the right to have a government that tries to
.. both negative and positive rights ultimately entail institutions designed to proactively provide for them. For the arguments to make sense. the 1AC is premised on any kind of moral or rights-based calculus. If your debate hinges only on utilitarian considerations. The obvious consequence of working with this kind of position is that you'll need to do some work developing a moral framework. Interventions often impose costs on the United States. Because positive rights may in theory create an untenable demand on resources or create unreasonable burdens on others. According to some accounts. for all practical purposes. Unless we hold to a strictly deontological sense of obligation. Nevertheless.12NFL4..." meanwhile. The problems want might associate with positive rights are clearly compounded when talking about international enforcement. the idea is that they're therefor of a secondary order. the state has to have obligations that go beyond the reciprocal.
Positive and Negative Rights. refer merely to claims against interference. chances are those costs will inevitably be factored into any kind of decision-making when it comes to using American resources. and the Obligations They Imply
There's plenty to be said about this conversation unfortunately. That shouldn't be cause for too much concern. a cosmopolitan worldview demands that we put those utilitarian concerns on the backburner for a moment. That opens up at least one discussion sure to rear its head. human rights tend to include plenty of both positive and negative rights. costs that we're more likely to accept when the stakes are especially high. constitutional obligations that define its relationship with citizens. none of this really matters.Humanitarian Intervention www. If. We should be even less surprised that public opinion functions similarly. In other words.. In reality.
Nevertheless. To that kind of criticism. this position would say. refugee overflows and economic crises. In other words. perhaps there are very exceptional circumstances in which the United States should adopt an interventionist stance. Unchecked human rights abuse can lead to any number of broader problems.
. that only abuses of a qualitatively more severe order warrant action). Improving the quality of life halfway across the globe may reduce threats ranging from terrorism to revolutions that might ultimately empower our enemies. there's certainly a good case to be made for accepting it as the structuring principle for international relations. With any number of negative positions suggesting that the United States is in no position to pursue altruistic interventions. "Yes. these things are often inextricably linked.12NFL4. this debate should go away without too much difficulty. when we pursue a policy. but one can convincingly argue that these should be extremely rare—and certainly that human rights abuses in and of themselves are not sufficient grounds to justify such intervention (that is.com
Page 12 of 158
prevent that from happening with laws.victorybriefs.
Though it's hard to argue that another nation's sovereignty ought always be respected. The strategic advantage to these positions should be fairly self-evident. in today's world. it's rarely for one reason alone. The fact that there are overlapping advantages in these instances doesn't make such interventions any less topical. There's some irony here given that so many left-leaning criticisms of U. we typically make it safer for the United States as well. it may be useful to demonstrate that they aren't purely altruistic. Interventions may be valuable both in terms of stopping the immediate rights violations and in terms of longer-term interests.
Defending the topic on national security grounds is somewhat tricky business because the interventions in question are explicitly aimed at stopping human rights abuses rather than averting risks to national security. After all. police and so on. If the 1AC can successfully blur the lines between positive and negative rights. policy are grounded in the belief that certain policies are disingenuous ruses covering up self-interested objectives.S. precisely!" When we make the world safer for others. including government instability.Humanitarian Intervention www.
Even when a state proves itself illegitimate in some respects. Sure. it may be a mistake for outside influences to dictate those reforms. I do think it's possible to deploy this position with at least some measure of plausibility. There are even differences within cultures on this count. there's a philosophical case to be made as well. though. Victims of human rights abuse may be absolved from any contractually binding arrangement with the state. that law enforcement agencies respect one another's jurisdiction. Are there legitimate differences between cultures when it comes to beliefs about what people deserve. Beyond the practical concerns with infringing on sovereignty. it may continue to do its job in any number of other important ways. but that doesn't mean they're all the sudden under the purview of the United States.victorybriefs. That's not necessarily a reason to shy away from these kinds of positions.12NFL4. evolution and flatout rejection. Has its sovereignty dissolved. The dialogue and legislative processes surrounding these beliefs is an evolving one. It seems to justify just about anything a government wishes to do. for instance. Though social contract theory has undergone plenty of scrutiny.
Despite my already-aired biases. but it's definitely a reason to go beyond the prototypical social-contract narrative. certainly not in a world where the diffusion of power has made the role of states (and other institutions) all the more complex. or is it intact? These theoretical dimensions of political relationships aren't easy to sort out. there's still something to be said for the fact that we can't live in a world where some governments simply become obsolete because other governments think they have it covered. exemplified by the starkly different opinions regarding how far the 2nd Amendment should
. there are a lot of difficulties with defending sovereignty. what kind of protections they're owed? Sure. intervention makes it difficult for governments to manage their own affairs and for pretty obvious reasons. If the best-equipped agencies tried to handle every situation. At the end of the day. Even if significant reforms are in order. but these are also the institutions that best understand what's happening within their borders. The problem is that the only completely reasonable expression thereof (in my view anyway) is one that's so narrow that it hardly rejects the topic with any measure of confidence. they would ultimately find themselves attempting to take the place of local authorities who were in fact better suited in many ways. it's hard to get from point A to point B here. There's a reason.Humanitarian Intervention www. that may sound irrelevant if and when the government is either perpetrating or permitting rights abuses.com
Page 13 of 158
As a general policy. Unless you're really comfortable arguing that there's nothing whatsoever to the notion of universal rights.
In essence.. It's also about preventing the kind of conditions created in advance of genocide.com
Page 14 of 158
extend as a guarantee of the right to own firearms." The UN advanced the concept in reaction to the atrocities of that provoked the Second World War. This presupposes.. gender or socio-economic status.
. but there are a few basic entitlements you'd be hard-pressed to contest with a straight face. If Americans can't agree about all of their own rights.Humanitarian Intervention www.
Responding Cultural Relativism Positions
Even if our beliefs about rights are historically situated. One need only be reminded of when and why we began buying into this concept of "universal human rights. this isn't just about stopping the next Holocaust. Relativism is hardly a convincing reason to ignore all human rights abuses. but they've hardly had a fair opportunity to accept or reject that dogma on intelligent grounds. it's not as if these women have been given the opportunity to study different cultural options in an impartial environment and pick the one that suits them. why would we expect nations to find perfectly common ground? Clearly these kinds of beliefs have histories. To be clear. religion. the Declaration of Human Rights is a reminder that we should be protected on account of our humanity rather than in association with morally arbitrary considerations like race. That's not because of any Natural Law or Western agenda —it's because of the lessons we've learned about what can happen when cultural difference is allowed to shield against critique or intervention. and clearly we're increasingly reluctant these days to ignore those histories. that individuals even have the opportunity to do so in an informed and uncoerced manner. but it may be a somewhat compelling reason to reject "human rights abuses" as such as the metric by which interventions are justified. the stripping of rights and legal statuses that ostensibly replaces meaningful citizenship with a fully otherized status. We may hear women in these circumstances express confidence in their arrangement thanks to fundamentalist religious dogma.12NFL4. adopting a longoverdue creed that reminded would-be rogue nations that the world is watching.victorybriefs.. There's certainly room for disagreement about what exactly all these protections should entail. Perhaps we ought rely on a more universal barometer. there are some pretty good reasons to treat at least some rights as universally valid and binding norms. But in nations where women 'accept' laws that keep them from doing learning or doing business (or any number of other fundamental human endeavors).. Cultural relativists also seem to assume that everyone within a given culture has bought into the lot that they've been given. of course.
and it hinges upon a set of values that most of us accept to at least some degree. This position is empirically supported. If imperialism is wrong." then we should be clear about that. if the United States economy collapses due to strained international commitments. By the relativist's logic alone. And from a debate's standpoint. Even those who believe in altruistic policy typically accept the need for limits.com
Page 15 of 158
This is the great irony of cultural relativism.
I think the best negative position is that an interventionist norm governed by human rights abuses just isn't sustainable from a policy perspective.victorybriefs. is it really something we can consistently stand by in practice? Is it a sound standard operating procedure when it comes to policy making? Or. Already. and there's just no way a nation saddled with debt can police them all. unadulterated nonsense.12NFL4. It's hard to understand why groups of people clinging to age-old traditions should be free to oppress. but this is precisely the West's problem with various cultural practices —that they constrain far more fundamental freedoms. this is what the relativist would have you believe. Would the relativist have us believe that North Korea 'just has a different concept of human rights'? That the freedom for the state to believe and do whatever it wants is ultimately more important than an individual's freedom to disagree? Pure. If we really mean to justify intervention on grounds like "preventing genocide" or "stopping mass atrocities. one wonders why the homegrown variety is any more legitimate than the increasingly universal one. then it's wrong because it constrains certain kinds of freedoms. Even if the AC maintains that it isn't defending action in the face of every single human rights violation.. If that's
. our hands are tied as generations of political dissidents are systematically imprisoned and exterminated in North Korea. at its most basic level. it would be in an especially poor position going forward to do anything about any rights abuses. It is a line of thinking that is as dangerous as it is incoherent. the question becomes how we can possibly draw credible bright-lines without adopting an altogether different trigger for intervention. It rejects supposed Western 'imperialism' only so that it can enshrine more domesticated forms of oppression..Humanitarian Intervention www. After all. that may indeed be the most salient consideration: whatever the academic merits of cultural relativism. will it engender a kind of international permissiveness that opens the door to ever more atrocity. Yet. There are too many abuses around the globe.
Our language/rhetoric and policy should explicitly reflect that threshold. To run this position well.12NFL4. It speaks to the U. we aren't justified in intervening on behalf of human rights violations.'s ongoing capability to address serious problems. we're only justified when those violations reach a qualitative threshold of some sort. it's worthwhile though.S. thorough research is an absolute must. just as our laws should be carefully phrased to say what they actually mean.Humanitarian Intervention www. In this case.. This is the kind of position that could pretty easily link-turn the majority of affirmative arguments.com
Page 16 of 158
the case.. and that's ultimately what interests most affirmative positions one way or the other.victorybriefs.
. then no.
Page 17 of 158
Topic Analysis by Mollie Cowger
The scope of this resolution lends itself to many interesting approaches. third. warranted.
"justified.12NFL4. adj.”1 While the concern of the first definition is with moral rightness.” In contrast..” Dictionary. the negative can use this
“justify. a second definition from Collins seems to define the term in a less morally rigorous manner” “to show to be reasonable. http://www. second. I will enter into a more general discussion of the issues the resolution presents and potential methods for going about debating them. An affirmative can minimize her burden by advocating for an interpretation of “justified” as reasonable. made or accounted righteous. Conversely. what makes an action justified. perhaps philosophical evaluation of the topic. Prior to engaging in the substance of the resolution.com/view/Entry/102228. warrant or substantiate.Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. what types of actions are to be considered US interventions in the internal political processes of other countries. as for the question of justification. I think the strategic use of one interpretation can bolster an affirmative or negative advocacy.oed. Collins English Dictionary offers a definition of “justify” as “to prove or see to be just or valid. December 2012. the prominence of the US as an international actor lends debaters many avenues from which to discuss the resolution by examining specific instances of US intervention in conjunction with a more abstract. I think that there is a nuance in definitions of the term that can change the burdens for each side in the round. and legal frameworks all contribute to our understanding of the way in which action in the international sphere is justified. and fourth.Humanitarian Intervention www. I think there are four important issues within the resolution that demand clarification to allow the topic to be debated in a substantive way: first. Moreover.victorybriefs. thereby limiting the negative to argumentation that shows that intervention is unreasonable rather than argumentation that shows it is not actively righteous or just. The first definition indicates some benefit or moral good attributed to the action. Moral.” OED Online. http://dictionary. supported by evidence .com/browse/justify. The Oxford English Dictionary treats both interpretations as falling within the same defin ition of the word: it defines “justified” as “[m]ade just or right. First. Oxford University Press. Following this. political. what we ought to consider to be human rights abuses. vindicate. I will look at possible definitions and interpretations of some of the terms in the resolution as a means of proposing different ways to address the topic. the second definition only asks if there was sufficient reason to take the action. the implication of the word “attempt” on the scope of the resolution.com.”2 While the OED’s combination of the two interpretations can be a fine way to approach the topic.reference.
. Collins English Dictionary . HarperCollins Publishers.
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com
Page 18 of 158
dichotomy to her advantage by binding the affirmative to show that intervention is a morally good thing rather than that it is simply an acceptable option. A second question posed by the resolution is the nature of United States intervention into other nations’ political processes, and what actions fall under that label. The manners in which the US may intervene in other countries are varied, and most are intended to affect the political process of the nation subject to intervention in some way. Military campaigns, for example, are usually undertaken with some political goal in mind, and almost always have political implications. Whether the presence of political implications is sufficient to classify a situation as affirmative ground is an issue I’ll discuss when I look at the term “attempt,” but for now let us assume a fairly broad scope of actions with political consequences make up the class of actions considered “US intervention.” In addition to military intervention, the US can exert influence over other countries’ political spheres by means of economic intervention. Economic sanctions, for example, can exert pressure on countries to adjust political processes or replace political leaders. Additionally, the United States can grant economic support to political groups it favors in hopes of increasing their political power in the target nation. Although economic and military intervention engage directly rather than indirectly in the nation’s political process, they seem to be the type of intervention most used by the United States. If resolution is debated empirically, then, these examples are the most likely sources of affirmative and negative offense. It may be a matter of debate whether economic and military intervention qualifies as intervention in another nation’s political processes, but I think it is an acceptable conclusion to draw that these types of intervention are within the scope of the resolution. While it is common for the United States to use such channels as means of intervention —for example, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan attempted to achieve American political ends, and economic sanctions in the Middle East attempt to change the political process and actions in the area —it is far less common to see direct political intervention like the explicit replacement of a candidate. When the United States does use direct channels to achieve its political ends abroad, it is often in a way that has been accompanied by military or economic engagement that has leveraged the direct political involvement. I think the implication of the inclusion of these measures, if one accepts this interpretation of the resolution’s scope, can have interesting philosophical and practical implications for the manner in which the topic plays out. Depending on the arguments made by the affirmative and the negative, the inclusion of military engagement and economic sanctions and support can provide impacts to both sides of the resolution: the negative, for example, could draw utilitarian harms from the use of violence, or claim that violence subverts the human rights the intervention attempts to achieve
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com
Page 19 of 158
(and the same could be said of economic sanctions). Alternately, the affirmative could contend positive historical impacts of the use of military or economic intervention as means of effecting change. The notion of effecting change by means of such intervention leads me to my third point about the interpretation of the resolution: the nature of the “human rights abuses” the topic addresses. Debaters will almost certainly have to address this issue within their cases, since absent knowing what problems we seek to remedy, we can do very little in the way of evaluating whether those remedies are good ones. Two of the primary means of defining human rights are first, in an abstract philosophical way, and second, in a context specific way. If one takes the first approach, one may take many perspectives—the Lockean perspective, for example, would consider human rights abuses to be those actions that infringe on life, liberty, or property. An abstract philosophical approach should also question the nature of such infringements —are human rights negative, demanding merely not to be actively infringed upon, or positive, requiring action to be taken to actively uphold their protection? The former interpretation seems to be beneficial to the affirmative, in that human rights abuses would constitute active violations of rights rather than a failure to take action to uphold them. Conversely, the negative might suggest that human rights abuses may merely be an issue of a government that is ineffective, rather than evil, which would yield a higher threshold to justify involvement. If one chooses to define rights in a way that is context-specific, one could look either to the international sphere, in which the resolution is placed, or the law of the United States, which constrains the resolutional actor. Although the international sphere has many quasi-governmental bodies which provide some level of oversight—the United Nations and International Criminal Court are good examples—there is no concrete set of legal norms which is universally agreed to bind the actors in the international sphere. However, I don’t think this should deter debaters from approaching the resolution in this light. The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the more widely accepted documents to set out standards for basic human rights. Debaters seeking to look at the resolution through this lens may find this document helpful in determining what, on balance, the international sphere takes to be human rights. If one looks to the law of the United States, the standards for human rights would most likely be dictated by the bill of rights —though court decisions and consequent legislation have affected some of the rights we may look to. This approach could be helpful in providing a more concrete set of rights, and could be defended on the basis of its specificity to the United States, which takes the action of intervention in the resolution. However, this interpretation could invite pitfalls— if one supposes to take action on the basis of protecting others, but protects them on the basis of
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com
Page 20 of 158
norms that govern a community other than their own, the action of protection may not be protecting them at all. This interpretation could also lend itself to attacks against American exceptionalism—that is, the imposition by the United States of norms on other nations that it fails to abide by itself. Finally, the resolution qualifies the intervention taking place by specifying that it “attempt[s] to sto p human rights abuses.” I think that this can make debates more muddled or more interesting, depending on how debaters interpret it. Some debaters, for example, might argue that it can never be shown that an action is intended to, or attempts to, rectify some human rights violation as opposed to achieving some other political or military goal. The use of this response, however, does little to clarify the outcome of the round as it simply negates any offense debaters may use on either side. However, I think that a more interesting way to use the term “attempts” is to use it to qualify the ground given by the resolution. If the affirmative can clearly express what types of actions attempt to rectify human rights abuses and what type of actions simply rectify human rights abuses as a byproduct of some other goal they seek to achieve, the affirmative can limit her ground in a way that may be strategic—specifically, she can prevent the negative from using as examples situations in which the larger goal was a problematic political or military one and where aid for human rights was merely a secondary benefit. The question of the resolution is one of the acceptable scope of United States power outside of its national borders. As such, the resolution concerns itself with theories of international relations. I think that international relations theory can be a convincing way to approach the topic. The school of international relations thought that seems to lend itself to an affirmation of the resolution is cosmopolitanism, an ideal that emphasizes the inclusion of all persons as members of one global community. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides a strong introduction to the ideas of cosmopolitanism, as it does to many philosophical topics. Using a cosmopolitan framework, the human rights abuses occurring in the resolution are not qualitatively different from domestic rights abuses due to their occurrence in other countries than the United States. If one accepts the premise that it is acceptable for the US to prevent rights abuses within its own borders, then accepting that there is no qualitative difference created by borders implies that the US is justified in intervening outside its borders as well. This approach, however, assumes the validity of the government as an agent to prevent such abuses. A strong case of this type will substantiate that assumption and warrant the appropriateness of the government agent. On the other side of the international relations spectrum, the school of realism has a less immediately obvious implication for the resolution. Realism, as advocated by Kenneth Waltz,
An affirmative argument from realism might focus on what it means for an action to be justified. The resolution presents many interesting questions regarding the international sphere and the nature of intervention.12NFL4. for example. multilateral action is likely to largely be a product of US involvement. and has persuasive arguments on both sides. one may also compare this situation to a domestic one: if a person acts to enforce the law outside of a governmental structure. Another dimension of the actor in the resolution being the United States is the potential exclusion of multilateral action. the exertion of political power by the United States in the manner specified by the resolution is a legitimate exercise of national sovereignty and is therefore justified. This situation is similar to that of the United States acting multilaterally: the context seems to determine something about the quality of the action. and as such any exertion of political power toward that end is justified. Because the action attempts to stop human rights abuses abroad. The negative could argue that the action by the US in the resolution is not a legitimate exercise of sovereignty since it is not geared toward protecting the political interests of the United States. Alternatively. it necessarily devotes resources to other nations that could be used to advance citizens’ interests. she is a vigilante. As such. Per a realist framework. However. realism could be used to support a negation of the resolution. and John Mearsheimer. which could independently lead to the conclusion that the intervention is within the scope of the resolution. emphasizes the anarchic nature of the international sphere and the competition that mandates from its participants. the US is still involved in the intervention.
. Especially because of the economic and political hegemony of the US. Each nation’s primary interest is in its maintenance of sovereignty. she is a law-abiding government agent. would that action count as intervention by the United States? I think this issue is one of the many up for debate.com
Page 21 of 158
Hans Morgenthau. and multilateral engagement may be qualitatively different from unilateral US intervention. and as such harms the sovereignty of the US. If the United States acts as a part of the United Nations. among others.victorybriefs.Humanitarian Intervention www. It seems that realism could be used as an argument to both affirm and negate the resolution. Even absent the argument of hegemony. any exertion of political power by a nation is justified if the nation chooses to take that action. and I hope that such a robust topic yields many great rounds over the next two months. while if she does so within a governmental structure.
Page 22 of 158
Topic Analysis by Adam Torson
Whether humanitarian intervention is justified is a pressing question both for the long term structure of the international system and for immediate U. participation in multilateral intervention (intervention by a coalition of states) or whether the resolution is only about unilateral intervention (when the United States acts alone).S.S. Second. but there is some literature to support the opposite conclusion. no obligatory? That distinction may allow the Aff to either draw on non-moral norms that excuse certain types of conduct (e. which was largely unilateral. Multilateral interventions are generally considered a more legitimate form of intervention. The United States The actor in the resolution is the United States.S. Intervening
C. interventions in recent years have had some multilateral component. The length and wording of this topic creates a number of interpretive ins and outs. may the Aff argue that humanitarian intervention is merely permissible.Humanitarian Intervention www. one of the important test cases for the resolution is the Iraq War. and argue that this is a stronger claim than the Aff can defend? We would generally conclude that actions that are obligatory are also permissible (or “justified”). B. or to deploy skeptical philosophical or political positions that conclude that no state action is prohibited in the international arena.victorybriefs. may the neg argue that intervention to stop human rights abuses is obligatory. On the other hand. Foreign Policy interests.
A.g. and most U. That is a pretty ordinary question in LD – is the action the resolution proposes consistent with a well-justified standard? Two related interpretive questions are raised by this phrase. Is Justified The ordinary meaning of labeling an action “justified” would be that it is consistent with the relevant moral requirements for the situation. The major interpretive question that this phrase will generate is whether the Affirmative may defend U.12NFL4. I’ll start with a discussion of those issues and then describe some major affirmative and negative positions. the right to selfdefense).
criminal prosecution of foreign leaders. interventions are discrete events ra ther than continuing interactions. an intervention constitutes an infringement on the normal scope of state sovereignty. emphasizing that this is an “attempt” to stop human rights abuses ensures that the Affirmative will not just get to assume that her advocacy generates her impacts or “solves. Other Countries Both the phrase “other countries” and the technical meaning of “intervention” suggest that the resolution is about actions targeted at the state itself. it is aimed at the authority structure of the state.victorybriefs. It is plausible that any of the following could constitute “intervention” in an “internal political process”: interfering in foreign elections. assassinating rulers. Actions aimed at non-state actors like terrorist groups are likely outside the scope of the resolution.g. It has several components. This is not unusual. D. I’m sure this will make for many a topicality debate. so its interpretation is pretty wide open. but simply advocating direct acts against terrorists like drone strikes in Northwest Pakistan is likely not topical. Self-defensive wars. It doesn’t seem to be a term of art in the topic literature. Second. Internal Political Processes This is the most problematic component of the topic. E. Because the resolution has a purpose clause. Aff will have to block a type of topicality argument that frequently flows from a misunderstanding of the way burdens work. When the Aff argues that humanitarian intervention could have some
. It might be that an advantage of a humanitarian intervention is combatting terrorism. and economic sanctions. A military action that is authorized by the government of the target state.” Second. do not constitute “interventions. it can plausibly be interpreted to mean that the resolution is about intervention with a very particular motivation or goal in mind. Ongoing diplomatic talks.” she has to prove it. First. but back in the olden days an argument floated around that claimed that the affirmative simply got to assume that resolutions which included a purpose clause (e. for example. “to stop human rights abuses”) would succeed in achieving that objective. classic humanitarian interventions like peacekeeping operations. don’t constitute interventions.Humanitarian Intervention www. is not intervention under international law. for example. for example.com
Page 23 of 158
“Intervention” is a term of art in international law. F. First.12NFL4. military regime change. Lastly. To Attempt to Stop There are two important implications of this phrase.
A.” This is a bad argument.S.Humanitarian Intervention www.S. some negs will claim that they are not being “topical. You will certainly see advocacies that the U.S.com
Page 24 of 158
kind of non-human-rights-based advantage. that the United States is only a signatory to the first two. Other popular case positions will be interventions in North Korea or Iran. Note. Both approaches to defining human rights are probably legitimate. some more extensive. including Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. but advantages can be any impact that links to the value. The second way to define human rights is to use the theoretical topic literature to define human rights. Human Rights Abuses There are two different major sources for conceptions of “human rights. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. you are likely to see plans about intervention in any of the several nations which are currently undergoing genocide (or in imminent danger of doing so). Different normative theories about how the international system works will articulate different conceptions of human rights – some rather sparse. Plans Galore There is a variety of plans that Affs are likely to advocate.
. Some may advocate that the U. or in the Israel/Palestine dispute.12NFL4. Advantages are not a plank of a case – they need not be “topical. There are several NGOs that attempt to track these practices. Moreover. intervene in Syria’s civil war. Social and Cultural Rights.victorybriefs. just because a debater argues that affirming or negating would be good for some non-humanitarian purpose doesn’t mean that she advocates that this should be the motivation held by the actors that carry out the plan. and global interests.” G. and the International Covenant on Economic. so it would be a good idea to use those organizations as a resource for learning more about these particular conflicts. however. Finally.” The most obvious source for human rights canons are the major treaties to which many nations have agreed. both of whom are known to violate the human rights of their citizens and also to pose a significant threat to U. Advocacies are topical or not. intervene in a more or less heavy-handed way in Egyptian politics. The norms listed in these documents are widely accepted as human rights norms in international law. These include most notably the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Page 25 of 158
These plans are likely to have utilitarian or otherwise consequentialist standards. Examples of this line of thought include Jonathan Glover’s call for a more empirical approach to moral theory. such as counter-terrorism. the moral philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas and subsequent thinkers like Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler. many of whom evaluate contemporary phenomena like increasingly robust global cultural and political norms. Colloquially if someone is “cosmopolitan” we think of them as being worldly and understanding diverse perspectives. notably with Stoic philosophers. scholars in both international law and moral philosophy describe the development of a global human rights culture in the aftermath of World War II and the subsequent atrocities of the 20 Century. an d so there should be moral constraints on the rights of particular governments to legitimately exercise sovereignty. cosmopolitan scholars argue for the idea that all humans share universal ties of solidarity and moral responsibility that extend across borders. there is a long philosophical lineage to cosmopolitanism which many debaters will no doubt draw upon. Certain state policies “shock the conscience’’ of all humanity. B. International Law
. and globalization to explain a growing sense of cosmopolitan identity. First. Cosmopolitanism Another set of positions will draw on the philosophical school of Cosmopolitanism. and legal professionals who advocate for the expansion of conventional humanitarian norms in international law. Second.victorybriefs.12NFL4. This is based on a sense of common human identity. and upholding anti-proliferation norms. Broadly speaking. which should encourage the development of humanitarian sentiments as much as moral convictions. and it has been particularly trendy to look back on Greek political ideas to inform contemporary understanding of international relations and models of state sovereignty. hegemony.S. The slogan “Never Again” expressed a deeply felt conviction that the horrors of places like Auschwitz should serve as an impetus for the development of a sense of common humanity. These thinkers partly informed the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Also don’t be surprised to see advantages that are slightly out of the norm. This line of thought informs modern theorists. regional integration.Humanitarian Intervention www. who argued that the natural outgrowth of the enlightenment belief in universal reason was a universal law that bound all people together through a common moral reasoning. Sometimes this is expressed as a focus on “human security” rather than “national security.” C. Most scholars trace cosmopolitan trends back to ancient Greek political thought. There are two notable approaches to these positions.
but they might nonetheless ground reasonable claims that a state is not living up to its obligations in the international system.g. the ICCPR.
. but it reflects a growing skepticism on the absolute right of nation-states to rule. certain legal norms may be established by customary practice in international relations. To legitimize a legal norm in this way it must be shown that states have consistently practiced adherence to the rule and regarded it as a legal norm. There are several relevant norms to consider. Third. First. international legal norms are highly deferential to state sovereignty. or treaties.victorybriefs. There are many normative bases for the idea that nations should be sovereign. National Sovereignty A nation is said to be sovereign when it has the exclusive right to legitimately govern a particular geographic territory and conduct foreign affairs on behalf of the population who lives there. You need to be careful because some international agreements use a great deal of aspirational language without creating particular mandates for state behavior (e. This category of law is more controversial because it is not directly premised on sovereign consent. the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Examples would be slavery. ICESC.com
Page 26 of 158
You are very likely to see affirmative positions premised in international law. Second. which establishes that there are certain practices that are so fundamentally and self-evidently wrong that no state is legally authorized to carry them out. It is conceivable that many human rights norms could be established in this way. Intervention is by definition considered an exceptional state of affairs. However. the Genocide Convention. the most basic sources of international legal norms are agreements between states. evolving norms have made it easier and easier to intervene in a state’s internal affairs under certain circumstances. but the sovereign nation-state has been the basic unit of the international system since the Treaty of Westphalia in the 17 century.
A. piracy.Humanitarian Intervention www. and the Geneva Conventions all speak to human rights and humanitarian norms that express a fairly strong international consensus.12NFL4. As a general principle. there is a category of international legal norms known as jus cogens. although the states against which intervention is directed will often have a poor human rights record and thus not meet the “consistent practice” criterion. The UDHR. and genocide.
Anything that could trump national sovereignty is just a rouse for one state seeking to control another. for the economic disempowerment experienced by many Americans. For example.victorybriefs. If this is true.12NFL4. An alternative perspective takes the point of view of international law. the traditional canons of human rights tend to privilege individualistic freedoms characteristic of Western rationalism over social and cultural values present in many non-western societies. It is understandable that those who are still potentially subject to more powerful states would guard their right to selfdetermination closely. many argue that western conceptions of human rights are culturally hegemonic. many worry that humanitarian intervention is simply a vehicle for the imposition of Western values on unwilling target populations. e. national sovereignty would seem to be a way of protecting the particular practices of certain groups from arbitrary domination by other groups. and so it is improper for foreign peoples to dictate policy on the internal affairs of a given state. A final jumping off point for justifying national sovereignty is the idea of moral relativism. First.g. Humanitarianism as a Guise for Western Dominance Regardless of the appropriate scope of a nation’s sovereignty. People should have a voice in determining the laws to which they will be subject. They argue that from different perspectives powerful states like the U. suggesting that there may be no objective moral rules accessible to all people.com
Page 27 of 158
There are several good reasons to believe that states should have a strong claim to sovereignty.Humanitarian Intervention www. consider that our skepticism may be a product of our privileged position in the international system. e. states can only be bound by those rules to which they expressly agree. Because the international system is essentially anarchic. There are again several ways to come at this argument. Over time culture values and norms evolve. B. From a political perspective.S. The idea that moral norms could trump a state’s right to self-determination looks like nothing more than imposing one idiosyncratic value system by force.g. The political disempowerment associated with this system of rule still haunts many post-colonial nations. Why aren’t humanitarian interventions a two-way street?
. defenders of national sovereignty argue that self-determination is a fundamental value. While we tend to be skeptical of national sovereignty in the modern world. through treaty obligations. There is no world government to centrally regulate the conduct of states. Many nations were once colonies of (primarily European) nations from far away. might just as well be subject to criticism.
C. some argue that humanitarian intervention is a cover for baser motives. officials offguard. The inability to anticipate the cultural dynamics of Somalia led to the high profile deaths of 18 U. where non-Western leaders are “crazy” or “unpredictable. What Is It Good For? A final major line of attack will argue simply that humanitarian intervention is a terribly blunt instrument that usually causes more harm than good. soldiers in that nation during its long civil war. where everything from the formation of an insurgency to post-invasion looting caught U. war is by its nature very difficult to predict. Similar problems can arise because of failure to be culturally sensitive.” In this way genuinely benevolent motives can essentially replicate the “white man’s burden” logic of British imperialism.
Good luck to everyone!
. First. Again the Iraq War serves as a primary example. The cruelty and domination that can result is apparent. and even then we can never be prospectively certain that they will. The devaluation of non-Western lives can lead to stunning atrocities in the name of civilization. which is to argue that intervention policies tend to be guilty of Orientalism.Humanitarian Intervention www.com
Page 28 of 158
Second. and so fail drastically to prevent major crises. It is extremely rare that the benefits can outweigh these costs. Estimates for the number of innocent civilians killed in the Iraq War are staggering. Certainly there are historical examples of hegemonic nations using their imperial might to advance parochial political and economic interests. War. war can take an incredible toll on human life. let alone the effects on mortality and other social markers of health.S. and cultural norms of the society they aim to reconstruct.” This suggests a third approach. For instance. Pioneered by Edward Said. Invading states often suffer from a failure to understand the underlying political.12NFL4. economic. this theory suggests that a particularly pernicious form of bias toward non-Western peoples informs a great deal of Western policy-making. Several factors will be relevant.S. Finally.victorybriefs. These positions will point to cases like the Iraq war and argue that nominally humanitarian motivations might plausibly serve as a cover for using force in the name of economic or national security interests. and doing so in the name of benevolence or the need to “civilize. it is often assumed that Western European states have “rational” leaders who can be trusted to understand the logic of deterrence.
as the circumstances and issues behind the debate will change drastically depending on the human rights situation.S. Many political scientists and philosophers have discussed the legitimacy and morality of political intervention. Additionally the term justified may require less of a threshold in proving the legitimacy of a government action. The vast majority of interpretations will define the United States as the United States government. or even that the U. Part 1: Key Terms of the Resolution A. United States could mean the government of the United States. B. so it will be important for debaters to be able to understand and argue the difference between morality and justice.victorybriefs. there is a reason why the writers of the resolution chose justified over a term like “ought” or “obligated”. The affirmative need not argue that the United States is obligated to intervene in nations with human rights abuses. The use of the word is in “The United States is justified” is most likely the best argument that the actor is the government as the “United States” is the proper noun in the sentence. Additionally this topic can be approached more broadly. political instability. “United States”
The United States is the actor in the resolution. “Justified”
Justified is a fitting word choice for this resolution. but debaters should always be on their toes and look out for Affirmative advocacies such as the Peace Corps or the Red Cross is justified in intervention. specifically in the twenty-first century through the lens of the United States. Traditionally justice is defined in debate as “to each their due”. should
. This will almost certainly lead to value debates concerning justice rather than the often chosen morality. discussing the role and obligations of nation states when dealing with other nations. The ground is particularly broad. the topic literature is strong on this topic.12NFL4. and as such arguments pertaining to fairness and equality will hold more weight when impacting the round. and human rights. as the real-world actions of nation states are often discussed in terms of justice or pragmatism rather than through a moral or ethical perspective.com
Page 29 of 158
Topic Analysis by Nate Zerbib-Berda
This year’s March/April LD topic represents a fundamental conflict in political science and international affairs. or it could mean Non-Governmental Organizations like non-profits. but the resolution is not specific to who is acting within the United States. Whether countries are justified or obligated to intervene in the political processes of other nations has been an important issue.Humanitarian Intervention www.
the affirmative should argue that even external actions of a government are decided upon internally and executed through internal political processes. This interpretation could most likely be exploited by negative positions to determine that the United States could not intervene when two nations at war or a nation engaged in human rights abuses in another nation. This could mean there is a legitimate reason or framework that allows intervention. and whether or not that intervention is justified will depend on a number of circumstances related to the situation. the action of intervening in a nation state should at least have the intent to stop or curtain human rights abuses in that particular country. Intervention can mean military intervention and war. “Attempt to Stop”
Attempt to stop relates to the action necessary in the resolution for the Affirmative advocacy to take. D. This term is most likely intentionally ambiguous to allow for additional affirmative ground. However. “Internal Political Processes”
Internal Political Processes is another term choice that can be interpreted in many ways. because the phrase requires little action. but rather that is it is justified for them to do so. intervention can even be as simple as sitting down with that government’s leaders and attempting to negotiate or work out a solution to their human rights abuses. This phrasing is almost certainly more beneficial for the affirmative in the debate. If the negative argues that internal political processes limits the resolution to domestic affairs. but does not require it. What that intervention requires will be up to the debater and their advocacy. Thus arguments pertaining to permissibility would most likely favor the affirmative. E. Intervention can mean a lot of things. Internal political processes could mean any action that a government takes.victorybriefs. Attempt requires only minimal action to alleviate the human rights
. but the phrase can also restrict ground depending on the interpretation. but internal might restrict the topic to domestic affairs.Humanitarian Intervention www. C. A political process could mean anything in relationship to the government. “Intervening”
Political intervention is an extremely broad topic that covers many areas in which a nation state may interact with another. both in relation to foreign policy and domestic.com
Page 30 of 158
intervene in these situations. However in context of this resolution. it would appear on face that the intervention required is some attempt to stop or curtail human rights abuses occurring within a government or nation state.12NFL4. it can be economic sanctions and tariffs in attempt to weaken the nation economically.
Rwanda. F.S. This advantage can also make a significant difference in preventing human rights abuses.S. Vietnam. also traditionally has had strong backing from the international community. Again this is an extremely broad term and will vary greatly from round to round.victorybriefs.’s capability. there is no universal acceptance of what rights humans are entitled to do nor which rights are more important than others. places an embargo on another nation.Humanitarian Intervention www. human rights must first be defined. we can work more effectively with other nations to reach compromise and foster peace. “Human Rights Abuses”
In order to define what a human rights abuse is. If a politician writes a letter to another government demanding they cease abusing human rights. The action may not even be executed or implemented. and Afghanistan to name a few. Attempt to stop could include military action. The United States have intervened in many other nation states before and have presumably learned from these experiences so to be as more effective and efficient than another nation’s attempt at
. so long as there was an attempt to do so. The U. economic sanctions. United Nations resolutions. is this an attempt to stop? If the U.N. adding to the U. Korea. Capability
The best argument for the affirmative is that the United States is capable of ending human rights abuses in other nations and is the best actor for the job. They can react to global events much faster than other nations.12NFL4. releases a declaration condemning rights abuses in a nation. is this an attempt to stop? These questions will be decided in the round.
Part 2: Affirmative Strategies
A. is this an attempt to stop? If the U. even the most basic of diplomatic outreach. What rights are included as human rights again varies differently from state to state. The United States is a global leader in humanitarian intervention. The United States has the most powerful and far reaching military presence in the world. the Gulf War. Bosnia. The United States has a significant technology advantage over third-world nations where human rights abuses are most likely to occur. Traditionally human rights are defined as the freedoms and protects that individuals are entitled to stemming from their inherent worth as human beings. World War 2. Past examples of United States intervention (and nonintervention) for human rights include. limiting the abuse and potential for abuse.com
Page 31 of 158
abuses occurring.S. but what is clear is that there is a very small threshold for affirmative action. The reasons why the United States might be the best actor in enforcing international law and promoting human rights are numerous and represent the bulk of the literature surrounding humanitarian intervention.
both in terms of the abuse and lives lost from the current situation.victorybriefs. given solvency in the United States’ attempt to end abuse. I would encourage debaters to do research into specific conflicts and rights abuses that have occurred in the past to gain perspective on the topic. In terms of the resolution. Peter Singer describes the situation of a man coming across a drowning baby in a river. Many authors will write that human rights abuses represent the greatest atrocities and moral violations an actor can commit. Similarly the affirmative must weigh the consequences of doing nothing in compared to an attempt to stop abuse. United States intervention in rights abuses provides a strong deterrent against rogue nation states from committing those abuses. It can be argued very effectively that obligation stems from capability. and because the United States is most able to help and will see the smallest downside of helping we have an obligation to do so. Preventing rights abuses now or even attempting to prevent rights abuses and failing could still prevent much more potential abuse in the future. Protecting Human Rights
Protecting human rights and preventing atrocities from occurring in other nations is a very strong reason to affirm the resolution. the United States is more than just a man coming across a drowning baby. It will be easy to find evidence that states the United States is a capable actor when it comes to humanitarian intervention. but also means the U. the dictator’s foreign and domestic policies are likely to be very different from a world in which the U.
B. they rob victims of dignity and personhood. but you will want to make the argument that capability leads to obligation. an advantage at preventing rights abuses.S. usually a group without a strong political voice or influence in that nation. but also future rights abuses as well.com
Page 32 of 158
preventing rights abuses. The United States is the lifeguard next to the river.Humanitarian Intervention www. does not intervene in conflicts. Human rights abuses are often targeted at a particular group or minority. If a dictator or despot knows that the United States will intervene when rights violations occur.S. and often result in mass death. they are the most capable actor. could bare the cost and subsequent harms of intervention better than any other nation.12NFL4. then the United States would certainly be justified in humanitarian intervention. but remember you are only required to prove the United States is justified in intervening. If you prove the United States is obligated to intervene in human rights abuses then you will certainly win the round. The United States’ economic power is unparalleled and gives the U. Human rights violations are atrocities in numerous ways.S. exert pain and suffering. Without going into detail on the horrors of human rights abuses during the 20 century. and these impacts should be weighed accordingly. Singer states that the man has a moral obligation to save the baby because he is capable of doing so. If an actor is justified in action because they are capable of committing that action.
Realists would also argue that a state is justified in doing whatever it wants. Human rights abuses are a global responsibility.victorybriefs. trafficking. Because realists would argue that any action by a nation state is permissible. that democratic states do not go to war with another. but it is also important to frame this debate in what intervention or non-intervention means to our relationship with the rest of the world. then certainly the United States is at least justified in humanitarian intervention. The first of these political philosophies is the concept of Realism. What constitutes a “true” democracy is a subject for another debate. Realism and Democratic Peace Theory
Two different theories of international affairs and politics can both be used effectively in order to justify humanitarian intervention.S. The United States has a unique role in global leadership and international relations in that other nations often look to the U. This claim is empirically verified. for guidance and precedent. but what is true is that there is a significant higher probability for peace if the United States implements a stable and legitimate democratic government in the nation where they are
. borders are arbitrary and every human has the right to basic needs and freedoms. especially if that intervention protects or benefits the United States. Global problems like global warming. and terrorism can all be solved more effectively when nations work together and have strong relationships. and portray the United States in a positive light. while also encouraging other nation states to do the same. Realism states that a nation is only obligated to its own citizens and that the rest of the world will always be unpredictable.com C. will protect and fight for human rights. Thus a nation state cannot predict what other nations will do and must always act in its own self-interest to protect its people. Not only will this prevent future rights abuse. This strengthens our relationships with other nations that protect rights.S. the United States is often seen as the sole hegemonic power in the world.S. When the United States intervenes to protect these rights it sends a strong message to the rest of the world that the U.Humanitarian Intervention www. Democratic Peace Theory is a simple concept to grasp.12NFL4. but also lead to a more productive and efficient global economy when there is cooperation among states. International Relations
Page 33 of 158
In the 21 century. While Realists would argue there is absolutely no obligation to intervene in human rights abuses. The other popular theory of international affairs that the affirmative could use is what is known as Democratic Peace Theory. as no two “true” democracies have ever gone to war.
D. This unique role certainly makes us the most capable and predictable actor in a global conflict. Even if we can predict with some certainty what a nation state will do. we will never be certain of that action. The affirmative will want to argue that U. humanitarian intervention strengthens our relationship with other nations.
It is better to cooperate and respect sovereignty in order to prevent rights abuses rather than forcibly attempt to stop rights abuses. If this is true the negative will argue the United States is not justified in any action that will either harm its own citizens or decrease national security. This argument states that nation states like persons have the right to selfgovernance.12NFL4. and the United States violating the right to self-governance through intervention is inherently immoral or unjust. and this has caused a backlash and anti-American sentiment in various places and among various persons throughout world. There is a strong argument that if rights abuses are the biggest impact in the round a government should not commit further abuses in order to prevent rights violations. and argue a state cannot violate other states rights in order to accomplish a goal. Furthermore if the United States works with the country to prevent rights abuses while respecting sovereignty.victorybriefs. even if that goal is beneficial in nature or will provide greater happiness. Not only would we face backlash from individuals whom could cause the United States harm. and other nations have declared humanitarian intervention in the past to justify their own ends. The Negative can argue that the U.S.
Part 3: Negative Strategies
A. A popular example of humanitarian intervention that caused backlash would include the First Gulf War along with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq of the last 10 years. harming our credibility and legitimacy in international affairs. negative debaters will also argue that humanitarian intervention will cause a backlash and or terrorism to occur against the United States. this is likely to have a much stronger result and lead to longer lasting change.
. Thus not only does this promote peace within the nation state but also can extend peace to that region. Backlash
In relation to the argument that intervention violates sovereignty.com
Page 34 of 158
B. Additionally by respecting sovereignty the United States can improve its relationship with the rest of the world and the country where the abuse is occurring. This will most likely constitute a framework argument.Humanitarian Intervention www. Additionally intervention can also decrease the legitimacy of the state. The United States has acted unilaterally in the past when intervening in global conflicts. and in some cases worsen the problems occurring. but we might say a backlash from the international arena. Sovereignty
The most common and in all likelihood strongest argument for the negative side will be the argument that the United States is never justified in an action that would violate the autonomy of a nation state.
and while this may not be the only option in a given situation.com
Page 35 of 158
C. Economic Disincentives
Another strong argument that the United States is not justified in humanitarian intervention will stem from the economic disincentives of intervening in another nation and/or going to war over human rights abuses. Nonprofit organizations and other Non-governmental organizations have been historically successful in campaigns against human rights abuses and can often be a much more effective agent than a government. NGO’s do not have to deal with the bureaucratic red tape. then these organizations should be preferred and the United States is not justified in intervening when there is a more capable actor.
D. There is a significant financial cost to having a United States presence within a nation state. There will be topic literature surrounding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. especially while facing a recession.victorybriefs. Non-Profits
Finally. a military presence is often most effective for stopping rights abuses and/or overthrowing rogue governments.12NFL4. political pressures. and there is a strong argument that the United States should curtail military spending.
. Military force can be incredibly expensive. These wars have also had a significant impact on the United States’ budget and deficit.Humanitarian Intervention www. Thus the negative should argue that if a private non-profit or NGO can more elegantly and adequately solve the problem of rights abuses. and inefficiency of government. and a time where we need resources most. there is a strong argument that the United States is not justified in humanitarian intervention if there is an agent who is more capable and/or more likely to be successful. and how these wars have harmed our economy today.
six threshold and precautionary or prudential criteria must be met as a guide to decision makers contemplating such action: just cause. To that end.19
. military force is justified only in ‘‘extreme cases. Criminal Justice Ethics. and in light of human rights violations which ‘‘genuinely shock the conscience of mankind. reasonable prospects.12NFL4. of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University.victorybriefs.17 For R2P. Canada] (2010): Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Redefining a Role for “Kind-hearted Gunmen”. last resort. Surrey. and right authority. if sovereignty is considered a principle that requires a state to exercise responsibility as an essential element for its governance to be considered legitimate.’’ when peaceful measures prove insufficient. proportional means. BC. 93-109 A relevant issue pertaining to the concepts of humanitarian intervention and the R2P is the legitimacy of proposed threshold and prudential criteria for action. then it is imperative that criteria ought to be established and weighed in the event of an intervention for human protection purposes.Humanitarian Intervention www. 29:2.’’18 Specifically. The conditions that will trigger or justify humanitarian intervention have been enumerated in numerous scholarly works dealing with substantive or procedural issues considered as either absolute or preferential prerequisites. right intention.com
Page 36 of 158
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS ONLY LEGITIMATE WHEN IT MEETS THE TRANDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR JUST WAR Francis Kofi Abiew [Prof.
of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. 29:2. The Report of the ICISS acknowledges that this does not necessarily mean that every such option must literally have been exhausted.
. exhaustion of other options may not be required because delay is likely to exacerbate the situation. Criminal Justice Ethics. where the threat is massive and the situation is rapidly deteriorating. Surrey.victorybriefs. deployment of international peacekeepers.25 Although the exhaustion of alternate remedies to protect victims is important. On balance. There is a preference for ceasefires. intervention should maximize the best outcome when weighed against other possible alternatives. and observers rather than coercive military action. 93-109 The principle of ‘‘last resort’’ does point to justification for the use of military force as an option by outside powers in the reaction phase. Canada] (2010): Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Redefining a Role for “Kind-hearted Gunmen”. BC.Humanitarian Intervention www.12NFL4. if the responsibility to prevent through peaceful dispute settlement flounders on the intransigence of one or both parties to a conflict.com
Page 37 of 158
THE PRINCIPLE OF LAST RESORT REQUIRES STATES TO WEIGH THE COSTS OF INTERVENTION AGAINST THOSE OF OTHER POSSIBLE MEANS Francis Kofi Abiew [Prof.
The intervener must plan and carry out such force as is necessary not to inflict more harm. 29:2. it means that the intervention should be proportional to the triggering event.Humanitarian Intervention www. or injury than is sought to be prevented. This entails ensuring a minimal impact on the target state’s political system and undertaking an intervention that accords with strict observance of the principles of international humanitarian law. Generally. Canada] (2010): Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Redefining a Role for “Kind-hearted Gunmen”. Such a removal.12NFL4. It implies that the scale. of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. it does so at the risk of being removed by an intervener.com
Page 38 of 158
THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY RESTRAINS THE MEANS OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION Francis Kofi Abiew [Prof. can only occur when necessary to halt the loss of life. The Report of the ICISS acknowledges that it may be open to argument in each case what the precise practical implications of these strictures are. if the government of that state is responsible for the commission of large-scale human rights atrocities. 93-109 The threshold of ‘‘proportional means’’ is sometimes difficult to gauge. Surrey.27
. BC. although the domestic political system of the target state cannot be altered. however. and the intensity of the planned military intervention should involve the minimum force necessary to secure the humanitarian objective in question. Criminal Justice Ethics.26 In this regard.victorybriefs. death. duration.
because in some places it will stand no chance of success.Humanitarian Intervention www. will always be carried out selectively.com
Page 39 of 158
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS ONLY JUSTIFIED IF IT HAS A REASONABLE CHANCE OF SUCCESS Francis Kofi Abiew [Prof. Criminal Justice Ethics. then intervention must not be undertaken. Military action must not risk triggering a larger conflict. Similarly. even for simple humanitarian purposes. A key issue that remains unresolved is how one evaluates the chances of success of intervention for human protection purposes or its potential to be counter-productive. as was evident in the cases of Indonesia and East Timor. if the intervening force does not have the capabilities to prevail militarily and to protect the population at risk. ‘‘armed intervention.29 In the absence of a clear sense of this.31
.28 In effect. Surrey. of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. that can and should be applied in such situations. Canada] (2010): Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Redefining a Role for “Kind-hearted Gunmen”. even if other conditions for intervention have been met. the implications of this precautionary principle would likely preclude any military action against any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. This raises the specter of double standards. including sanctions. for the simple reason that it would spark a major conflict. BC. 29:2. it would preclude military action against any of the major powers that are not permanent members of the Security Council. Resort to military intervention can be legitimized only if it has a reasonable chance of stopping or preventing large-scale atrocities or suffering. The consequences of military action should not be worse than the consequences of inaction. as interventions might not be possible in every case in which genuine grounds to do so exist. and that there are still other types of pressure. there is the ‘‘reasonable prospects’’ criterion. 93-109 Also.victorybriefs. The Report’s answer is that the reality that interventions may not be plausibly mounted in every justifiable case is no reason for them not to be mounted in any particular case.’’30 Also.12NFL4.
This larger body would consider the matter in an emergency special session under the procedure provided for by the ‘‘Uniting for Peace’’ resolution. but to make it work better than it has.32 When authorization is needed. Surrey.N. The second solution would be for collective intervention to be undertaken by a regional or sub-regional organization acting within its defining boundaries under Chapter VIII of the U. Again. 93-109 Lastly.Humanitarian Intervention www. Although this procedure gives the General Assembly some responsibility in matters of international peace and security.’’ which is key to the legitimacy of any intervention for human protection purposes. used in the cases of Korea in 1950.N.. then concerned individual states or ad hoc coalitions (so-called ‘‘coalitions of the willing’’) may not rule out other means to address the gravity and urgency of the situation. Charter. Thus.N.’’33 It should however be noted that the reality of Security Council politics is such that authorization would not be forthcoming in every single case that calls for forceful action.com
Page 40 of 158
TO BE LEGITIMATE HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Francis Kofi Abiew [Prof. However.N.N. As Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun point out. policymakers need to be cognizant of the possibility that unilateral action can be more timely and effective in the face of paralysis by the U. not around them. Security Council as the agent of the international community with primary responsibility for issues relating to the maintenance of international peace and security under the U. of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University.12NFL4.victorybriefs. perhaps the most problematic and difficult principle to apply is that of ‘‘right authority. It points out that ‘‘[t]he task is not to find alternatives to the Security Council as a source of authority. Where such entities fulfill and observe all the criteria. the outcome may have enduringly serious consequences for the credibility of the U. itself. it must be noted that the Assembly’s decisions are not legally binding and have only the status of recommendations.N. the revival of a unilateral jus ad bellum or forcible selfhelp measures by individual states or ad hoc coalitions to protect human rights may be legal or legitimate. the first point of reference must be the U.’’34 The Report of the ICISS takes an ambiguous stand on the role of armed intervention by individual states or even ad hoc coalitions of states without the imprimatur of legitimacy furnished by the Security Council or General Assembly. and the Congo in 1960. as happened during the Cold War situations that called for intervention. and the intervention succeeds and is seen by world public opinion to have succeeded. this alternative may be susceptible to being frustrated by political paralysis in the Security Council. Two institutional solutions are proposed. Egypt in 1956. Charter framework. The Report of the ICISS poses a real question regarding which of two evils is worse: the damage to international order if the Security Council is bypassed or the damage to that order if human beings are slaughtered while the Security Council stands by? It notes that if the Security Council fails to discharge its responsibility in the case of atrocious human rights violations.N. ‘‘[t]he UN cannot afford to drop the ball too many times on that scale. One is to seek support for military action from the General Assembly. Criminal Justice Ethics. insofar as such actions are not inconsistent with the purposes of the U. Canada] (2010): Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Redefining a Role for “Kind-hearted Gunmen”. it should be noted that although multilateralism in dealing with these issues is preferable. BC. 29:2. But what if the Security Council fails to act on its own R2P in a conscience-shocking situation that calls for action? The Report of the ICISS suggests that developing a consensus on military intervention requires working through the collective mechanisms of the U..35
12NFL4. The doctrine of natural law is grounded on the premise that human beings have certain moral duties by virtue of their common humanity. the notion of ‘‘just wars’’ became secularized and found a basis in natural law. Subsequently. a right of humanitarian intervention. Two of the essential conditions for the waging of such a war are that it must be for a just cause and fought with good intentions.Humanitarian Intervention www. for they are based on the principles of ‘‘just war’’ theory. Canada] (2010): Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Redefining a Role for “Kind-hearted Gunmen”. and the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries in which humanitarian interventions were justified on the basis of Christian beliefs and the religious concept of the dignity of man.37
.victorybriefs. Its basic tenets are discoverable through reason and therefore available to anyone capable of rational thought. it was important that every human society be limited by a widely recognized principle of humanity and the permissibility of the use of force against tyrants who mistreated their subjects. These authorities on international law considered humanitarian intervention to be in conformity with natural law.com
Page 41 of 158
THE ETHICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR JUST WAR THEORY COMES FROM NATURAL LAW Francis Kofi Abiew [Prof. for natural law theorists. Surrey. Criminal Justice Ethics. in some versions. These criteria are not new.36 Essentially. including. Thus. For Hugo Grotius and several of his contemporaries. The origins of the framework can be traced to the writings of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas. 93-109 The ethical legitimacy of these criteria for action relates directly to the question of whether the international community does have a moral duty to intervene to end egregious human rights violations that are conscience. BC. 29:2. of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. ‘‘just war’’ theory argues that a war can be considered legitimate if it is both justified (jus ad bellum) and conducted in an ethical manner (jus in bello). human nature generates common moral duties.shocking.
BC. Criminal Justice Ethics. of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University.Humanitarian Intervention www. Surrey. The creation of the proposed threshold and prudential criteria for action in the ICISS report will go a long way toward legitimizing and helping policymakers balance any competing moral intuitions surrounding interventions for human protection purposes.44 For example. the particularist doctrine that norms are morally binding insofar as they fit the cultural beliefs and practices of specific communities. ‘‘the interest in ending or preventing humanitarian crises is a cosmopolitan humanitarian interest. However. In other words.48 Greater respect for human rights will make the international community more likely to engage in actions to protect those rights when violated. an interest that springs. it may be that in medieval Christian Europe the requirements of just war operated in a socio-culturally homogeneous context generating particular outcomes that were predictable and generally accepted. and reside in. as it were.46 Individual and societal needs may vary from one community to another at any given period of time. The contemporary international system does not appear so homogeneous and the same principles may practically lead to different outcomes. This entitlement is not a claim on God or nature. It is probably best that the international community perceives and recognizes this.12NFL4. 29:2.’’47 Ultimately. concerns of humanity as a whole should outweigh any cultural preferences of different societies in applying them. humanity. these principles may be inconsistent with some of the political and technological realities of today.
. their legitimacy may be grounded in the notion of human rights a s an entitlement. but a claim on one another. These principles might be subject to interpretation and manipulation in practice.com JUST WAR THEORY IS NOTORIOUSLY DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET
Page 42 of 158
Francis Kofi Abiew [Prof.45 Thus. 93-109 The challenges associated with applying just war concepts are. but rather about how those conditions are concretely interpreted. not about conditions in general terms.victorybriefs. the heterogeneous cultures of the international system seem to fit with communitarianism. as one scholar observes. from universal moral concerns that affect. As Teson suggests. Canada] (2010): Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Redefining a Role for “Kind-hearted Gunmen”.
6:3. South Africa] (2010): Can the doctrine of just military intervention survive Iraq?.
. be proportionate in their methods and stand a reasonable chance of realizing their aims. Journal of Global Ethics. 287-304 The following injunctions form the core of the contemporary revisionist doctrine of JMI.com
Page 43 of 158
THERE ARE FIVE CORE PROVISIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF JUST MILITARY INTERVENTION Daryl Glaser [Prof.victorybriefs.Humanitarian Intervention www.12NFL4. University of the Witwatersrand. ethnic cleansing and other large-scale crimes. or of the part of it that justifies violation of national sovereignty. Johannesburg. (1) Human rights must be championed everywhere and most vigorously where they are grossly violated by massacre.4 (4) The humanitarian rescue imperative may be sufficiently urgent to justify intervention by any democratic. (2) Outside states or bodies can (if non-military options fail) legitimately intervene militarily against states responsible for gross human rights violations in order to rescue citizens of these later states. On my reading of recent controversies. (5) Armed interventions must be directed at a just outcome. power capable of stopping gross abuses. Department of Political Studies. the injunctions are accepted by JMI proponents who endorsed the Iraq war as well as by those who did not.. perhaps even any non-tyrannical. (3) The moral imperative of humanitarian rescue may be sufficiently urgent to trump strict considerations of international legality.
’’’ He continues. They have other things to worry about and may well be required to repress their feelings of indignation and outrage.38 The implication of this argument is that a government that engages in the massive and systematic violation of the human rights of its population not only forfeits its internal but also its external legitimacy. it is an instrumental.com
Page 44 of 158
THE LIMITS OF SOVEREIGNTY SYSTEMATIC GOVERNMENT OPPRESSION AND ATROCITY BOTH UNDERMINES A STATE’S CLAIM TO SOVEREIGNTY AND JUSTIFIES INTERVENTION TO STOP PRACTICES THAT “SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE” Francis Kofi Abiew [Prof. value. of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. His forceful argument rests on a standard assumption of liberal political philosophy to the effect that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure human rights. A government that poses a threat to its own citizens cannot protect those same citizens in its inter-state relations. Canada] (2010): Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Redefining a Role for “Kind-hearted Gunmen”. Under these circumstances an intervention for human protection purposes would not violate the prohibition of the use of force.43
. and those who grossly assault them should not be allowed to shield themselves behind the sovereignty principle.’’ 41 For him. murderous anarchy. the government in question can no longer appeal to the norms of international law that are supposed to protect it against armed intervention. BC. that is. 93-109 A contemporary version of the argument that humanitarian intervention and R2P are morally justified in appropriate cases is one that Fernando Teson makes.39 Furthermore. non -intervention is not an absolute moral rule. or forcibly expels large numbers of citizens or collapses into a frenzied. as the rationale behind these rules has disappeared. not an intrinsic. and thus should not be protected by international law. 29:2.42 The global culture of human solidarity thus demands that states intervene whenever one of their number massacres.victorybriefs.12NFL4. In its international relations. enslaves. . It is not the conscience of political leaders that one refers to in such cases. this means that. A corollary of this argument is that to the extent that state sovereignty is a value. acquired in the course of everyday activities. Governments and others in power who seriously violate those rights undermine the one reason that justifies their political power. . If what is going on locally becomes intolerable. humanitarian intervention becomes morally necessary whenever cruelty and suffering are extreme and local forces seem incapable of putting an end to them. Tyranny and anarchy cause the moral collapse of sovereignty. Surrey. rights that all persons have by virtue of personhood alone.40 He asserts that humanitarian intervention is justified ‘‘when it is a response . a scholar such as Michael Walzer argues that a duty of humanitarian intervention is just because it ‘‘fits’’ the ‘‘inherited cultures’’ of political communities everywhere. ‘‘The old -fashioned language seems to be exactly right. to acts ‘that shock the moral conscience of mankind. The reference is to the moral convictions of ordinary men and women. Criminal Justice Ethics.Humanitarian Intervention www. Sovereignty serves valuable human ends.
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com
Page 45 of 158
IN THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASING EMPHASIS ON HUMAN SECURITY RATHER THAN NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY Francis Kofi Abiew [Prof. of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Surrey, BC, Canada] (2010): Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Redefining a Role for “Kind-hearted Gunmen”, Criminal Justice Ethics, 29:2, 93-109 No less important is the realization and shift in thinking that has occurred in the last two decades with regard to the notion of security. The traditional view of security, prominent in Realist theory and reflected in the U.N. Charter, which is based on territoriality expressed in terms of defense of state borders against external aggression, has broadened considerably to include the concern for the welfare of citizens. In this context, the Commission on Global Governance acknowledged that ‘‘global security extends beyond the protection of borders, ruling elites, and exclusive state interests to include the protection of people.’’49 The concept of human security has emerged, suggesting a growing recognition that concepts of security must include people as well as states.50 Specifically, it means the security of people*their physical safety, their economic and social well-being, respect for their dignity and worth as human beings, and the protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.51 Thus, security can be endangered not only by external aggression, but also by circumstances and forces within a state, including actions by its military and ‘‘security’’ forces. The Report of the ICISS further points out that ‘‘[t]he traditional , narrow perception of security leaves out the most elementary and legitimate concerns of ordinary people regarding security in their daily lives’’ and ‘‘diverts enormous amounts of national wealth and human resources into armaments and armed forces, while countries fail to protect their citizens from chronic insecurities of hunger, disease, inadequate shelter, crime, unemployment, social conflict and environmental hazard.’’52 The emphasis on human security is placed not so much on what governments are permitted to do under the guise of sovereignty, as to what they are/are not permitted to do in fulfilling their legal responsibilities to their own people.53
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com
Page 46 of 158
STATES FORFEIT THEIR RIGHTS TO SELF-GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THEIR PEOPLE Paul Di Stefano [Prof. of Humanities at John Abbott College in Montreal, Quebec], “Human Rights Violations and the Moral Permissibility of Military Intervention,” Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 23:537–545 (2011) The increasing importance placed on the protection of human rights holds significant implications for state sovereignty. While the presumption against intervention is outlined in the UN Charter, the moral right to assistance is anchored in Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which asserts, “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration can be fully realized.” AsWilkins suggests, when these rights and freedoms are grossly violated, military intervention may be “morally authorized” because protection against such violations “may trump the obligation of states not to interfere in the domestic affairs of other states.” Shue notes, “it must be remembered that sovereignty is a right, and the concept of a right makes no sense in the absence of a corresponding duty.” In a Lockean sense, the state is constrained in its behavior through the duty to preserve and protect the fundamental rights of its citizens. When the state fails in this imperative, however, its legitimacy is forfeited and the moral defensibility of non-intervention wanes. This delegitimization renders the state susceptible to outside interference, as foreign states find justification in providing protection that the home state no longer pr ovides. Mill’s assertion regarding the intrinsic value of self-help is inadequate, and of little direct consolation to those whose lives are immediately threatened by tyrannical regimes. Walzer avers, “When a people are being massacred, we don’t require th at they pass the test of self-help before coming to their aid. It is their very incapacity that brings us in.”
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO SOVEREIGNTY
Page 47 of 158
Coady, C. A. J. [Australian Research Council senior research fellow]. “The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention,” Peaceworks No. 45, August 2002. United States Institute of Peace. <http://www.usip.org/publications/ethics-armed-humanitarian-intervention> The conditions of the JAB, especially that of just cause, are these days treated more restrictively than in past so that a just war has tended to be seen primarily as a defensive war. Military interventions in the affairs of other states without the warrant of self- defense or defense of allies were largely ruled out, both morally and legally. The older tradition of allowing certain aggressive wars to be morally licit fell into disrepute during the latter half of the twentieth century, and the reasons for this are explored. The call for humanitarian war harks back to the older tradition and challenges the paradigm of outlawing all aggression of states against other states. This challenge raises issues of the value of sovereignty, since the sovereign right of states to manage their own affairs has been a mainstay of international relations theory and has a direct connection with the prohibition on aggressive war. There are undoubtedly good reasons for being suspicious of any absolute right for states to remain immune to outside criticism, pressure, or sanction by the international community or even by other states. Malevolent action of states against their own populations certainly constitutes one of those reasons.
of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. 93-109 However.
.8 Whether framed in terms of humanitarian intervention or R2P.7 This new focus emphasizes the limits of sovereignty.com RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT
Page 48 of 158
THE IDEA OF A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT REFRAMES THE NATURE OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Francis Kofi Abiew [Prof.Humanitarian Intervention www. and the duty incumbent primarily upon states and secondarily upon international organizations to respond. to move the debate forward. Surrey. R2P stipulates that it is shameful to do nothing when such events that shock the conscience of the international community cry out for action.5 For Evans. This approach within the R2P framework circumvents the sovereignty/intervention problematic. This perspective thus prioritizes the rights of those suffering from atrocities such as genocide. Sovereignty still matters. Gareth Evans. because state sovereignty is viewed as the main impediment to a more robust practice of humanitarian intervention.3 The commission avoided the terminology ‘‘humanitarian intervention’’ and instead.N. however. 6 He notes the U. it is argued that this is not a new approach because sovereign prerogatives have always been limited even with the inception of the Westphalian system. actual state practice has evolved with a focus now on human rights and human security.4 Instead of looking for a legal trigger that authorizes states to intervene. 29:2. Canada] (2010): Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Redefining a Role for “Kind-hearted Gunmen”. called it intervention for human protection purposes. and he points out that. ethnic cleansing. crimes against humanity. Criminal Justice Ethics. as the ICISS recognizes. Charter’s underpinning of sovereignty in the traditional Westphalian sense. Sovereign prerogatives are thus consistent with humanitarian intervention. and war crimes. the main contributions of the R2P framework to the international policy debate are that it recharacterizes the ‘‘right to intervene’’ debate not as an argument about any ‘‘right’’ at all but rather about a ‘‘responsibility’’ to protect people at grave risk. a critical review of the ‘‘responsibility to protect’’ doctrine raises the question whether it is old wine in new bottles.victorybriefs. BC. Some scholars view it as the most comprehensive approach to humanitarian intervention ever proposed.12NFL4. since the charter’s promulgation. sovereignty will not bar intervention for human protection purposes. According to the ICISS co-chair. the second and perhaps the most significant contribution is the new conceptualization of sovereignty not as control but as responsibility.
these activities*ranging along a continuum from assistance to the use of military force*have been maintained by the doctrine of R2P. although the employment of coercive measures can also be preventive in situations of an imminent large-scale loss of life.’’15 It is problematic from a legal point of view given that different legal rules apply to these forms of the R2P. The U.16
.victorybriefs. which consisted of military protection of relief supplies. Canada] (2010): Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Redefining a Role for “Kind-hearted Gunmen”. Military force functions. were directed against fragile and failed states in which civilians were victims of internal conflicts. Charter than under Chapter VII. it may be that more interventions are justified under Chapter VI of the U. It would have been better to restrict the R2P to the reaction phase addressing the question of the use of force for human protection purposes. Overall. legal.12NFL4. the protection of NGO aid workers. though rebuilding is not an integral part of humanitarian intervention narrowly conceived. humanitarian intervention is a shortterm palliative measure that involves the use of military force. a recognition that is stated in terms of the likelihood of the recurrence of human rights violations in the absence of post-conflict peacebuilding. the R2P is a broader concept than humanitarian intervention in that the latter is mainly reactive and involves the use of military force. it has been included as an essential element of R2P. such melding is not very useful. 29:2.com
Page 49 of 158
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT EXTENDS BEYOND THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE TO THE PROMOTION OF PEACE. BC. Surrey.13 The novelty of R2P thus lies in its melding of peace and security or conflict-prevention approaches with those of international human rights protection. whereas humanitarian intervention strictly involves military force in terms of reaction. In a narrow sense. The obligation to prevent thus carries a broader meaning than intervention.Humanitarian Intervention www. or its imminence.-authorized humanitarian interventions of the 1990s. to remedy large-scale human rights violations and to make conditions conducive for the target state’s population to take charge of their own affairs. These interventions were consistent with the articulation of a broader notion of humanitarian interventions. and economic instruments related to preventive action before the application of military force. and rebuild.N. In the context of the Cold War.12 This obligation to rebuild is much broader. however.14 However. such interventions were directed against repressive regimes that violated the human rights of their populations. It involves a continuum of obligations to prevent. as a last resort. AND SELF-GOVERNANCE Francis Kofi Abiew [Prof.N. to protect populations in grave danger. and the creation of ‘‘corridors of tranquility’’ and ‘‘safe havens’’ or ‘‘safe zones’’ in which populations were protected. 93-109 Sovereignty as responsibility gives rise to three types of tasks or duties and. of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. though consistent with a wider notion of the practice of humanitarian intervention in the 1990s. Understood in the classical sense. according to Evans.11 Furthermore. react. as the fundamental thesis of R2P is ‘‘that any coercive intervention for human protection purposes is but one element in a continuum of intervention. which begins with preventive efforts and ends with the responsibility to rebuild. R2P focuses on other political. Criminal Justice Ethics. the third contribution of the commission is the fact that R2P is much more than intervention. SECURITY.9 Framed in this context.10 Thus conceived. particularly military intervention.
it may nonetheless be understood as conferring public power and allocating jurisdiction.12NFL4. impending massacres are rarely so easy to foresee. the Obama Doctrine.23 Power. Combined with the support of African states and the Arab League for intervention. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice. now. This may be compared to the function played by Article 99 of the UN Charter. the vague formulations embraced by the 2005 Summit do not invoke “responsibility” in the strict legal sense of an obligation to act in a specific way. Paper 282. facilitated by the unusual clarity of the situation in Libya. however.org/nyu_plltwp/282> As Anne Orford has argued. Simon [Dean and Prof. implementation of RtoP has come from the office of the secretary-general. "Leading from Behind': The Responsibility to Protect. the true significance of RtoP is not in creating new rights or obligations to do “the right thing”. and National Security Council staffer Samantha Power. this left most states on the Council unwilling to allow atrocities to occur—and others unwilling to be seen as the impediment to action. it is in making it harder to do the wrong thing or nothing at all. State leaders are usually more circumspect in the threats they make against their population than was Qaddafi.20 Much like Article 99. currently serves as the National Security Council’s Senior Director of Multilateral Affairs and is a special adviser to the President.victorybriefs. New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers.Humanitarian Intervention www. <http://lsr. Such clarity of intent influenced the Obama administration in particular. and Humanitarian Intervention After Libya" (2011).22 Rice in particular had used her first statement in the UN Security Council to endorse RtoP.18 Seen through such a lens.21 Such a dynamic appears to have had some success at the international level. rather. the author of the Pulitzer Prizewinning book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. but rather in the sense of an allocation of responsibility to respond to a situation.24
. although RtoP does not create rights or impose legal obligations.”19 It is no coincidence that much of the energy behind the adoption and.com
Page 50 of 158
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IS LESS ABOUT EXPANDING LEGAL RIGHTS AS IT IS REMOVING POLITICAL IMPEDIMENTS TO ACTION IN THE FACE OF ATROCITY – LIBYA PROVES Chesterman. That change of policy was partly driven by external events —in particular the imminent possibility of thousands being killed by Qaddafi’s troops—but also by the internal advocacy of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Within a twentyfour hour period the United States pivoted from skepticism about intervention in Libya to forceful advocacy.nellco. of Law at National University of Singapore]. which allows the UN secretarygeneral to bring to the attention of the Security Council “any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.
“The responsibility to protect: The Human rights and humanitarian dimensions. it is unlikely R2P will be applied. and if one of them casts a veto.
. other steps will have to be found. one of the main criticisms of the Carter policy was that it was inconsistent in its application. Nonetheless. Gareth Evans responds to charges of inconsistency exactly the way the Carter Administration did – that each case is different requiring different approaches and that inconsistency in application is not a good argument for not acting in cases where one can do something.” Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement. For example. So handling inconsistency is going to be a major issue. Those five countries really have the deciding voice on strong actions under R2P. especially less powerful ones with no international defenders.com
Page 51 of 158
INCONSISTENT APPLICATION OF HUMANITARIAN NORMS IS A POOR REASON NOT TO ACT WHEN WE CAN Roberta Cohen [Nonresident Senior Fellow. Somalia or the Democratic Republic of the Congo in part because of the political and economic interests of members of the P5 [permanent five]. In his recent book on R2P. a credibility gap arises.12NFL4. The Carter Administration did not act against the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia or institute economic sanctions against South Africa because of its own political and economic interests. Foreign Policy. R2P will undoubtedly run into some of the same problems that plague human rights policies. R2P also risks being applied to a highly selective group of countries. It plagued the Carter Administration for four full years. And R2P has not been applied to atrocities in Sudan. Harvard Human Rights Panel Annual Symposium. and in the case of powerful nations.Humanitarian Intervention www. Panel on the Responsibility to Protect and Human Rights].victorybriefs.
Concepts of human security.victorybriefs. Panel on the Responsibility to Protect and Human Rights]. But one contribution that is often downplayed is the role of the international human rights movement. Harvard Human Rights Panel Annual Symposium. It was President Carter who told the United Nations General Assembly in 1977 that. fact-finding missions."
. Between the adoption of international human rights standards by the UN after the Second World War and the acceptance of a collective responsibility to protect in 2005 there is a long road. Foreign Policy.12NFL4. all governments are accountable not only to their own citizens but to the entire community of nations. sovereignty as responsibility are milestones on that road.Humanitarian Intervention www.” Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement. They championed the view that the international community should collectively take actions to hold governments to account when they fail to meet their obligations. I was in the Administration and my own notes that I prepared for use by US representatives at the UN said: "…no nation in the world today can hide politically-sanctioned abductions and murders. Another unexplored contribution to R2P is that made by the Administration of Jimmy Carter. Where basic human rights are concerned.com INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMUNITY
Page 52 of 158
THE OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS BASED ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COMMUNITY OF NATIONS Roberta Cohen [Nonresident Senior Fellow. Indeed. intercessions with governments and sanctions. or other gross violations of human rights behind assertions of sovereignty. “The responsibility to protect: The Human rights and humanitarian dimensions. torture." The President challenged traditional notions of sovereignty with that speech. humanitarian intervention. "No member of the United Nations can claim that mistreatment of its citizens is solely its own business. Human rights advocates did not just affirm that states should observe human rights standards. non-governmental human rights organizations and UN human rights bodies became assertive in insisting on international accountability. There were reports. Beginning in the 1970s. the human rights movement contributed to an evolution in thinking from a strictly state-centered system in which sovereignty was absolute to one in which the behavior of states toward their own citizens became a matter of international concern and scrutiny.
victorybriefs. Life for many. Cambodia. making it ever more difficult for humanity to progress towards the humane and civilized international relations Immanuel Kant envisaged as perpetual peace. Sierra Leone and Sudan. MANY HUMANITARIAN EMERGENCIES SHATTERED THE HOPE FOR A NEW POST-COLD WAR PEACE Richard Devetak [Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Director of the Rotary Centre for International Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution School of Political Science and International Studies. to use Hobbes’s term.12NFL4. crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.Humanitarian Intervention www. incivility and widespread violence. the world seemed to witness the return to Hobbesian conditions of bellum omnium contra omnes. and as a result political and moral order disintegrated.
Page 53 of 158
IN THE 1990S. Liberia. From so-called “failed states” such as Somalia. to ethnic cleansing and mass slaughter in Iraq. “The Moralization of International Politics: Humanitarian Intervention and its Critics. «Masterless men». University of Queensland]. Rwanda. Bosnia.” Quaderni di Relazioni Internazionali n. 14 Mag gio (2011) A succession of “complex emergencies” or “new wars” in the 1990s shattered any optimism that the end of the Cold War might lead to a more peaceful world order1. individuals in these war zones had become “nasty. brutish and short” as states and societies collapsed under the pressure of chronic economic privation. and Darfur. if not all. daily committed war crimes.
better than any other international event of the decade.victorybriefs. Bosnia in 1992-93.” Quaderni di Relazioni Internazionali n. international society mounted what became known as “humanitarian interventions” – the coercive interference in the domestic jurisdiction of a sovereign state for the purpose of ending large-scale human rights abuses. the United Nations sanctioned a series of coercive interventions on humanitarian grounds. more than any of these cases. the growing tendency of political leaders. Kosovo revealed.com
Page 54 of 158
THE 1990S SAW A TURN TOWARD MORALLY-ORIENTED FOREIGN-POLICY NORMS Richard Devetak [Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Director of the Rotary Centre for International Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution School of Political Science and International Studies. including Iraq in 1991. But. judge and act in international politics from a moral point of view. it was NATO’s 1999 armed intervention in Kosovo without a UN mandate that highlighted the moral and political questions raised by this alleged new right (some say duty) of humanitarian intervention. Somalia in 1992. “The Moralization of International Politics: Humanitarian Intervention and its Critics. University of Queensla nd]. In the 1990s. and Rwanda in 1994. to end what Ken Booth2 calls large-scale “human wrongs”.
. among many others. 14 Maggio (2011) To combat human suffering in the face of such inhumane scenarios.12NFL4.Humanitarian Intervention www. diplomats and civilians to analyse.
response to the political violence being inflicted on Kosovar Albanians by Serbia. NATO’s Kosovo intervention seemed emblematic of a growing “moralization of international politics”. But it was notable for an arena of human activity where moral discourse often succumbs to the predations of power politics. he said5. an insightful and intelligent analyst of the post-Cold War terrain of international conflict. as reports and images of human suffering were beamed into the living rooms of empathetic Western publics who urged their governments to “do something” in the face of political violence and human suffering. «We are clearly witnessing what is probably an irresistible shift in public attitudes toward the belief that the defence of the oppressed in the name of morality should prevail over frontiers and legal documents»4 (emphasis added). he continued. After the wretched failures of Bosnia and Rwanda. Rieff quotes from former UN Secretary-General. it had not acquired such standing since the interwar years. According to Rieff. 14 Maggio (2011) For defenders of NATO’s actions. Expressions of political realism.
. pre-eminently the appeal to national interests and reasons of state. I borrow this phrase from David Rieff.” Quaderni di Relazioni Internazionali n. who has explained humanitarianism as part of a broader «postCold War moralization of international politics»3. Western publi cs. if not entirely lawful.victorybriefs. Rieff himself seems to agree that there has been a noticeable shift in public attitudes from a kind of indifferent realism to a more compassionate humanitarianism.Humanitarian Intervention www. A moral impulse seemed to awaken with the advent of globalization and global mass media. By contrast.com
Page 55 of 158
MORAL DISCOURSE HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY ACCEPTED IN GLOBAL POLITICS Richard Devetak [Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Director of the Rotary Centre for International Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution School of Political Science and International Studies. NATO’s Kosovo war «was undertaken more in the name of human rights and moral obligation than out of any traditional conception of national interest». grown used to global news feeds and increasingly empathetic to suffering strangers wherever they may be. Javier Perez de Cuellar asserting in 1991 that. This willingness to legitimate military action with moral arguments was in itself not new to international relations. and have developed instead a taste for humanitarianism and its presumed virtues. So although moral discourse had never entirely vacated international relations. the use of force was an urgent and legitimate. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President Bill Clinton both sought to justify the intervention by appeal to humanitarian values. «the language of human rights and humanitarianism …now stands as the exoteric language of public discourse».12NFL4. now seem «an esoteric language restricted by and large to international policymakers when they are out of public view». it was a war in defence of humanity and human rights. University of Queensland]. “The Moralization of International Politics: Humanitarian Intervention and its Critics. have lost their appetite for Realpolitik and its perceived vices.
Call these tenets. “Are Human Rights Essentially Triggers for Intervention?” Philosophy Compass 4/6 (2009): 938–950 The ‘orthodox’ conception of human rights.Humanitarian Intervention www. like moral rights grounded in desert. respectively.12NFL4.com
Page 56 of 158
THE ORTHODOX CONCEPTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ASSUMES THAT THEY ARE UNIVERSAL RIGHTS DERIVED FROM MORAL REASONING John Tasioulas [University of Oxford]. at least among philosophers. truth-oriented) moral reasoning. does their existence depend on an accomplishment of the rightholder or a transaction in which they have engaged or a relationship to which they belong. It holds that whether or not a candidate norm really is a human right is to be determined by ordinary (typically. The first – which concerns the essential nature of human rights – holds that they are moral rights possessed by all human beings simply in virtue of their humanity.
. includes two tenets that receive widely divergent interpretations at the hands of their adherents. Nor.victorybriefs. owe their existence to some institutional norm or social practice.1 They do not. like legal or conventional rights. promises or marriage. NT and GT. the considerations that establish the claim of a given norm to be a human right. The second tenet relates to the grounds of human rights.
“Are Human Rights Essentially Triggers for Intervention?” Philosophy Compass 4/6 (2009): 938–950 In adjudicating between the orthodox and political conceptions of human rights.
. The distinctiveness of human rights within the class of important moral considerations is normally articulated by orthodox theorists in two stages. in that the violation of a right necessarily wrongs a specific other person.Humanitarian Intervention www. ‘imperfect’ duties of charity. On the political conception. a theory of human rights must capture the distinctive importance of this class of norms. we should keep in mind three desiderata that plausibly bear on the adequacy of theories of human rights.12NFL4.victorybriefs. nor is every morally important consideration a matter of human rights. the right-holder. Not every moral consideration is important. they belong to the individualistic part of morality. First. in a way that violations of other norms. Second. which have no correlative right-holder. do not. First. e. human rights fall within the broader category of moral rights.com
Page 57 of 158
HUMAN RIGHTS ARE BY THEIR NATURE MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN OTHER MORAL CLAIMS John Tasioulas [University of Oxford]. they are that subset of moral rights possessed by all human beings simply in virtue of their humanity. However else we understand rights. reference must (also) be made to the distinctive political nature of such rights when picking them out within the class of all rights. in contrast.g.
political and other manifestations of the existing human rights culture. “Are Human Rights Essentially Triggers for Intervention?” Philosophy Compass 4/6 (2009): 938–950 Second. e. Satisfying this desideratum had therefore better be compatible with adopting a critical perspective on the legal. Perhaps there are compelling reasons for not recognizing some of them. as the culture of human rights is multi-faceted and subject to rival self-understandings on the part of its adherents. Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This is a complex criterion.com
Page 58 of 158
HUMAN RIGHTS IS CLOSELY TIED TO AN INTERNATIONAL CULTURE OF RIGHTS THAT HAS DEVELOPED SINCE WORLD WAR II John Tasioulas [University of Oxford]. 24 UDHR). a credible account of human rights must exhibit an appropriate level of fidelity to the human rights culture that has flourished post-1945.12NFL4. especially as it is crystallized in the so-called International Bill of Human Rights: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (UDHR). the last two of which came into force in 1976. including the oft-derided human rights to ‘the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health’ (ICESCR. 12(1)) and to ‘periodic holidays with pay’ (Art.g. So. Art.victorybriefs.Humanitarian Intervention www. it is not the case that an adequate theory must rubber-stamp all the ‘human rights’ that can be gleaned from the key human rights declarations and conventions.
. the International Covenants on Economic..
“Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya.
.Humanitarian Intervention www. and hunger. THE POLITICAL REALITIES OF ETHNIC CLEANSING AND THE ADVANCE OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY MADE HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION A PRESSING POLITICAL PROBLEM John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. At the same time.com
Page 59 of 158
AFTER THE COLD WAR. 6 (2011) Modern humanitarian intervention was first conceived in the years following the end of the Cold War. For the first time in decades. The emotional impact of these crises was heightened by new communications technologies that transmitted graphic images of human suªering across the world. repression.victorybriefs. 90. one seemingly distinguished by the frequency and brutality of wars and the deliberate targeting of civilians. the shifting global landscape created new problems that cried out for action. terms such as “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” appeared regularly in public discussions. and recurrent famines and instability hit much of Africa. Military force that had long been held in check by superpower rivalry could now be unleashed to protect poor countries from aggression.12NFL4. Vol. No. Nationalist and ethnic conflicts in former communist countries surged. A new and unsettled world order took shape. The triumph of liberal democracy over communism made Western leaders optimistic that they could solve the world’s problems as never before.” Foreign Affairs.
Two decades of media exposure to mass atrocities.” Foreign Affairs. ethnic cleansing. 6 (2011) Recent effort to perfect humanitarian intervention have been fueled by deep changes in public norms about violence against civilians and advances in conflict management. 90. Both un Security Council resolutions on Libya this year passed with unprecedented speed and without a single dissenting vote. Nato’s intervention in Libya reflects how the world has become more committed to the protection of civilians. and genocide have altered global— not simply Western—attitudes about intervention. The previously sacrosanct concept of state sovereignty has been made conditional on a state’s responsible behavior. Vol.12NFL4.com
Page 60 of 158
THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT HAS BEEN UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED BY THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. and in 2005.Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University].
. No. the un General Assembly unanimously endorsed the doctrine of the responsibility to protect at the un’sWorld Summit.
<http://www.usip.victorybriefs. United States Institute of Peace. [Australian Research Council senior research fellow]. August 2002. These concern legitimacy in the international order and the role of the United Nations. and the problems posed by demonization.
Page 61 of 158
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE IN THE CONTEXT OF STRIVING FOR A MORE PEACEFUL WORLD Coady. C. In conclusion. the significance of multilateral versus unilateral forms of intervention. J. the need for holistic measures in the management of intervention.12NFL4.Humanitarian Intervention www. “The Et hics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention. A. the need for a specialist UN intervention force. it is emphasized that humanitarian concerns must be located within a context of the striving for a peaceful world.” Peaceworks No. 45.org/publications/ethics-armed-humanitarian-intervention> Suggestions are then made about the circumstances in which intervention might be morally licit.
University of Queensland]. the rights of sovereign states are not sacrosanct and should not be used to infringe or deny human rights or to obstruct universal justice. crimes against peace). Why? Because in upholding and pressing moral claims in international politics the prospect of realizing humanity as a political end is thought to advance. 14 Maggio (2011) The humanitarian narrative sees the moralization of international politics as a positive development. Protection from the state becomes the central theme of this humanitarian narrative. The world appears to have entered up on Immanuel Kant’s cosmopolitan universal community «where a violation of rights in one part of the world is felt everywhere»6.victorybriefs. The moralization of international politics demonstrates international society’s commitment to uphold human rights and to act decisively against violations of international humanitarian law (crimes of war. “The Moralization of International Politics: Humanitarian Intervention and its Critics. This kind of liberal humanitarianism.
. The claims of humanity trump sovereignty.” Quaderni di Relazioni Internazionali n.12NFL4. There is of course a set of deeply Kantian and liberal themes at play in this narrative. to limit the state’s well-honed capacities to abuse power and harm its citizens. crimes against humanity. According to this way of thinking. inspired by John Locke as much as Kant.Humanitarian Intervention www. invokes humanity or civil society as a foil to the sovereign power of the state.com LIBERAL HUMANITARIANISM AND COSMOPOLITANISM
Page 62 of 158
THE HUMANITARIAN NARRATIVE IS CLOSELY TIED TO LIBERAL IDEAS OF INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SOCIETY AND PROTECTION FROM STATE AGGRESSION Richard Devetak [Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Director of the Rotary Centre for International Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution School of Political Science and International Studies.
and liberals such as Michael Ignatieff and Fernando Téson. to name but a few.com
Page 63 of 158
TRADITIONAL LIBERAL CONCEPTIONS OF HUMANITARIAN NORMS HAVE BEEN SUPPLEMENTED BY MODERN COSMOPOLITANISM Richard Devetak [Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Director of the Rotary Centre for International Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution School of Political Science and International Studies. Karl-Otto Apel.” Quaderni di Relazioni Internazionali n. “The Moralization of International Politics: Humanitarian Intervention and its Critics. This leads them to see one of political and international theory’s major tasks as protecting individuals and communities from state violence. 14 Maggio (2011) This humanitarian narrative has found strong support in contemporary social. Mary Kaldor. My main concern at the moment. and Daniele Archibugi. is simply to register their part in the emerging consensus around the moralization of international politics. however.12NFL4. In different degrees they all urge understanding. Andrew Linklater.victorybriefs.Humanitarian Intervention www. not least among those who have been willing to consider humanitarian intervention as a possible sign of this moralization of international politics. Needless to say there are wide variances among these thinkers in how they circumscribe the conditions under which humanitarian intervention can be deemed legitimate. University of Queensland]. English School theorists such as Alex Bellamy and Nicholas Wheeler. Cosmopolitan critical theorists such as Jürgen Habermas. have argued for humanitarian intervention as a legitimate exception to the non-intervention norm. political and international theory.
. analysing and criticising international politics from a moral point of view. Marc Lynch.
which would guarantee the implementation of fundamental human rights? Does this imply that the individual has to be prepared to pay global taxes or.com
Page 64 of 158
IT IS POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP A SENSE OF HUMAN IDENTITY THAT MAKES ONE WILLING TO DIE FOR THE SAKE OF SOMEONE ELSE SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE IS HUMAN Mary Kaldor [Centre for the Study of Global Governance London School of Economics]. The notion that there is some higher good beyond secular notions of nation and state long preceded this invention.victorybriefs.Humanitarian Intervention www. Humanitarian intervention is less risky than war-fighting although more risky than the kind of risk-free war (at least from the point of view of the soldiers) that the US and Nato are promoting as a form of humanitarian intervention.
. Warwick.12NFL4. It is sometimes said that this notion is ridiculously utopian – dying for hearth and home is quite different from risking life for something as grand and abstract as humanity. But risking life for one’s nation is in fact a relatively recent invention. human rights activists and aid workers already risk their lives for humanity. “Cosmopolitanism and Organised Violence. Indeed. more importantly. 27-29 (April 2000) Can there be a global social contract. does the individual have to be prepared to die for humanity? I think the individual has to be prepared to risk life for humanity but not in an unlimited way (as was the case with statist wars) since he or she is part of humanity.” Paper prepared for Conference on ‘Conceiving Cosmopolitanism'.
And if that is so. and the dignity of reason is worthy of respect wherever it is found. reason and moral capacity.4). king or peasant. wherever he lives. “Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism.26 We should recognize humanity wherever it occurs. U. and if this is so we are bound not to harm anyone'' (III.12NFL4. all are alike of boundless moral value. slave or free. of Law and Ethics. we should not allow differences of nationality or class or ethnic membership or even gender to erect barriers between us and our fellow human beings.27
. the Stoics held. of Chicago]. we should regard our deliberations as. 1-25 According to the Stoics. If this is so. And each and every human being.21 Reason. our first allegiance and respect. reason is above all a faculty of moral choice).Humanitarian Intervention www. Stoic cosmopolitans hold. and if this is common.com COSMOPOLITANISM HAS ITS ORIGINS IN GREEK STOICISM
Page 65 of 158
Marth C.” The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 5. The accident of where one is born is just that. he lives as a citizen of the world'' (X. the world is as it were a citystate'' (Marcus. Male or female. just in virtue of being rational and moral (for Stoics. we share in a kind of organized polity. As Marcus puts it. Nussbaum [Prof. first and foremost. and give its fundamental ingredients. deliberations about human problems of people in particular concrete situations. in the Stoic view.23 Marcus develops this idea further: ``If reason is common.victorybriefs. pp. not problems growing out of a local or national identity that confines and limits our moral aspirations. already spoke of rational humanity as grounding a common idea of law. Number 1. then we are fellow citizens. provided that. has boundless worth. (1997). IV. so too is law. Cicero in the De Officiis holds that Nature ordains that every human being should promote the good of every other human being just because he is human: ``And if this is so. any human being might have been born in any nation. makes us fellow citizens. it would appear. Zeno. the basis for human community is the worth of reason in each and every human being. an accident.25 Recognizing this. ``It makes no difference whether a person lives here or there.22 Similarly. we are all subject to a single law of nature. is a portion of the divine in each of us. This reason.24 This being so.15).27-8).
Number 1. 1-25 The attitude of the world-citizen is held to be strategically valuable in social life.Humanitarian Intervention www. of Chicago]. Part of his own Stoic education.victorybriefs. We will be better able to solve our problems if we face them in this way. U. as fellow human beings respecting one another. pp. he writes.
. even when our institutions are still based on national divisions.com
Page 66 of 158
CLASSICAL COSMOPOLITANS EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF AVOIDING PAROCHIALISM IN SUCCESSFUL POLITICAL ORDERS Marth C. Marcus Aurelius writes about this topic with especial eloquence.” The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 5. of Law and Ethics. is ``not to be a Green or Blue partisan at the races. “Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism.5).12NFL4. (1997). No theme is deeper in Stoicism than the damage done by faction and intense local loyalties to our political lives. The Stoic claim is that a style of political life that recognizes the moral/rational community as fundamental promises a more reasonable style of political deliberation and problem solving. noting that Roman political life tends to be dominated by divisions and parties of many sorts. Nussbaum [Prof. or a supporter of the lightly armed or heavily armed gladiators at the Circus'' (I. from the divisions of class and rank and ethnic origin to the division of parties at public games and gladiatorial shows.
shutting out all sight of the sky with one thick screen of branches upon another. not touched by passionate longing. (1997). the loftiness of the forest. of Chicago]. most worthy of reverence and acknowledgment. pp. and reason perfected in the soul. happy in adversity. the seclusion of the spot. Mor. If you have ever come on a dense wood of ancient trees that have risen to an exceptional height. You ask what that is? It is his soul. the political stance of the cosmopolitan is intrinsically valuable: for it recognizes in persons what is especially fundamental about them. . however.12NFL4. of Law and Ethics. is it not likely that a feeling of awe for him will ®nd its way into your heart? .com
Page 67 of 158
COSMOPOLITANISM EMPHASIZES THE VALUE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL HUMAN Marth C. Praise in him what can neither be given nor snatched away. . is inside you . It is. . . 41)
. This aspect may be less colorful than some of the more eye-catching morally irrelevant attributes of tradition. “Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism. U. the Stoics argue. calm in the midst of storm . And if you come across a man who is not alarmed by dangers. your sense of wonder at ®nding so deep and unbroken a gloom out of doors.” The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 5. 1-25 Furthermore. (Ep.victorybriefs. . .28 Seneca is especially eloquent in his description of the beauty of the moral substance of humanity in each person. is with you. . In a passage that seems to have profoundly in uenced Kant. Number 1. what is peculiarly human. identity and group membership. both deeper and ultimately more beautiful.Humanitarian Intervention www. will persuade you of the presence of a deity . he writes: God is near you. . Nussbaum [Prof. and the attitude of quasi-religious awe with which he is inspired by his contemplation of a human being's rational and moral purpose. For the human being is a rational animal.
that of humanity as a whole. this should be done not from a sense that my children are really more worthwhile than other people's children. first. Outside all these circles is the largest one. to a Stoic.12NFL4.31 The Roman Stoics held.
. Roman Stoics tend to disagree strongly with Plato and with their Greek Stoic forebears. then. pp. and so forth. Nussbaum [Prof. a Stoic of the first-second centuries AD (using an older metaphor found also in Cicero's De Officiis).” The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 5. that the human community is best arranged in this way. But. “Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism. I think nothing human alien to me”). one's neighbors or local group. that we will not get good rearing of children by leaving all children equally to the care of all parents. To see this. On the other hand. of Law and Ethics. which can frequently be a great source of richness in life. who seem to have followed Plato in abolishing the nuclear family.victorybriefs. consider the rearing of children. it seems. Cicero here borrows Terence's famous line. Each parent should care intensely for his or her own children. but as surrounded by a series of concentric circles. and that is how they can be fortified and encouraged without being subversive of the primary claim of humanity. then follows the extended family. but by the overall requirements of humanity. (1997). Second. one's fellow countrymen. we should consider that even the special measure of concern we give to our own is justified not by any intrinsic superiority in the local. in order. the next takes in one's immediate family. outside our sphere of concern and obligation. but from a sense that it makes most sense for me to do my duties where I am placed.30 In other words. we should think of nobody as a stranger. The first one is drawn around the self. Our task as citizens of the world will be to ``draw the circles somehow toward the center. and not try to spread parental concern all round the world.'' making all human beings more like our fellow city dwellers. is what local and national identities should be like. Number 1. “Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto” (“I am a human being. argued that we should regard ourselves not as devoid of local affiliations. we may give what is near to us a special degree of attention and concern. 1-25 The Stoics stress that to be a world citizen one does not need to give up local identifications and affiliations.29 In general.com
Page 68 of 158
STOIC COSMOPOLITANS ALLOW FOR THE RICHNESS OF LOCAL AFFILIATIONS BUT INSIST ON IDENTIFICATION WITH A COMMON HUMANITY Marth C.Humanitarian Intervention www. Hierocles. we should always remember that these features of placement are incidental and that our most fundamental allegiance is to what is human. one's fellow city-dwellers. of Chicago]. That. U.
and indeed conceive of ourselves as having common goals and projects with our fellows.18).com
Page 69 of 158
STOIC COSMOPOLITANS PUSH BACK AGAINST THINKNIG OF OTHERS IN THE WORLD AS ALIEN AND HOSTILE Marth C. of Chicago].32 But it does entail that we should think at all times of the way in which our good is intertwined with that of our fellows. not as doing good to yourself'' (VII. you do not yet love your fellow men from the heart. Adoption of this organic model need not entail the disregard of the separateness of persons and the importance of political liberty: Stoics were intensely concerned about both of these things. is to conceive of the entire world of human beings as a single body. thinking of ourselves as born to work together and inspired by a common purpose. of Law and Ethics. “Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism. XI. VIII.51. pp. (1997). you will do it merely as a duty. in their own way.53. Marcus concludes: ``If. nor derive complete joy from doing good.12NFL4. U. and interpret the other's action with understanding (VI. A favored exercise. 1-25 Stoic cosmopolitans are aware that politics divide people and encourages them to think of other groups as alien and hostile.Humanitarian Intervention www. as far as is possible.
. you call yourself merely a [detached] part rather than a limb. and never conceived of the satisfactions of different persons as fusable into a single system. its many people as so many limbs. in this process of world thinking. who develops this idea especially fully.victorybriefs. Referring to the fact that it takes only the change of a single letter in Greek to convert the word ``limb'' (melos) to the word ``[detached] part'' (meros). They therefore insist strongly on a process of empathetic understanding whereby we come to respect the humanity even of our political enemies. Nussbaum [Prof.” The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 5.13). changing the word. In the words of Marcus. Number 1. we should ``enter into the mind'' of the other.
(1997).” The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 5. a cosmopolis that has an implicit structure of claims and obligations regardless of whether or not there is an actual political organization in place to promote and vindicate these. When he refers to ``the idea of a cosmopolitan law.Humanitarian Intervention www. he is following very closely the lines of analysis traced by Cicero and Marcus.
. Number 1. So too when he insists on the organic interconnectedness of all our actions: ``The peoples of the earth have thus entered in varying degrees into a universal community. U. Kant stresses that the community of all human beings in reason entails a common participation in law (ius). pp. 1-25 As do Marcus and Cicero.com KANTIANISM ENTAILS A UNIVERSAL COSMOPOLITAN LAW
Page 70 of 158
Marth C. of Chicago].12NFL4. by our very rational existence. Nussbaum [Prof. of Law and Ethics.victorybriefs. and it has developed to the point where a violation of laws in one part of the world is felt everywhere'' (PP 107-8). a common participation in a virtual polity. “Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism. and.'' and asserts that this law is ``a necessary complement to the unwritten code of political and international law'' (PP 108).
their deviation from political liberalism renders the conceptions of justice upheld by these societies only ‘not fully unreasonable’ (Rawls. Rawls finds it unnecessary to introduce the locution ‘human rights’.3 To reiterate: my claim is not that Rawls holds that military (or coercive) intervention should be the exclusive. Even though he describes some non-liberal societies – decent hierarchical peoples – as wellordered. In this view. We can refer to this as the Coercive Intervention Account of human rights. diplomatic and economic sanctions. in some cases. it belongs to that component of political morality that regulates forceful intervention among political communities. or even the standard. a society that complies with human rights (and is non-aggressive) is immune from ‘justified and forceful intervention’. what it is for a right to be a human right is that its violation can act as a defeasible trigger for military intervention against the society that perpetrates the violations. 23. of their normative content). the following conception of a human right apparently emerges: a human right is a moral right (a) possessed by all human beings. Instead.victorybriefs.12NFL4. Thus. such as an excessive risk of serious retaliation against the intervening state.e. they are the rights upheld by societies that adhere to a liberal conception of justice. do we need to refer to ‘human rights’ at all? The answer is that the idea of human rights picks out a proper subset of liberal constitutional rights (both a subset of those rights and. the interpretation is endorsed by Griffin. Why.. military intervention. Moreover. 74).2 This follows from his thesis that the most reasonable political conception of justice is a liberal one. 380–90). In speaking of the rights recognized under a liberal conception of justice. the CIA accords criterial status to only one kind of intervention. we can refer with greater accuracy to ‘liberal constitutional rights’. military force (Rawls.
. a society’s compliance with the full schedule of human rig hts apparently has the effect of ruling out all forms of intervention against it. including the non-military variety (see Tasioulas (2002. and hence as equal members in good standing of the Society of Peoples. “Are Human Rights Essentially Triggers for Intervention?” Philosophy Compass 4/6 (2009): 938–950 For Rawls. Although Rawls is not entirely clear about the matter. this is compatible with the belief that the pro tanto case will often be defeated by competing considerations. An exegetical problem arises as to what Rawls means by ‘forceful intervention’. HUMAN RIGHTS ARE DISTINCT FROM OTHER LIBERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THAT THEY GENERATE A JUSTIFICATION FOR FOREIGN INTERVENTION John Tasioulas [University of Oxford]. and Raz). whether this takes the form of diplomatic or economic sanctions or. at the limit. Specifically.g. It does so by reference to the political role that this category of rights performs in regulating certain relations among societies.Humanitarian Intervention www. Under the heading of the kinds of ‘intervention’ that can be justified by human rights violations he includes not only military intervention but also. To the extent that he acknowledges rights possessed by all human beings simply in virtue of their humanity.com
Page 71 of 158
FOR RAWLS. instead. mechanism for implementing human rights. i. the claim is that what distinguishes human rights from within the broader category of rights is that their severe violation is capable of generating a pro tanto case for military intervention. But on my interpretation. However. e. then. NT is at best a misleadingly incomplete characterization of the nature of human rights. 80). and (b) capable of generating a defeasible or pro tanto justification for forceful intervention by well-ordered societies against the society responsible for severe and widespread violations of that right. or CIA for short (the acronym is darkly evocative of a certain influential strand of thinking about human rights in US foreign policy).
economic sanctions. however. besides that of providing a justification for forceful intervention. corporations. “Are Human Rights Essentially Triggers for Intervention?” Philosophy Compass 4/6 (2009): 938–950 The charge of infidelity can assume another form.Humanitarian Intervention www. The complaint is that the CIA overlooks the many important functions.g. Moreover. that are performed by the discourse of human rights..
. inter alia. Human rights also constrain and guide the activities of individuals. non-governmental organizations and regional and international organizations. nowhere does Rawls explicitly say that the duties correlative to human rights or their normative implications more generally.com
Page 72 of 158
FOR RAWLS HUMAN RIGHTS SET STANDARDS FOR THE ACTIONS OF NON-STATE ENTITIES AS WELL AS GOVERNMENTS IN MANY DIFFERENT CONTEXTS John Tasioulas [University of Oxford]. (b) setting a bench-mark for the internal legitimacy of societies by defining minimally necessary conditions of social cooperation.12NFL4. diplomatic criticism.victorybriefs. They also.7 To this. e. relating not to content but to function. bear exclusively on peoples or state-like political communities. etc. play an important role in: (a) justifying intervention short of military intervention. the reply will come that human rights do much more in Rawls’ theory than justify forceful intervention. and (c) fixing the target and cut-off point of the duty of assistance owed to burdened societies.
No 4.com HABERMAS ARGUES THAT THE TENSION BETWEEN NATIONALISM AND A COSMOPOLITIAN ETHOS IS OVERSTATED
Page 73 of 158
Robert Fine [Prof. This outcome is possible if the rational content of a nationally constituted political community enjoys substantial overlap with the rational content of the cosmopolitan project.Humanitarian Intervention www.” Constellations Volume 10. Habermas’s strategy is thus to look for reconciliation between national and cosmopolitan institutions. of Sociology. only then will the conditions for conflict be acute.12NFL4. In this mode he argues that the tension between national and cosmopolitan right is overstated and that respect for constitutionally regulated processes of national politics can in fact be reconciled with respect for the authority of supra-national institutions. (2003) There is another kind of response to be found in Habermas’s writings – one that is perhaps closer to the mainstream of contemporary cosmopolitanism. that is. if cosmopolitan institutions enforce the same principles of justice as those that regulate politics at a national level. if for example a nation-state is based on ethnic principles and authorizes major human rights violations against a section of its own subjects. University of Warwick] and Will Smith. Only if cosmopolitan institutions express radically different principles of justice from those that regulate politics at a national level. “Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Cosmopolitanism.victorybriefs. supplemented by a justification of cosmopolitan violence where the possibility of reconciliation is absent.
No 4. Here appeal is made to the historical contingency of the nation as the organizing principle of political communities. Habermas affirms the rationality of cosmopolitan solidarity as a fulfillment of the Enlightenment project. of Sociology.Humanitarian Intervention www. with institutions to match. Against a seemingly intransigent faith in the nationstate. although the universalistic elements of right were once swamped by the particularistic self-assertion of one nation against another. He declares his belief that.12NFL4.
. the death of nationalism as a normative principle of social integration. and the necessity of cosmopolitan justice occasioned by new social and economic conditions. not to that of citizen s of a particular state that has to maintain itself against other states. they are nonetheless “best suited to the identity of world citizens. be reconciled with the existence of national communities in such a way as to achieve stability and justice? In the work of Jürgen Habermas we find more ambivalence than is immediately apparent.” Constellations Volume 10. can a normative perspective recommending a cosmopolitan form of solidarity. One response he makes is to affirm a willingness to override national sovereignty in the name of cosmopolitan justice. “Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Cosmopolitanism. (2003) Any political theorist who advocates a form of cosmopolitan politics knows that he or she will have to face daunting questions relating to both the desirability and feasibility of their proposals: how.” He presents cosmopolitanism as the logical culmination of the principles of right on which enlightenment was founded.victorybriefs. University of Warwick] and Will Smith. it will be asked.com
Page 74 of 158
HABERMAS MAINTAINS THAT RATIONALITY AND THE CULMINATION OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT WILL PROPEL THE WORLD TOWARD MORE COSMOPOLITAN IDENTIFICATIONS Robert Fine [Prof.
victorybriefs. as defeat approaches. disperse WMD materials among non-state actors. Department of Political Studies. Deterrence will not work with martyrdom-hungry terrorists. This means circumstances where large-scale gross human rights violations are ongoing or can be reasonably judged as imminent. These include war rationales based on punishment. but the human cost of the intervention will then be commensurately larger. To these we can add threats of massive military retaliation for WMD attacks and international policing to prevent WMD smuggling and (as inducements) guarantees of economic aid in exchange for disarmament and promises to secure the WMD disarmament of rival powers (such as Israel in the case of pre-war Iraq or Iran today). 6:3. There are tools short of war for promoting human rights in other lands. Democracy is not the sort of good that justifies the large-scale sacrifice of human life witnessed in post-invasion Iraq. the Iraq case suggests that the cost of war is sometimes such that it is better to leave standing a repressive regime not engaged in ongoing gross violations than to rip apart functioning societies through military interventions. The moral-emergency-only imperative should rule out explicitly military interventions to punish historical crimes (like Saddam’s between 1980 and 1991) and to preve nt crimes from being committed at indeterminate future points. it cannot be compared with. The Iraq experience underlines both the human costs that have to be weighed against the uncertain benefits of going to war for these latter objectives and the legitimacy (and therefore efficacy) damaging consequences of waging war in the name of them. and there is no certainty that a besieged state will not. we can now be clearer about what the emergencies-only rule should rule out. Again. The last possibility is minimized if a WMD state is occupied. If these tools are less potent than war. South Africa] (2010): Can the doctrine of just military intervention survive Iraq?. basic rights to protection from torture or massacre. 287-304 Military interventions should be undertaken only in circumstances of moral emergency. Journal of Global Ethics. by employing measures identical to those earlier listed for promoting human rights.
. WMDinterdiction and democracy promotion. material and moral support for human rights activists and international prosecutions. graduated sanctions.com JUST WAR THEORY
Page 75 of 158
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS JUSTIFIED ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN IMMINENT EMERGENCY Daryl Glaser [Prof. but it could stop states from handing weapons to them. deterrence. there are no guarantees: but regimes of peaceful deterrence have worked against repressive and ‘radical’ nuclear powers until now. Against the longer -run danger of nuclear. It should also prohibit wars to prevent merely possible or even arguably probable (as opposed to imminent) future acts of external aggression. say.Humanitarian Intervention www. chemical or biological attack must be weighed the possibility that attacking a WMDarmed state will itself precipitate a defensive unleashing of mass destruction weapons. University of the Witwatersrand. Finally. including diplomatic pressure. There is no alternative here to police-style interdiction. Johannesburg.. Nor will attacking or occupying states affect the determination of non-state actors to acquire smuggled materials on black markets. Again. Whatever the political efficacy of diplomatic.12NFL4. cause significant civilian casualties even if these weapons are not unleashed and anyway fail to eliminate the adversary’s WMD arsenal. Drawing on the lessons of Iraq. The violations I have in mind include mass killing. Similar tools can be used to minimize the danger from states seeking WMD. mass rape and forced population displacement. this prohibition allows active efforts to promote democracy abroad. the deliberate starvation of or denial of aid to stricken populations. the emergencies-only rule excludes wars for democratic change. Past crimes and future threats need not be ignored by rights-respecting and peace-preserving powers.
policies of this more limited kind are less morally risky than democracy-promoting wars.
.victorybriefs.Humanitarian Intervention www.12NFL4.com
Page 76 of 158
financial and other forms of nonviolent pressure.
minimizing the chances of popular resistance within occupation zone. except that it went wrong when the intervening forces decided to choose sides in Mogadishu’s inter-clan wars. This kind of intervention was discredited by the failure of UN forces to protect safe havens in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Humanitarian Intervention www. that is. a regime’s perpetration of emergency-level crimes renders it liable to regime change. Third. separating them from their tormentors and securing their access to life-sustaining aid. Journal of Global Ethics.
. The element of separation here is important. University of the Witwatersrand. Department of Political Studies.12NFL4. This will normally involve two types of action: the armed protection of relief supplies and the establishment of protectorates or safe havens. therefore. the British intervention to protect the population of Freetown in Sierra Leone (2000) and the Australian-led interventions in East Timor (1999 and 2006). it is also necessary to limit war aims.com
Page 77 of 158
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS JUSTIFIED ONLY WHEN IT AIMS ONLY TO STOP THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF THE CRISIS Daryl Glaser [Prof. First. I propose that JMIs be confined to addressing the factors that constituted the grounds for war. Johannesburg. but this only underlines the necessity to protect havens with lethal force as opposed to peacekeepers or observers. the establishment of a UN protectorate in Kosovo (1999). 6:3.victorybriefs. of loss of life and limb. enclave operations enclose largely supportive populations. For some JMI supporters. More positive recent examples include the establishment of the Kurdish safe haven in northern Iraq after the first Gulf War (1991). the NATO bombing to defend Muslim-held parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995). 287-304 If the preceding injunction deals with the grounds for war. In terms of interventions to protect relief supplies. Intervening powers reaped all three of these moral and strategic-political advantages with the 1991 creation of a Kurdish safe haven in Iraq. Second. In both cases.. to protecting populations caught up in moral emergencies. South Africa] (2010): Can the doctrine of just military intervention survive Iraq?. the US–UN intervention in Somalia might be considered paradigmatic. the JMI is a direct extension of humanitarianism: it throws a ring of steel around threatened populations and helps them get back on their feet. Throwing a ring of steel around vulnerable populations carries three advantages over more expansive rescue or regime-change operations. it establishes easily defensible lines. they forfeited all three with the 2003 Iraq invasion. it limits the scale of the intervention and hopefully.
mass rape. and displacement.
. A further difficulty lies in creating a viable typology of human rights and determining to what degree those rights must be violated in order for military intervention to be morally permissible. that a violation of one’s right to rest and leisure (Article 24. The real problem. Second. of Humanities at John Abbott College in Montreal. not aimed at a national.12NFL4. Quebec]. BUT EGRIOUSLY VIOLATIONS OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS DO Paul Di Stefano [Prof. it may be useful to maintain that the violation of socially basic human rights should precipitate the greatest degree of permissibility with regards to intervention. 23:537–545 (2011) The violation of human rights.” Without the protection of socially basic rights. there are many human rights violations that do not fall under the genocide banner that are severe and terrible enough to warrant military intervention. Caney correctly suggests that a general commitment to human rights insufficiently justifies military intervention. for example. As suggested by Donnelly. the commitment to intervene when genocide is occurring is based on the legal responsibility of state signatories to the 1948 Genocide Convention. UDHR) demands such action.” Limiting the permissibility of intervention to cases of genocide is morally problematic for two reasons. does not automatically effectuate intervention. Other state crimes.Humanitarian Intervention www.” Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice. racial. as few would agree. “Human Rights Violations and the Moral Permissibility of Military Intervention.com
Page 78 of 158
VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS DO NOT ALWAYS WARRANT INTERVENTION. exists when state intervention is devoid of legal impetus and depends on morality alone. as defined by Luban. hold a prominent position in the list of atrocities that should precipitate intervention. are those “whose satisfaction is necessary to the enjoyment of any other rights. or religious group. murder. the foundation of the human rights edifice is unsound. whose nefarious nature is widely agreed-on. regarding permissibility. First. however. international society may be moving toward an “anti-genocidal exception. such as genocide. Surely. ethnical. merit some consideration.victorybriefs. since these rights. Since no agreed-on typology of human rights exists.
In order to better grapple with its complexities and the characteristic form of moral reasoning that enters into the just war tradition—casuistry. in fact.
. Number 2. and Christian pacifism.12NFL4. “Just War and Humanitarian Intervention. the just war tradition is.Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs. the nigh automatic reference point is a socioeconomic one: questions of distributive justice dominate the discussion. on the other. Yet one could make a case that questions of fairness or just treatment do bear on the ways we think about intervention and the means of intervention. Mistakenly thought of by many as a way to endorse any war a nation decides to embark upon by throwing the mantle of “just” or “justice” over the violence. There is a long tradition of reflecting on questions of war and violence in the language of justice: the just war tradition. When we think of equality or inequality.com
Page 79 of 158
INTERVENTION WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IF CONSISTENT WITH THE TENETS OF JUST WAR THEORY Jean Bethke Elshtain. IT IS NOW SO EASY TO DETERMINE just how to assay questions of global inequality in relation to decisions of whether to intervene in local or regional conflicts. 2001. on one end of a continuum. which got unfairly labeled by Pascal and others as merely a way in which Catholics managed to mangle Holy Writ to serve narrow Church interests—it is important to get a grip on just what this centuries. Volume 8.old. ongoingly revised tradition consists of and the ways in which it meets the alternative traditions of realism. a theory of comparative justice applied to considerations of war and intervention.” Ideas from the National Humanities Center.
for determining who in fact in the situation at hand is behaving in a more or less just or unjust manner. in fact.” in a neo-Aristotelian sense. then. or “practical reason.”) Just war thinkers. many more human beings will suffer over the long run as smaller nations or groups of people within nations are gobbled up by huge empires and tyrants run amok. are ethnically cleansed. Just war thinkers acknowledge this important insistence on the ways in which refusing to counter aggression may. they say. This is cruel. it must be openly and legally declared. (Although it would be a big mistake to assimilate the comparative justice reasoning of the just war tradition to Aristotelian “virtue theory. There are those who argue that our moral squeamishness must be laid to rest in times of war. rather. to do. but we live in a cruel and dangerous world. the blown-topieces man. just war insists on the power of moral appeals and arguments. For the strategic realist. the starving child. if we are naive about the world’s ways. do not so much propound immutable rules so much as clarify the circumstances that justify a state’s going to war (jus ad bellum) and what is and is not allowable in fighting the wars—or interventions— to which a polity has committed itself (jus in bello). moral appeals are the heart of the matter—not the only matter but the place from which one starts. and a war must be waged in such a way as to distinguish combatants from noncombatants. a war must be the last resort. These moral appeals are not abstract deontological desiderata but. Number 2. the system of sovereign states and balance of forces. For if we do not think in this way. The in bello norms concern the actual conduct of war: the means deployed in fighting a war must be proportionate to ends. As a theory of war fighting and resort to war. a version of phronesis. who is more the victimizer and who the victim.victorybriefs. “Just War and Humanitarian Intervention. Volume 8. The ad bellum specifications provide the terms under which a war may be waged: for example. 2001.
. be put out of sight and out of mind. the image of the violated woman. We must think in terms of the Big Picture. and what is impermissible.com
Page 80 of 158
JUST WAR THEORY IS THE ONLY FRAMEWORK THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THE IMPORTANCE OF MORALITY IN DETERMINING WHETHER INTERVENTION IS JUSTIFIED Jean Bethke Elshtain. but go on to insist that we can hold within a single frame a concern for peoples in a collective sense and a commitment to the dignity of each and every human being: the ethical concerns are never simply irrelevant.” Ideas from the National Humanities Center. make things worse. icing on the cake of strategic considerations. As well. are rounded up and murdered.Whether in evaluating a resort to arms or in determining the bases and nature of political order more generally.Humanitarian Intervention www. the just war thinker insists on the need for moral judgments. and it must be a response to a specific instance of unjust aggression. moral appeals are window dressing. For the just war thinker.12NFL4. just war thinking is best known as a cluster of injunctions: what it is permissible.
children. The ultimate goal of just war is peace that achieves a greater measure of justice. including the most horrific of all violations —ethnic cleansing. The just war tradition adds a cautionary note about overreach.Humanitarian Intervention www. the aged and infirm. Aggression need not be directed against one’s own to trigger the jus ad bellum argument.victorybriefs. Considerations such as these take us to the heart of the so-called in bello rules. If one can intervene to assist the injured party. one is justified in doing so — provided other considerations are met. This does not mean. Be certain before you intervene. to remind human beings there is another possibility. Above all. knowingly putting in place strategies that bring greatest suffering and harm to noncombatants rather than to combatants. Just war thinking also insists that war aims be made clear. that you have a reasonable chance of success. The damage must not be greater than the offenses one aims to halt. The offense of aggression may be committed against a nation or a people incapable of defending themselves against a determined adversary.12NFL4. and that negotiated settlement never be ruled out of court by fiat. the aggressed against wholly innocent. or targeting only legitimate war targets —here noncombatant immunity. even though the balance of justice may fall more on one side than the other in cases of conflict. all unarmed persons going about their daily lives.
. Number 2. even in a just cause. Means must be proportionate to ends. there should be evident traces of that peace borne along by the two major principles of discrimination. is unacceptable on just war grounds. a way of restraining the scope and intensity of warfare in order to minimize its destructiveness. Presuppositions of total innocence can and have fueled horrible things. that criteria for what is to count as success in achieving those aims be publicly articulated. this saving of the innocent is usually referred to as humanitarian intervention. “peace dear to the hearts of humankind. This is another way in which the just war tradition guards against moral triumphalism: by insisting that. of course. that any one nation or even a group of nations can or should respond to every instance of violation of the innocent. saving “the innocent from certain harm” has been recognized as a justifiable cause: the innocent being those who are in no position to defend themselves. 2001. Volume 8. In our time. there should be no presumption that the aggressor is wholly evil. But there are other justified occasions for war. Better by far to risk the lives of one’s own combatants than the lives of “enemy” noncombatants.” In conducting a just war. From St. The reference is not to any presumption of moral innocence on the part of victims: nobody is innocent in the classic just war framework in that sense.com
Page 81 of 158
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS JUSTIFIED UNDER JUST WAR THEORY—SUBJECT TO CONSTRAINTS Jean Bethke Elshtain. Knowingly placing noncombatants in jeopardy.” Ideas from the National Humanities Center. noncombatant immunity must be protected. “Just War and Humanitarian Intervention. They are restraints on the means to be deployed even in a just cause. Noncombatants historically have been women. and proportionality. Don’t barge in and make a bad situation worse. Augustine on. the “delightfulness of peace. as well as prisoners of war who have been disarmed by definition.” in Augustine’s phrase.
if necessary—from war crimes. these strategies have helped foster an era of declining armed conflict.com HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION WORKS
Page 82 of 158
NATIONS HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY ADEPT AT USING INTERVENTION AS A TOOL TO PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS RATHER THAN VIOLATE THEM John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. it is important to examine the big picture of humanitarian intervention—and the big picture is decidedly positive. with wars occurring less frequently and producing far fewer civilian casualties than in previous periods. the international community has grown increasingly adept at using military force to stop or prevent mass atrocities. widespread skepticism is understandable: past failures have been more newsworthy than successes. The doctrine has become integrated into a growing tool kit of conflict management strategies that includes today’s more robust peacekeeping operations and increasingly eªective international criminal justice mechanisms. crimes against humanity. 90.12NFL4. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. Humanitarian intervention has also benefited from the evolution of international norms about violence. and genocide when national governments fail to do so.” which holds that the international community has a special set of responsibilities to protect civilians— by force. ethnic cleansing. As Libya and the international community prepare for the post-Qaddafi transition. especially the emergence of “the responsibility to protect. Collectively.” Foreign Affairs.
. and foreign interventions inevitably face steep challenges. Yet such skepticism is unwarranted. nato’s success in protecting civilians and helping rebel forces remove a corrupt leader there has become more the rule of humanitarian intervention than the exception. Vol. Over the last 20 years. Despite the early setbacks in Libya.victorybriefs. 6 (2011) To some extent. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. No.Humanitarian Intervention www.
Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. Bosnia before Srebrenica. No. the most violent and protracted cases in recent history —Somalia. Conversely.
. 6 (2011) Despite the international community’s impressive record of recent humanitarian missions. many of the criticisms formulated in response to the botched campaigns of 1992 –95 still guide the conversation about intervention today.12NFL4. 90. a comprehensive study conducted by the political scientist Taylor Seybolt has found that aggressive operations legitimized by firm un Security Council resolutions. Vol. the Democratic Republic of the Congo. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. as in Bosnia in 1995 and East Timor in 1999. and Darfur—have been cases in which the international community was unwilling either to intervene or to sustain a commitment with credible force.victorybriefs.” Foreign Affairs. Contrary to the claims that interventions prolong civil wars and lead to greater humanitarian suªering and civilian casualties.Humanitarian Intervention www. The charges are outdated. were the most successful at ending conflicts. Rwanda.com
Page 83 of 158
CRITICISMS ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION ARE OUTDATED John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S.
90. they can still protect civilians.com
Page 84 of 158
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS GENERALLY SUCCEED IN PREVENTING MASS ATROCITIES AGAINST CIVILIANS John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. external interventions often mitigate violence against civilians.Humanitarian Intervention www. means that even when interventions fail to end civil wars or resolve factional diªerences immediately. interventions aimed at preventing mass atrocities often force would-be killers to divert resources away from slaughtering civilians and toward defending themselves. as the political scientist Matthew Krain and others have found.12NFL4. This is because.” Foreign Affairs. Vol. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya.
.victorybriefs. This phenomenon. No. 6 (2011) Even when civil wars do not stop right away. witnessed in the recent Libya campaign.
Page 85 of 158
SINCE THE MODERN ERA OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION.12NFL4. Vol. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. who faced long odds against Qaddafi’s forces.Humanitarian Intervention www. there was no evidence that opposition figures in Tunisia. Even the Libyan rebels. the protesters clearly stated that they would oppose such action. Egypt. 90. VIOLENCE AGAINST CIVILIANS IS DOWN MARKEDLY John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S.
. Syria. the prospect of military intervention would generate more rebel provocations and thus more mass atrocities. Since the modern era of humanitarian intervention began. In fact. or Yemen sought to trigger outside intervention. 6 (2011) Another critique of humanitarian interventions is that they create perverse incentives for rebel groups to deliberately provoke states to commit violence against civilians in order to generate an international response. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University].victorybriefs. No. During the Arab Spring protests this year. By this logic. refused what would have been the most eªective outside help: foreign boots on the ground. Yet the statistical record shows exactly the opposite. both the frequency and the intensity of attacks on civilians have declined.” Foreign Affairs.
000 or more battle deaths per year fell by 78 percent.12NFL4.
.” Foreign Affairs.Humanitarian Intervention www. 6 (2011) Collectively. 90. these new conflict management and civilian protection tools have contributed to a marked decline in violence resulting from civil war. and between 1988 and 2008 the number of conflicts that produced 1. Most notably.victorybriefs. According to the most recent Human Security Report. Vol. between 1992 and 2003 the number of conflicts worldwide declined by more than 40 percent. the incidence of lethal attacks against civilians was found to be lower in 2008 than at any point since the collection of such data began in 1989. No. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya.com
Page 86 of 158
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION HAS LED TO A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN VIOLENCE FROM CIVIL WAR John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University].
in tandem with the UN peacekeepers. The crisis in Côte d’Ivoire ended much differently. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. The operation’s planners allowed for. As another civil war loomed. After the UN sent a mere 500 military observers to monitor elections in 1992.000 people. No. the losing candidate resorted to war and the international community walked away. the international community hardened its resolve. After years of peacekeeping. Supporters of the action included not just the UN Security Council and Western governments but also the African Union. refused to leave. neighboring West African countries.” Foreign Affairs.victorybriefs.Humanitarian Intervention www. Vol. and leading human rights groups. deposed Gbagbo and put the legitimate winner in the presidential palace. with a large un force interposed between the two sides. partly because the mission was broadly seen as legitimate. The incumbent. France sent in a powerful military force that. diplomacy and negotiation to dislodge Gbagbo. 6 (2011) In Côte d’Ivoire. Moreover.com THE INTERVENTION IN COTE D’IVOIRE DEMONSTRATES THE INCREASING EFFECTIVENESS OF MODERN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION
Page 87 of 158
John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S.
. a civil war that began in 2002 led to the partition of the country. President Laurent Gbagbo.12NFL4. a similar situation in Angola led to disaster. When those paths proved fruitless. but did not count on. Two decades ago. 90. the intervention in Côte d’Ivoire applied escalating military force over the course of several months that culminated in overwhelming firepower. the un oversaw longdelayed elections in 2010 and declared the opposition leader victorious. causing a months-long standoff during which Gbagbo’s forces killed nearly 3.
. such as the International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch. imposed sanctions on the regime. and Russia—expressed reservations. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. the intervention contributed to the end of the civil war between Qaddafi and the rebels. and all signs pointed to an imminent slaughter. The intervention has accomplished the primary objective of Resolution 1973. Three weeks later.12NFL4.victorybriefs. The subsequent intervention has been a genuinely multinational operation in which the United States at first played a central combat role and then stepped back. the Security Council passed Resolution 1973.com
Page 88 of 158
THE MILITARY INTERVENTION IN LIBYA DEMONSTRATES THAT HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION CAN PROTECT VITAL MORAL NORMS John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. none of them ultimately opposed the resolution. Although five members of the Security Council— Brazil. which condemned the violence. providing mostly support and logistics. 90. And despite the initial military setbacks and some frustration over the length and cost of the operation. In response.000. and referred the case to the International Criminal Court. a city of more than 700. Qaddafi’s forces moved toward the rebel capital of Benghazi. as Qaddafi’s security forces intensified their eªorts to crush the protests. which demanded a suspension of hostilities and authorized nato to enforce a no-fly zone to protect civilians. The international response began in February when. as did major human rights organizations. India. Vol.Humanitarian Intervention www. 6 (2011) Although the final chapter of the Libya mission has yet to be written and serious challenges remain. it has enjoyed several of the same advantages.” Foreign Affairs. China. Germany. breaking the siege of Misratah. and forcing Qaddafi’s tank and artillery units to take cover rather than commit atrocities. It saved civilian lives by halting an imminent slaughter in Benghazi. The Arab League demanded quick un action to halt the impending bloodshed. the un Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1970. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. which otherwise might have been much longer and more violent. No.
and it guided the international community’s response to the impen ding massacre in Benghazi. but the ways the international community responds to them have. First. Ethnic cleansing and mass atrocities often occur in the early phases of conflicts. Vol. acting with proportionality and discrimination. sharing burdens across nations. These challenges have not changed.S. the international community has grappled with the recurring challenges of modern humanitarian intervention: establishing legitimacy.12NFL4.com
Page 89 of 158
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY LEARNED IMPORTANT LESSONS FROM ITS EARLY FAILURES IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. Chad. Today’s successful interventions share a number of elements absent in earlier. as in Rwanda and Bosnia. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. avoiding “mission creep. the interventions that respond the most quickly to unfolding events protect the most lives.” and developing exit strategies. 6 (2011) Ever since U. This highlights the necessity of early warning indicators and a capacity for immediate action.victorybriefs. they have handed oª control to a un peacekeeping force that may include soldiers from the original mission. marines stormed the Somali coast in 1992. No.Humanitarian Intervention www. The un still lacks standby capabilities to dispatch peacekeepers instantly to a conflict area. This model worked in East Timor. failed missions. but national or multinational military forces have responded promptly under un authority. 90.” Foreign Affairs. and then after a number of months.
. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. and the Central African Republic.
90. No.500 troops to save the government and the peacekeeping mission from collapse. for example. and Bosnia that it needs access to enough military power and diplomatic muscle to back up a credible commitment to protecting civilians and to prevail even if things go wrong along the way.com
Page 90 of 158
INTERVENING GOVERNMENTS HAVE LEARNED THE LESSONS OF UNDERDEPLOYMENT IN PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S.Humanitarian Intervention www. 6 (2011) Second. Lighter deployments may also succeed if members of the international community have additional forces close at hand that can be accessed if needed.” Foreign Affairs. When un peacekeepers ran into trouble in Sierra Leone in 2000. Vol. the international community has learned from Somalia.victorybriefs. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. Rwanda.
.12NFL4. the United Kingdom rushed in with 4. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University].
have been designed to limit the threat to the intervening forces. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. by contrast.” Foreign Affairs. Successful interventions. seemingly straightforward operations will turn out to be much less so. As Libya has demonstrated. protecting civilians from intransigent regimes often requires persistent and sustained action. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. the international community was unwilling to accept coalition casualties and responded by withdrawing.
. No. In all likelihood.12NFL4. Vol.victorybriefs.Humanitarian Intervention www. In past. 6 (2011) Third. 90. intervening governments must be sensitive to inevitable opposition from domestic constituencies and must design interventions that can withstand pressure for early exits.com
Page 91 of 158
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HAS LEARNED THE IMPORTANCE OF EFFECTIVELY ENGAGING LOCAL CONSTITUENCIES IN INTERVENTION John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. thus allowing them to add resources and broaden the dimensions of the military operations in the face of difficulties. failed missions.
sending mixed signals to the target states. distribute costs. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. 90.com
Page 92 of 158
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HAS LEARNED THE IMPORTANCE OF COALITION BUILDING John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S.Humanitarian Intervention www. regional.lateral interventions convey consensus about the appropriateness of the operations.” Foreign Affairs. and establish stronger commitments for the post-intervention transitions. legitimate humanitarian interventions must be supported by a broad coalition of international. But multilateralism cannot come at the expense of synchronized leadership. 6 (2011) Fourth.12NFL4.
. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. War criminals usually look to exploit divisions between outside powers opposing them. and local actors. Multi . No. Vol. Interventions need to avoid having multiple states and organizations dispatch their own representatives to the conflict.victorybriefs.
Because violence against civilians is often rooted in deeper crises of political order. The earliest phases of an intervention must include planning for a transition strategy with clearly delineated political and economic benchmarks. as in Bosnia. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya.Humanitarian Intervention www. then. Some observers. Yet more important than an exit strategy is a comprehensive transition strategy.12NFL4. so that international and local authorities can focus on the broader.victorybriefs. No. critics note that once in. long-term challenges of reconstruction. intervenors confront the dilemma of either staying indefinitely and assuming the burdens of governance. 90.com
Page 93 of 158
INTERVENING STATES HAVE LEARNED THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A MEANINGFUL EXIT STRATEGY John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. and peacekeepers can exit when local governing institutions are in place and an indigenous security force stands ready to respond quickly if violence resumes. 6 (2011) Finally. as in Somalia. Vol.
.” Foreign Affairs. and economic development. or withdrawing and allowing the country to fall back into chaos. perhaps the most daunting challenge of a humanitarian intervention is the exit. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. have demanded that any intervention be carried out with a clearly defined exit strategy. political reconciliation. whereby foreign combat forces can exit as peacekeepers take over.
legitimately. and as part of a broader set of mechanisms designed to protect civilians. 90.” Foreign Affairs. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. ethnic cleansing. Mass atrocities. 6 (2011) Humanitarian interventions involve an inherent contradiction: they use violence in order to control violence. the use of military force for humanitarian purposes saves lives. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. but their solutions—honed over the course of two decades of experience from Mogadishu to Tripoli —are very much of this world. and genocide are truly problems from hell.Humanitarian Intervention www.com HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION SAVES LIVES
Page 94 of 158
John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. Yet when carried out thoughtfully.victorybriefs. and so it is no surprise that the operations often attract criticism.12NFL4. Vol. No. Setbacks are almost inevitable.
The first four models test hypothesis number one dealing with political rights. State failure and the length of an intervention do not appear conducive to political rights and civil liberties since neither are statistically significant. William T. "The Effect of U. As such length may be serving as a proxy for conflict and higher levels of conflict during an intervention may reduce the level of political rights and civil liberties. higher levels of conflict may result in longer interventions where security concerns are given higher priority than democratization.S.com
Page 95 of 158
MULTIPLE VARIANTS ARE DETERMINANTS OF SUCCESS OF US INTERVENTION— EMPIRICAL MODEL SHOWS Bedford.victorybriefs.tennessee. Length having a negative correlation is surprising.12NFL4. <http://trace.Humanitarian Intervention www. University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects. For instance. intervention on Political Rights and Civil Liberties. but may be the result of other factors. and negative coefficients imply a decrease in political rights or civil liberties. They are labeled according to the independent variable and estimation procedure that was used. Furthermore the analysis confirms that economic development is associated with higher levels of political rights and civil liberties and is statistically significant as was established in a study by Przeworski and Limongi (1997).edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1419> Table 1 includes eight data models which measure the impact of U. Jr.
.S.. In line with research that had been done by Dobbins (2003) the analysis shows that prior democratization is positively correlated with political rights and civil liberties and is statistically significant. Positive coefficients imply an increase in political rights or civil liberties depending on the model. The following four test hypothesis number two dealing with civil liberties. Table 1 also shows that ethnic fragmentation and the post cold war period are not statistically significant. Failed states are unable to guarantee political rights and civil liberties and an authority vacuum may mean that security concerns are once again much more important than increasing democratization. Intervention on Political Rights and Civil Liberties" (2011).
Using the data compiled by Peceny (1999) results in a positive and statistically significant relationship for political rights. intervention in general has a positive effect on civil liberties. University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects.12NFL4. interventions are measured.S. In sum table 1 shows that U. has a positive effect on political rights. <http://trace. but the significance depends on both the measure of U. intervention is positively correlated with increases in both political rights and civil liberties.S. Jr. Using the data compiled by Vllasi (2009) results in a positive but not 16 statistically significant relationship. intervention as well as the estimation procedure used. The next four models in Table 1 measure whether U.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1419> The first four models measure whether any intervention involving the U. How U. This shows that there is sensitivity to the way in which U.victorybriefs. Intervention on Political Rights and Civil Liberties" (2011).com
Page 96 of 158
MULTIPLE MODELS SHOW THAT US INTERVENTION HAS A POSITIVE EFFECT ON RIGHTS Bedford.S. but under the other this is not the case.S. William T.S.tennessee.
. "The Effect of U.. intervention is measured is important in examining the relationship between interventions and its effect on democratization which will be discussed later.S. Using the data compiled by Vllasi (2009) shows that under one estimation procedure there is a positive and significant relationship.S.Humanitarian Intervention www.
“Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. quickly lost political influence in postwar Bosnia. Buoyed by these successes. he was removed from o⁄ce 18 months later by nonviolent civil pro test and turned over to The Hague. And even though many observers. once indicted.” Foreign Affairs. the postDayton international peacekeeping presence was unified. Within three months. and the ensuing decade of U. Every suspected war criminal. the combined military and diplomatic pressure compelled Serbia to withdraw its forces from Kosovo. A related innovation was the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (icty). and sustained.
. leadership. Vol. -led peacekeeping saw not a single U. Under U.12NFL4.S. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. Despite initial setbacks (the operation failed to stop a Serbian ground attack that created more than a million Kosovar Albanian refugees). and not one of the 161 indictees remains at large today.com
Page 97 of 158
THE CREATION OF THE ICTY IN YUGOSLAVIA EFFECTIVELY DELEGITIMIZED LEADERS WHO HAD VIOLATED HUMANITARIAN NORMS John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. the tribunal has produced dramatic results. a court that has indicted 161 war criminals. the international community signaled that it would not back down. vigorous. 90. and it has kept a lid on ethnic violence for more than 15 years. and the icty indicted Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic for crimes against humanity. nato responded to an imminent Serbian attack on Kosovo in 1999 by launching a major air war. including several senior Clinton administration o⁄cials.Humanitarian Intervention www. combat-related casualty in Bosnia. including all the principal Serbian wartime leaders. nato escalated the air campaign. Unlike previous interventions. feared that the icty’s indictment of Milosevic in the middle of the military campaign would make it even less likely that he would capitulate in Kosovo or ever relinquish power.S.victorybriefs. 6 (2011) The “problem from hell” stopped immediately.S. No. Despite extensive criticism for ostensibly putting justice ahead of peace.
] What it Will Take to Intervene in Syria: First Get the Opposition to Work Together. Should the various political and armed elements challenging Damascus align their interests. calls for intervention are more than just wishful thinking.12NFL4.Humanitarian Intervention www. though it has expressed reservations about intervention. In testimony before Congress last December. because Syria’s various opposition groups have yet to coalesce into a unified political force worth backing. Yet despite the humanitarian catastrophe. January 6. 2012. <http://www. Foreign Affairs.com SYRIA
Page 98 of 158
INTERVENTION IN SYRIA WOULD IS PREMATURE NOW BUT COULD BE EFFECTIVE Weiss. That said.” implying that the United States is already envisioning a post-Assad Syria.
.a martially cordoned-off area within the country to protect the civilian population close to the Syrian-Turkish border. is now considering how it might aid the opposition.foreignaffairs. by either sending medical assistance or helping to create a “safe zone” -.victorybriefs. Michael [Director of Communications and Acting Research Director at the Henry Jackson Society. the State Department official Frederic Hof called Assad a “dead man walking. intervention at this moment would be premature.com/articles/137013/michael-weiss/what-it-will-take-to-intervene-insyria?page=show#> And Washington. Turkey and the West could use force to create a safe area in Syria that would save lives and serve as an outpost to battle the Assad regime.
and Washington will have to navigate if they choose to protect the Syrian people and hasten the end of the Assad regime. albeit one that will require deft and creative diplomacy not only between Western powers but with hitherto ambivalent Arab governments.foreignaffairs.] What it Will Take to Intervene in Syria: First Get the Opposition to Work Together .
. <http://www. Pillay.com/articles/137013/michael-weiss/what-it-will-take-to-intervene-insyria?page=show#> Without question.com
Page 99 of 158
THE U. there are signs of progress. Michael [Director of Communications and Acting Research Director at the Henry Jackson Society. Nevertheless. January 6.victorybriefs. this is the dense thicket Juppe. there is a greater likelihood that the various political and military arms of the opposition will unite. if only out of their shared desperation over the unabated carnage.S.12NFL4. SHOULD CONSIDER INTERVENTION IN SYRIA IF OPPOSITION FORCES UNITE Weiss. Now that the SNC has endorsed foreign intervention. bringing it in line with what all factions of the Syrian insurgency have advocated for months.Humanitarian Intervention www. 2012. If this happens. Foreign Affairs. then there is a path to Western interdiction in Syria.
Amassing such overwhelming support for intervention would be difficult.foreignaffairs. making the Kremlin’s acquiescence at the Security Council unlikely. which allows for “collective measures” and the “use of armed force” in foreign conflicts. 2012. Nevertheless. but certainly not out of the question. Britain. the geopolitical sensitivities of a Western nation invading a Muslim-majority country. The United States’ Sixth Fleet co uld also easily establish a naval blockade. the General Assembly did what the Security Council was unable to do and passed its own nonbinding resolution -. Turkey. Due to the proximity of the city to Turkey.condemning the Assad regime for violence. HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN SYRIA
Page 100 of 158
Weiss. this seldom used resolution requires a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. and France have the technology and air power to keep the Syrian skies clear for as long as necessary.] What it Will Take to Intervene in Syria: First Get the Opposition to Work Together . If the crisis in Syria continues or escalates. Any intervention would need to establish a no-fly zone to protect Jisr al-Shughour. Foreign Affairs <http://www. now largely operating out of Turkey. But Russia will not forfeit its alliance with Assad.Humanitarian Intervention www. the rebels would have their Benghazi in Syria. ancillary air support could come from the United Kingdom’s bases in Cyprus. If it does.12NFL4. who are now reported to number in the hundreds of thousands. The FSA and independent brigades have already established de facto checkpoints and buffer zones deep inside Syria.S.com/articles/137013/michael-weiss/what-it-will-take-to-intervene-insyria?page=show#> Such an intervention would need to begin with the establishment a 4.com POSSIBLE PLAN FOR U. The other available route. where a regime-perpetrated massacre took place last June and anti-Assad sentiment runs high.one co-sponsored by Arab and Muslim-majority nations -. especially given Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen’s near-categorical rejection of NATO involvement in Syria several months ago. then. It could also serve as a base for the rebels. Given a fortified logistical headquarters and a steady supply of equipment and arms. Ankara would be the strategic choice to provide the ground cover to fortify the safe area. and the Assad regime has Sovietdesigned surface-to-air missiles stationed up and down the western corridor of the country that are capable of downing fighter jets. Last November. Syrian forces used helicopter gunships in their previous attack on the city. Created in 1950 by the United States to circumvent repeated Soviet vetoes in the Security Council against a Western military response to the crisis in Korea. The most effective way of legally authorizing a safe area would be through a UN Security Council resolution. A safe area in a central region of resistance would provide shelter for internal refugees. January 6. then there may indeed be a moral and political consensus to invoke “Uniting for Peace” in order to establish a safe area. Even if NATO refuses the mission. and the fact that Turkey has already been hosting and facilitating the FSA. as well as a communications hub for Free Syrian broadcasting to the rest of the country. a Western military force would achieve air supremacy with relative ease. their base from which to battle Damascus more effectively. Michael [Director of Communications and Acting Research Director at the Henry Jackson Society. it could enforce a Libya-style no-fly zone from its base in Incirlik.victorybriefs. which have served as the life line to the protests in Homs and elsewhere. The question is whether NATO would participate.
. however.25-square-mile safe area around the northwestern city of Jisr al-Shughour. is the UN General Assembly’s “Uniting for Peace” resolution. the United States.
troop withdrawal from Iraq.com
Page 101 of 158
EVEN IF US INTERVENTION IN SYRIA WOULD BE INEFFECTIVE. Assad could fight back beyond his own borders. such as Hezbollah. he sent Palestinian refugees into the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights to distract from the unrest in his country. January 6.victorybriefs. Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia could also become al Qaeda in Syria if it senses an opportunity to destabilize another vulnerable Middle Eastern power. There is also a possibility that Sunni or Shia militias would pour into Syria and turn the uprising into an all-out sectarian conflict. But Damascus has scandalized every Potemkin effort at reform or negotiation. the more he makes a mockery of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine. Following a foreign intervention. The Arab League observer mission has proved useless. In May. In addition.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137013/michael-weiss/what-it-will-take-to-intervene-insyria?page=show#> The gravest challenge to intervening forces would come not from Assad’s conventional defenses but from groups allied to the regime. many thousands more have been tortured using methods as imaginative as they are sadistic. intervention in Syria should be a last resort. and he might launch rockets at Israel should he feel further besieged. orphaned. IT’S TRY OR DIE Weiss. agents of which are already enlisted or embedded with Assad’s feared Fourth Armored Division. These dangers would imperil outside forces attempting to protect Syrian civilians and facilitate the anti-Assad opposition.12NFL4.
. Michael [Director of Communications and Acting Research Director at the Henry Jackson Society. When a country of 23 million collapses into anarchy. the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. these groups could resort to terrorist attacks to make Syria a front line in a new proxy war. or dispossessed before the definition of failed statehood has been met? The more time the world gives Assad. and the more people begging for Western assistance are simply wished the best of luck and left to their grim fate. Thousands have been massacred.S. for these reasons and others. Foreign Affairs <http://www.Humanitarian Intervention www. how many people will have to be widowed.] What it Will Take to Intervene in Syria: First Get the Opposition to Work Together. and Iraqi pro-Iranian forces and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. There is no doubt that. particularly following U. 2012.
with its mosaic of faiths and ethnicities. But this does not mean there is no military action that can advance the desired political result by bolstering the armed capacity of the Syrian opposition. This sounds good but will not fly. The New York Times. February 4.
.com/top/news/international/columns/rogercohen/index. requires political compromise to survive. The government would be the fruit of negotiations outside Syria between opposition representatives and a “strong civilian-military” government delegation. leveling the military playing field. Syria. is diplomatic speak for Assad having “no role in the transition”). That is the endgame. Assad the Alawite will not go until the balance of power is decisively against him. he explained. <http://topics.nytimes.12NFL4.Humanitarian Intervention www. with a Libyaburned Russia and an anti-intervention China deep in a blocking game.victorybriefs. Intervene in Syria. It would then oversee a democratic transition including elections and constitutional reform.com
Page 102 of 158
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN SYRIA IS A PREREQUISITE TO SUCCESSFUL DIPLOMATIC ACTION Cohen Roger [New York Times Columnist]. I agree with Brahimi that there is no military solution. and hastening the departure of Assad essential for the birth of a new Syria. 2013.html> But of course the “international community” — that awful phrase — is divided. Brahimi wants a transitional government formed with “full executive powers” (this.
.com BRINK IN SYRIA IS NOW – CANNOT AFFORD INACTION
Page 103 of 158
Cohen Roger [New York Times Columnist]. It squanders an opportunity to weaken Iran. February 4. It also means McCain’s call to use U. the intensification of Assad’s mass killings.Humanitarian Intervention www.com/top/news/international/columns/rogercohen/index. spluttered in justified incredulity at the notion the opposition would sit down with a regime that has slaughtered its own. Intervene in Syria. and the chances of the conflict spilling out of Syria in sectarian mayhem. <http://topics. a tacit understanding that it is inevitable exists in Moscow.victorybriefs. Ahmet Davutoglu. The agreement that Assad has to go is broad. cruise missiles to destroy Assad’s aircraft on the runway is daily more persuasive.html> An inflection point has been reached. 2013. It is time to alter the Syrian balance of power enough to give political compromise a chance and Assad no option but departure. That means an aggressive program to train and arm the Free Syrian Army. Inaction spurs the progressive radicalization of Syria. This is not in the West’s interest. The New York Times.12NFL4.nytimes.S. The Turkish foreign minister. the further disintegration of the state.
But without a truly representative opposition.victorybriefs.Humanitarian Intervention www. 2013.com US SUPPORT FOR OPPOSITION GROUPS IN SYRIA IS KEY
Page 104 of 158
Mardini. And contact between the American government and opposition leaders must not be limited to the ambassador and his staffers. moderate and independent political forces that promote compromise and moderation. not armed victory.nytimes.
. Chaos? February 3. The New York Times.12NFL4. <http://www. Americans often seem oblivious to the power that personal relationships can have across the Arab world. that hope will remain elusive. Finally.com/2013/02/04/opinion/after-assad-chaos. The best hope for Syria’s future is a political settlement. Ramzy [New York Times Columnist].html?ref=global> The United States must make recognition of the opposition strictly conditional on the coalition being genuinely representative of the Syrian people. with clear punishment for noncompliance. America must empower secular. After Assad.
in the case of Syria. but we should not refuse to act simply because of the worst-case scenarios being raised by the Pentagon. but plenty of international opposition has been raised to the Assad regime.S. What about the fractured nature of the Syrian opposition? That's a real concern — but one that could be alleviated by the provision of training and aid. Syria is already in a civil war. yes. news accounts suggest that we have not yet even provided communications equipment that the rebels could use to coordinate activities. Moscow has a naval station in Syria. if we stand on the sidelines.000-man army? Most of the soldiers are poorly trained and unmotivated Sunni conscripts unwilling to do much to defend a regime dominated by Alawites.” March 15. and Russia would not go to war to defend the Assad regime. aircraft would not target Russian facilities. U. If we were to help topple Tehran's allies in Damascus. however.S. Kirkpatric [Senior Fellow for National Secur ity Studies]. But that will happen only if the Obama administration decides that action is called for and does not allow itself to be paralyzed by the Pentagon's reluctance to intervene. Start with Syria's supposedly formidable air defense. and those. to take out the al-Kibar nuclear reactor. and in 2007. and it is getting worse.
.”The Pentagon’s Cold Feet on Syria.Humanitarian Intervention www. The potential for starting a "proxy war" with Iran or Russia should be even less worrisome. Air Force had no trouble taking out Saddam Hussein's air defenses on two occasions.html> Today.N. it would be merely a belated counterattack for all of Iran's aggression against the United States. 2012. worst-case scenarios — such as Syrian chemical weapons falling into the wrong hands or groups such as al-Qaeda developing havens — are more likely to result because of the Assad regime's inability to control its own territory. Bashar al-Assad's regime can count on only about 30. the faster we can end that war and the more influence we can exert with a successor regime.com/opinions/the pentagons-cold-feet-on-syria-should-not-decide-the-matter/2012/03/14/gIQAVMl0ES_story.washingtonpost. but presumably U. Short of that. sometimes directly — against us since taking our embassy personnel hostage in 1979. Given the ease with which Israel penetrated those defenses in 1982. And what about that 330. which is why the same units are used to attack one rebel stronghold after another.000 Alawite soldiers. it is unlikely that the systems would pose that much of a challenge to the world's most sophisticated and powerful air force. Max [senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations] and Jeane J. were constructed largely on the Russian model. Iran has been waging war — sometimes by proxy. So far. an offshoot of Shiite Islam.12NFL4. Aiding the rebels would hardly risk plunging Syria into civil war.victorybriefs. <http://www. during the Lebanon War. any military action needs to be carefully thought through. As for Russia. Washington Post. like Syria's.S. The U. personnel could play a critical role by using our largess to buttress the more moderate elements of the opposition while shutting out factions affiliated with extremist groups that receive support from Gulf Arabs. The more pressure we bring to topple Assad. This isn't the Cuban missile crisis. it's hard to see how anything we might do would start any kind of conflict with Russia. Notwithstanding the lack of a U. resolution — blocked by Russia and China — Washington could assemble a coalition of the willing as President Bill Clinton did for Kosovo. By contrast. The need for a coalition is real.com
Page 105 of 158
US INTERVENTION IN SYRIA WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL—SHOULD NOT BE PARALYZED BY WORST CASE SCENARIO THINKING Boot.
facilitated by non-intervention. Quebec]. circumvented through the process of military intervention.” Therefore.
. it is during an arduous struggle to become free by their own efforts [author’s emphasis] that these feelings and virtues have the best chance of springing up. Freedom gained through the paternalistic intervention of outsiders is an ephemeral imposition devoid of lasting intrinsic or instrumental value.12NFL4. maintains moral value because “it is only within states that men and women can build a political community they can call their own. self-help.Humanitarian Intervention www. opportunity. “the evil is. only a state’s own denizens possess such knowledge. of Humanities at John Abbott College in Montreal. the liberty.” Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice. and a sense of community are imperiled. Mill writes. When a people has had the misfortune to be ruled by a government under which the feelings and the virtues needful for maintaining freedom could not develop themselves. and international order. will have nothing real. ultimately.S. the principle of self determination acts as a safeguard against foreign imperialism and hegemony. security. Instead. that if they have not sufficient love of liberty to be able to wrest it from merely domestic oppressors. Without the freedom afforded by self-determination. “Human Rights Violations and the Moral Permissibility of Military Intervention. An interventionist approach denies the possession of autonomous agency to those who are “assisted.” The fleeting imposition of an outside force bent on rectifying repulsive state actions is unlikely to have a lasting effect. Self-determination. Foreigners cannot know what is best for a society.” Alluding to its instrumental value. 23:537–545 (2011) The principle of non-intervention is firmly rooted in the moral value of self-determination.com
Page 106 of 158
NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION DERIVES FROM THE VALUE OF SELFDETERMINATION Paul Di Stefano [Prof.victorybriefs. Mill asserts that the respect for the right of selfdetermination is the highest moral duty. nothing permanent. Mill notes. there is an inherent and enduring value in self-help: one that is. which is bestowed on them by other hands than their own. Philosopher J.
victorybriefs.Humanitarian Intervention www. of Humanities at John Abbott College in Montreal. Through the respect of juridical boundaries. “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. Article 2 (4) prohibits states from “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. “Human Rights Violations and the Moral Permissibility of Military Intervention. is maintained through legal obligations outlined in the United Nations Charter. once a state begins to seriously violate the rights of its citizens. the presumption against intervention ensures a degree of international stability and relatively peaceful coexistence between states. Inherent in the principles of non-intervention and state sovereignty is the notion of mutual toleration. states remain tolerant of each other’s existence and the diversity of behavior that transpires within them. however.
.” In addition.” Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice. emanating from the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) and international customary law. 23:537–545 (2011) Furthermore.” As Weiss suggests.12NFL4. Quebec]. Article 2 (7) further mitigates interference in the sovereign affairs of states by declaring. these legal restrictions reflect prevailing moral standards. which must be adhered to.com
Page 107 of 158
THE PRESUMPTION OF NON-INTERFERENCE HELPS TO MAINTAIN INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND STABILITY Paul Di Stefano [Prof.” It remains to be seen how such restraints are tested. in order to ensure that sovereignty remains the “key institutional safeguard of international order. This order.
Western notions of human rights. Alessandro Colombo. are highly suspicious of arguments from a moral point of view in international politics for two main reasons: first. “The Moralization of International Politics: Humanitarian Intervention and its Critics. because they think it undermines the fundamental building block of international order. the rights of sovereign states are sacrosanct and should not be violated in pursuit of abstract. Realist critics of humanitarianism. University of Queensland].victorybriefs. Christopher Bickerton. David Chandler.Humanitarian Intervention www. Sovereignty trumps humanity because it is the only means of providing peace and order. second. 14 Maggio (2011) According to the statist narrative.” Quaderni di Relazioni Internazionali n.com
Page 108 of 158
REALISTS’ STATIST CRITIQUE OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION ARGUES THAT SOVEREIGN STATES THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM Richard Devetak [Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Director of the Rotary Centre for International Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution School of Political Science and International Studies.
. To do so is to subvert the rules of co-existence which sustain international order. the sovereign equality among states. which has strong affinities with realism. because they think it devalues or denies the autonomy of the political. such as Danilo Zolo. Philip Cunliffe and Alexander Gourevitch.12NFL4.
In the latter. if thinkers as different as Schmitt and Keene9 are correct.Humanitarian Intervention www.com
Page 109 of 158
THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF STATISM COMMON TO THE ANTIHUMANITARIAN NARRATIVE Richard Devetak [Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Director of the Rotary Centre for International Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution School of Political Science and International Studies.victorybriefs. the state is conceptualized as a neutral civil sovereign.
. However. capable of rising above religious and ethnic disputes. refusing to The counter-humanitarian narrative sees the moralization of international politics as a negative development take sides. the other on national self-determination. 14 Maggio (2011) At the heart of the counter-humanitarian narrative. We can distinguish between two versions of statism in contemporary counterhumanitarianism: one founded on reason of state. the state is conceived as an autonomous political entity claiming the status of legal equality in a system of sovereign states.12NFL4. University of Queensland]. is the rise of the state as the supreme. “The Moralization of International Politics: Humanitarian Intervention and its Critics. the international order secured among European states was sustained by maintaining the inequality of non-European peoples. but insisting that its authority be recognised as supreme (from theorists of the absolutist state such as Jean Bodin and Samuel Pufendorf to Carl Schmitt and on to secular liberal statists such as Reinhart Koselleck and Ian Hunter). from Hobbes and Pufendorf to Schmitt and Zolo. back to the philosophes and French revolutionaries). quite problematically for their counter-humanitarianism. In the former. selfdetermining national state (by Christopher Bickerton. Moreover. In both versions.” Quaderni di Relazioni Internazionali n. the state is conceptualized as a representative. Philip Cunliffe and Alexander Gourevitch who trace the notion. unchallengeable political authority. it is thought to be fundamentally related to the rise of an international order predicated on rules of co-existence.
This.12NFL4. «only the law of the strongest applied»17. Importantly. Schmitt believed. “Beyond the line” which separated Europe from the rest of the world. University of Queensland]. these principles had no purchase.Humanitarian Intervention www. inaugurated a concrete new spatial order (nomos) built on the secular legal principles of territorial sovereignty16. Schmitt argues that this order extended only to the edges of Europe. Doing so had the effect of limiting the authority of the Papacy and the Emperor.” Quaderni di Relazioni Internazionali n. two institutions purporting to represent universal values and supra-state authority. As these Christian and feudal institutions crumbled.victorybriefs. There must always be a constitutive outside for any political order to function18.com STATE SOVEREIGNTY IS DESIGNED TO CHECK THE MORALIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
Page 110 of 158
Richard Devetak [Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Director of the Rotary Centre for International Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution School of Political Science and International Studies. 14 Maggio (2011) Keeping the Just War notion of justa causa out of international politics was the corollary of keeping religion (and morals) out of politics more generally. Europe’s rulers began to embrace the idea that they formed a society or commonwealth of states (these latter terms are not Schmitt’s but Grotius and Vattel’s). “The Moralization of International Politics: Humanitarian Intervention and its Critics. destroying the Church’s potestas spiritualis and its hopes of universal dominion.
but over the course of the twentieth century these had been dismantled by the growth of a cosmopolitan global order.com
Page 111 of 158
HUMANITARIANISM UNDERMINES THE SYSTEM OF SOVEREIGN STATES THAT LIMITS THE SCOPE OF WAR Richard Devetak [Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Director of the Rotary Centre for International Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution School of Political Science and International Studies. like Schmitt’s.
. Zolo’s29 concern. but also the supplanting of traditional “laws of war” by “international humanitarian law”. The moralization of international politics. embodied in the modern Westphalian system.victorybriefs. The jus publicum Europaeum. is that the rise of liberal humanitarianism has permitted the resurrection of “discriminatory war”. thus engenders a “global civil war” which is «sanguinary and destructive in the highest degree». the 1990s saw the rise not just of humanitarian intervention as a Western strategy of world order. on Zolo’s30 exemplary account.12NFL4. 14 Maggio (2011) According to Zolo27. These developments were the culmination of efforts begun at the behest of Woodrow Wilson after the First World War to inaugurate a universalistic. University of Queensland]. “The Moralization of International Politics: Humanitarian Intervention and its Critics.” Quaderni di Relazioni Internazionali n. the consequences of this moral shift in international relations are considerable. “de -spatialized” cosmopolitan order28. had established procedural rules of coexistence and measures for containing war. For Zolo.Humanitarian Intervention www.
Humanitarian Intervention www. University of Queensland].” Quaderni di Relazioni Internazionali n. 14 Maggio (2011) On Schmitt’s57 reading of history. «its exercise is not dependent on a superior. This is the point and purpose of sovereignty. The desacralised absolutist state envisaged by Hobbes and Pufendorf needed to eradicate “ghostly authority” from the political realm. it would assert unchallengeable supreme authority on all matters affecting the public sphere. and giving the temporal priority over the ghostly. This contrasts with theology where the end is salvation in “the life to come”.victorybriefs. it acts by its own will and judgment. its actions may not be nullified by anyone on the ground of superiority».12NFL4. Only by delegitimizing alternative sources of moral authority could the state take its rightful place above the fray of sectarian bickering as a neutral civil authority – though it would take no position on the truth or otherwise of asserted religious doctrines. with a view to shaping sociable and socially useful citizen-subjects. absolutist natural law marked a vital step forward in decoupling politics and religion.com
Page 112 of 158
THE SOVEREIGN NATION IS INSTRUMENTAL IN DESACRALIZING POLITICS AND THEREFORE CONTROLLING VIOLENCE Richard Devetak [Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Director of the Rotary Centre for International Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution School of Political Science and International Studies. It would confine its “moral” concerns to «the orbit of this life»58. On this account. the great accomplishment of the sovereign state was to end «murderous assertions of right» and accusations of guilt. “The Moralization of International Politics: Humanitarian Intervention and its Critics.
. It denotes a singular and exclusive authority unanswerable to any other authority. As Pufendorf59 puts it.
Humanitarian Intervention www. BC.20 The overthrow of oppressive governments is not justified. the unilateral U. as the Bush administration advanced.22 In effect. 93-109 These criteria are notable for what they purposefully exclude. military intervention in Iraq. a moral purpose (couched in the language of ‘‘axis of evil’’) was one of the reasons behind the intervention. or to end human rights violations that do not reach the threshold of large-scale killing and ethnic cleansing. for example.S. because just cause. along with the stipulation of multilateralism as a key indicator of rightful intention. defined in terms of the right intention criterion. or intervention by states to protect their nationals abroad. would make interventions for human protection purposes less ideological and hence less controversial. The definition of ‘‘just cause’’ excludes. The problematic issue here is one of untangling political motives from humanitarian ones given the inevitable mix of interests and values in international relations and the difficulty of finding pure motives. As Amitav Acharya poignantly observes. Surrey. although destroying their ability to cause harm to their own people is justified. Canada] (2010): Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Redefining a Role for “Kind-hearted Gunmen”. for example.21 Thus. intervention to restore democracy. is unjustified.com
Page 113 of 158
INTERVENTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED SIMPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DEMOCRACY Francis Kofi Abiew [Prof. even if. under the R2P. The Report of the ICISS acknowledges the possibility of ‘‘mixed motives’’ but argues that this should not lead to a rejection of an intervention as long as there is an overriding humanitarian motive and the high probability of achieving a humanitarian outcome. Intervening states cannot use that law to advance their own self-interested or ideological goals under the guise of humanitarian concerns.victorybriefs. Criminal Justice Ethics. 29:2. of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University.24
. this is an important distinction. governments act as trustees and defenders of the law of humanity when that law is violated by a state.12NFL4.23 Right intention is limited to alleviation of acute human Humanitarian Intervention and the R2P suffering rather than alteration of boundaries or even support for claims of self-determination.
the International Court of Justice has rejected the legality of unilateral humanitarian intervention. are “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and “to establish cond itions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained. activities in Nicaragua.S.”79 Two exceptions are allowed: using force with the express consent of the Security Council80 and “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member .83 In addition. Candidate 2010.” Boston University International Law Journal. until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Vol.”81 While “there was no apparent discussion of the legality of unauthorized humanitarian intervention” 82 at the two Charter drafting conferences.com
Page 114 of 158
THE UN CHARTER PERMITS INTERVENTION ONLY IN SELF-DEFENSE OR WHEN THE SECURITY COUNSEL AUTHORIZES IT ON THE GROUNDS THAT A STATE IS A DANGER TO INTERNATIONAL PEACE Gregory Hafkin [J. the travaux pr´eparatoires strongly suggest that the framers wanted Security Council authorization for any military actions that do not fall within the rubric of self-defense.”78 To that end. . the use of force could not be the appropriate method to monitor or ensure such respect. “while the United States might form its own appraisal of the situation as to respect for human rights in Nicaragua. Boston University School of Law]. as stated in the UN Charter’s preamble.12NFL4. 28:219 (2010) The primary goals of the United Nations. the Charter has a general prohibition on the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”84
. the Court wrote.Humanitarian Intervention www. . .D. In a case involving U. “THE RUSSO GEORGIAN WAR OF 2008: DEVELOPING THE LAW OF UNAUTHORIZED HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AFTER KOSOVO.victorybriefs.
entrenching his forces in Kosovo before NATO might change its mind about introducing ground troops into the conflict—something the United States. as the opening sorties in the bombing campaign gave Milosevic the excuse he needed to declare martial law and move rapidly in order to complete what he had already begun. without much consideration of the likely reaction to our bombs. We blundered into a strategy. namely. whether in the name of justice or any other good. 2001. “Just War and Humanitarian Intervention. medicine.Humanitarian Intervention www. a deepening of the terror and expulsions. Hence. Volume 8.” Ideas from the National Humanities Center. This hardly seems a good way to run a humanitarian intervention. and shelter at their points of terrified egress. rather astonishingly.
. In the first instance. our means speeded up the process. The greatest problem in the Kosovo war from a just war perspective was the means deployed to halt and to punish ethnic cleansing. announced from the get-go it would not do. Number 2. there was no preparation for the influx of desperate humanity to neighboring countries and regions. water. their plight made doubly desperate by lack of food.com
Page 115 of 158
US INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO IS AN EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE OF VIOLATION OF JUST WAR THEORY. Jean Bethke Elshtain.12NFL4.victorybriefs.
NATO's unauthorized action in Kosovo prompted a number of observers to argue that either the notion of humanitarian intervention existed or it should be established in order to allow for enforcement operations in situations of extreme humanitarian necessity. • An examination of recent developments shows that Humanit arian Intervention has not been established under customary law. NATO and International Law: Can the Institution of Humanitarian Intervention Justify Unauthorised Action?.com
Page 116 of 158
NO INSTITUTION OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION CURRENTLY EXISTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW Clara Portela [researcher at the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS)].
. “Humanitarian Intervention.victorybriefs. Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS). the notion of Humanitarian Intervention is incompatible with the ban on the use force enshrined in the UN Charter.12NFL4. Part I argues that the institution of humanitarian intervention does not exist: • A legal analysis shows that. This report analyses whether the institution of humanitarian intervention exists and whether the establishment of such an institution is legally feasible and politically convenient. in principle. December 2000.Humanitarian Intervention www.” Research Report 00.4.
December 2000. NATO and International Law: Can the Institution of Humanitarian Intervention Justify Unauthorised Action?.victorybriefs.12NFL4.4.com
Page 117 of 158
IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO ACCOMMODATE HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION DOCTRINE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW Clara Portela [researcher at the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS)]. Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS). Part II argues that it is extremely difficult to accommodate such an institution within the current system of international law due to the following difficulties: • Since the ban on force has the status of ‘peremptory law’.
. the formation of a norm that establishes the notion of Humanitarian Intervention requires the consent of the whole (or nearly the whole) community of states. There is currently no prospect of reaching such an agreement.Humanitarian Intervention www. This means. “Humanitarian Intervention. it can only be substituted by a norm of the same character.” Research Report 00.
12NFL4. Part III finally argues that the West should not promote the establishment of such an institution because: • The promotion of unauthorized action implies the willingnes s to ignore the Russian veto in the UN Security Council. thus undermining inhibitions about the use of force. December 2000.
. NATO and International Law: Can the Institution of Humanitarian Intervention Justify Unauthorised Action?.4.com
Page 118 of 158
THE US SHOULD NOT PROMOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS DOCTRINE IN ILAW Clara Portela [researcher at the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS)]. The right to undertake humanitarian intervention leaves room for a wide range of abuse. “Humanitarian Intervention.” Research Report 00. therefore seriously undermines co-operation with Russia.victorybriefs.Humanitarian Intervention www. • It could also negatively impact NATO's relations with the rest of the international community. Be rlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS).
It is an old pattern that we thought was finished after the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia—where Arab states (and other states too) don’t take responsibility for doing what they want done … by someone else. who opposed the intervention.12NFL4.victorybriefs. a few big things. the attacks don’t have what we should have insisted on from the very beginning— significant Arab support. and Germany also opposed the intervention. So. and they have an air force. it is radically unclear what the purpose of the intervention is —there is no endgame. There is no support coming from either Tunisia or Egypt. women. 2011. That is a very bad sign. The Arab League called for the creation of a no-fly zone. or the United States really wants.com US INTERVENTION IN LIBYA WAS UNJUSTIFIED—THREE WARRANTS
Page 119 of 158
. but the Egyptian army isn’t small.newrepublic. and the Americans. which would leave Qaddafi in control of most of the country and probably more than willing to bide his time? The size of the opening attack points toward the first of these. Libya’s immediate neighbors. perhaps because they can’t imagine an outcome that better suits their interests in the Middle East and Africa. and children. in the hope that the rebellion will catch fire. And. and Libyans will get rid of the Qaddafi regime by themselves? Or is it just to achieve a cease-fire. Michael [New Republic contributing editor and professor emeritus of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study]. the bloodshed.” March 20. India. “The Case Against Our Attack on Libya. Second. abstained on the final Security Council vote. Third.Humanitarian Intervention www. but some of its leaders are already criticizing the attacks required to make it work. in no particular order: First. The New Republic. and these will be innocent men. opposition in the Security Council didn’t stop with Russia and China. Arab and Muslim. use Western armies to do what the rebels couldn’t do themselves: overthrow Qaddafi? Or is it just to keep the fighting going for as long as possible. again.com/article/world/85509/the-case-against-our-attack-libya#> There are so many things wrong with the Libyan intervention that it is hard to know where to begin. Brazil. the British. too.S. killed (again) by the French. official told reporters. Britain. Is the goal to rescue a failed rebellion. and it is astonishing that Egypt is not willing to make any contribution to the intervention. turn things around. and then abstained. The Tunisia n army is small. but success there would probably require soldiers on the ground. not stop. The United States has spent billions of dollars on the Egyptian military. Russia and China. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have promised military forces. as a U. no major Arab state is participating. but they represent roughly 1 percent of the Arab people. which no one in France. The African Union refused to send a representative to the meeting called by President Sarkozy in Paris to consolidate support for military action. though it would extend. The second is the most likely goal. for the attacks will undoubtedly kill civilians. <http://www.
thousands still live in camps and temporary settlements. some 1. The Guiding Principles should be used by R2P advocates as a guide for governmental and international responsibilities toward IDPs.000 were uprooted prior to international involvement. So R2P was not a preventive measure. inadequate compensation for destroyed homes and property.Humanitarian Intervention www. but it did succeed in halting the violence and preventing further displacement. but there was no mention of them or other steps for the protection of IDPs in the January report of the Secretary-General. Harvard Human Rights Panel Annual Symposium.500 people died and some 600. an absence of planning for those who do not wish to return. Foreign Policy.com HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION DOESN’T SOLVE
Page 120 of 158
WHEN NATIONS ENGAGE IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION THEY OFTEN FAIL TO SECURE A PEACEFUL TRANSITION AFTER THE CONFLICT Roberta Cohen [Nonresident Senior Fellow. But should the story end there or should it extend to ensuring that displaced people are effectively protected in the aftermath of violence? Reports show a lack of security for ethnic groups in areas of return.” Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement. Welcomed by the World Summit in 2005. Nor do we hear about the promotion of compliance with the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement with regard to rebuilding. First. Yet we don't hear any more about R2P in Kenya.12NFL4. how far does the application extend? In the case of Kenya.
. The national human rights commission in Kenya considers its government to be violating these Principles in its treatment of IDPs after the violence. Moreover. the Guiding Principles set forth the rights of IDPs and give the international community a role in protecting and assisting them during displacement and during return and reintegration. “The responsibility to protect: The Human rights and humanitarian dimensions. Panel on the Responsibility to Protect and Human Rights]. the first and only country to which R2P was applied.victorybriefs.
In the DRC. It is political. “The responsibility to protect: The Human rights and humanitarian dimensions. Foreign Policy. Other aid workers.12NFL4. Third. To what extent will R2P encourage humanitarian organizations to engage more actively in protecting the physical safety and human rights of civilians caught up in humanitarian emergencies? To what extent will it encourage UN human rights offices to play a protection role in the field. they say. neutrality is not an option. Medecins Sans Frontieres has tried to work on both sides of the conflict whereas UN peacekeepers have acted to support the government. which they have not done so far?
. will R2P politicize humanitarian operations? Some NGOs are wary of the use of force for humanitarian purposes and argue that the integration of humanitarian aid into broader political and security frameworks will identify aid workers with one side in a conflict and expose them to attacks. consider protection essential to their work. Many humanitarian aid workers have difficulty with the concept of protection and argue that going beyond delivering food.victorybriefs. medicine and shelter could lead to denial of access and to their own expulsion. and argue that when genocide and atrocity crimes are being committed. however.Humanitarian Intervention www.com
Page 121 of 158
THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT WILL POLITICIZE HUMANITARIAN OPERATIONS Roberta Cohen [Nonresident Senior Fellow. Panel on the Responsibility to Protect and Human Rights]. Harvard Human Rights Panel Annual Symposium.” Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement. and will interfere with their relationships with governments on humanitarian and development issues. to advocate for the physical safety and human rights of IDPs.
when I first formulated the arguments laid out in this paper. Even if Iraq were to come to approximate a peaceable and rights-respecting democracy able to reabsorb up to four million internally and externally displaced nationals and supply its citizens with public services surpassing those offered under Saddam’s regime.Humanitarian Intervention www. Still. 287-304 My premise that the Iraq war was disastrous is less self-evidently true in 2010 than it was in 2007. Dramatically fewer people are being killed daily than was the case then and the Iraqi government has asserted considerable authority over the militias – both oppositional and government-aligned – that ran wild between 2003 and late 2007. 6:3.6 Other costs may have been met in a different currency – for example. The situation remains improved notwithstanding the uncertainties – and spectacular acts of violence – attending the withdrawal of American troops.12NFL4..victorybriefs. South Africa] (2010): Can the doctrine of just military intervention survive Iraq?. It rests on the human price that has already been paid. with possibly hundreds of thousands of additional civilian lives having been lost. Johannesburg. the case that Iraq has been a disaster is not difficult to make. the trauma suffered by the tens of thousands (a good proportion presumably innocent of war crimes) who were detained without charge or trial by Iraqi and Coalition forces or abducted by militias. these benefits would have to be weighed against the post-invasion surge in annual mortality compared with the immediately preceding years. University of the Witwatersrand. and many of whom were subject to torture. Department of Political Studies. A second more or less free and fair general election has just been held (in 2010). Journal of Global Ethics.com
Page 122 of 158
THE WAR IN IRAQ SHOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY BE CONSIDERED A DISASTER Daryl Glaser [Prof.
the 2003 invasion cannot offer lessons about the consequences of invading a WMD-armed power. In the absence of compelling evidence that the adversary poses a WMD or terrorist threat. if the empirical premises of the case for preventive war in Iraq had turned out to be well founded? Can the failure to find WMD in Iraq offer any lessons about whether it would be justified to wage preventive war to head off a genuine WMD threat. Journal of Global Ethics. The Iraq episode warns us that it is difficult to get good intelligence on a secretive adversary. and that intelligence is open to political manipulation. Department of Political Studies. More dramatically. Johannesburg. But even the invasion of a state that was not WMD-armed carries lessons for JAW doctrine’s prevention precept. however.com
Page 123 of 158
THE IRAQ WAR DEMONSTRATES THE DANGER OF INVADING A NATION WHERE INTELLIGENCE IS DIFFICULT TO GATHER Daryl Glaser [Prof. South Africa] (2010): Can the doctrine of just military intervention survive Iraq?..
. it reveals the human costs of war against which any decision to invade must be measured. knowledge of these costs ought to count heavily against a decision to initiate war. 6:3.victorybriefs. Iraq was not one. University of the Witwatersrand.Humanitarian Intervention www. or one sincerely believed to exist (as in Iran today)? Of course. because. as it turned out.12NFL4. 287-304 What.
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com
Page 124 of 158
INSURGENCIES LIKE THOSE IN IRAQ ARE FORESEEABLE, SO ADVOCATES OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION SHOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE RISK OF AN INSURGENCY IS OUTWEIGHED BY THE ADVANTAGES OF INTERVENTION Daryl Glaser [Prof., Department of Political Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa] (2010): Can the doctrine of just military intervention survive Iraq?, Journal of Global Ethics, 6:3, 287-304 The insurgents certainly impeded Iraq’s reconstruction and bear direct responsibility for the ruthless murder of countless civilians. The question for JAW, though, is whether there is anything to prevent insurgencies confounding future interventions as well. Blaming insurgents might work as moral exculpation, but it does not address the JWT requirement that military interventions should stand a reasonable chance of success. To satisfy that requirement, JAW advocates will need a theory of the conditions under which insurgencies are more or less likely to flourish. Treating the evil nature of the terrorists and their ideology as a freestanding cause of the insurgency – as many JAW proponents do – makes it more difficult to explore antecedent indirect ‘causes’10 of the insurgents’ appearance and success. Yet addressing those causes may be both desirable in principle (see later) and instrumentally necessary to defeating insurgents at an acceptable human cost.
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com
Page 125 of 158
IRAQ DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE ARE LIMITS TO WHAT WE CAN PREDICT ABOUT WAR AND SO IN GENERAL WE SHOULD BE WEARY OF IT Daryl Glaser [Prof., Department of Political Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa] (2010): Can the doctrine of just military intervention survive Iraq?, Journal of Global Ethics, 6:3, 287-304 On offer here is not, as such, an alternative theory of ‘what went wrong’ in Iraq. To proceed thus would be to accept, as I do not, that the invasion came unstuck exclusively in the execution. There were things that went wrong in execution, and analysis of these may yield valuable lessons for future interventions (Danner 2006; Galbraith 2006a, 2006b). But much of what went wrong in execution was a product of contingent factors and unintended effects. The influence of these suggests the need to understand as deeply as possible the society one is intervening in. Neoconservative contempt for the advice of experienced ‘Arabists’ – and for uncongenial expert advice generally – probably did not help in this regard (Diamond 2004, 1, 3; Danner 2006, 94–5; Galbraith 2006a, 27). But they also illuminate the limits to human epistemological mastery: it is impossible fully to understand, still less control, the forces unleashed by wars, more especially in culturally unfamiliar and highly heterogeneous societies. The lesson of this is easier to grasp: be wary of war.
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com
Page 126 of 158
IRAQ DEMONSTRATES THAT LOCAL POPULATIONS DON’T ALWAYS GREET INTERVENING FORCES AS LIBERATORS Daryl Glaser [Prof., Department of Political Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa] (2010): Can the doctrine of just military intervention survive Iraq?, Journal of Global Ethics, 6:3, 287-304 But the deeper reason that things went wrong in Iraq post-2003 lies, I contend, in a factor that was visible and operative before the war began, and which rendered the invasion ill-conceived from the outset. This factor, already hinted at, was the weakness of US legitimacy in the Middle East. The US expected that its forces would be welcomed by grateful Iraqis.12 There were various likely sources for this delusion. American elites subscribe to their country’s selfimage as a bearer of democratic enlightenment. Many of its members were impressed by the popular proAmericanism of countries – ‘new Europe’ – that had recently shaken off Communism, a reprise, of sorts, of the cheers and flowers that greeted Allies trundling through Belgium and France in 1944. Secular Iraqi exiles assured Americans of a warm reception. The evidence, however, is that many or most Arabs view the US with suspicion (Esposito 2006, 2007; Telhami 2008). Their negative attitude arises, I suggest, from the way the US took over in the 1960s from Britain and France as the principal Western (neo)colonial power in the Middle East and the way that, in particular, it supported Israel in successive wars and in its colonization of Palestinian land. The US is also the world’s largest petroleum-importer, with a longstanding interest in Western access to Middle Eastern oil. An American-led attack on a resolutely antiIsrael Arab state sitting on perhaps the world’s second biggest oil reserve was thus bound to arouse Arab suspicion. America’s Christian-secular character, and ‘theocon’ influence on the Bush administration, would have done nothing to ease Arab distrust at a time of widespread Islamic revivalism. Many Arab Iraqis shared in these feelings of distrust and resentment, their negative feelings compounded by direct experience of the human impact of American –British air raids and Western-led economic sanctions.13
an authoritarian target state with a monopoly of coercive power and a weak opposition is more easily persuaded by the interveners to implement the policies that protect their interests (Bueno de Mesquita & Downs. “Foreign Military Intervention and Women’s Rights. of Political Science. 2006).com
Page 127 of 158
INTERVENOR STATES ARE UNLIKELY TO SUPPORT DEMOCRATIC FORMS OF GOVERNMENT Dursun Peksen [Dept. On the other hand.Humanitarian Intervention www.4
.” Journal of Peace Research (2011) 48: 455 To achieve their strategic goals.victorybriefs. the intervening states will favor a repressive regime with the monopoly of decisionmaking and coercive power over a democratized target state. East Carolina University]. This is because a democratized target state will be more responsive to the demands of its citizens and consequently will have different policy choices from those of the intervener’s domestic constituency.12NFL4.
and the right to join political parties).e. unemployment benefits.com
Page 128 of 158
THE LIKELIHOOD THAT INTERVENOR STATES WILL SUPPORT UNDEMOCRATIC REGIMES MEANS THAT IT IS UNLIKELY THAT SUCCESSOR STATES WILL RESPECT WOMENS’ RIGHTS Dursun Peksen [Dept.12NFL4. Yet. Repressive regimes are more likely to disregard rules and norms protecting women’s rights along with other basic human rights because they are politically less accountable and not constrained through strong institutional mechanisms such as the rule of law and an efficient checks-and-balances system (Mitchell & McCormick. including women’s internationally recognized rights. state-sanctioned discrimination against women (Norris & Inglehart. 2003. the right to run for political office. Beer. the right to hold elected or appointed government positions. as intervener states continue to shelter or promote repressive regimes with patriarchal social structures as a safer strategy to secure their own national interests. 2009). and the right to freely participate in social. It includes such basic rights as gender equality in political participation (i. Wendel-Blunt & Ho. no arbitrary firing. 1988. Inglehart & Norris. job security (maternity leave. the target governments are more likely to violate basic human rights. and community activities. of Political Science.Humanitarian Intervention www. Coleman. “Foreign Military Intervention and Women’s Rights. 1997. etc. 2009).” Journal of Peace Research (2011) 48: 455 Achievement of greater respect for women’s basic rights and female empowerment in economic and political life partially necessitates the elimination of systematic. Poe. cultural.victorybriefs. 2004. 2001.).
. East Carolina University]. Beer. equality in hiring and promotion practices in the workplace.
“Foreign Military Intervention and Women’s Rights.
.12NFL4. Joachim. 2007). in such repressive regimes. Adams & Kang. 2003. they will tolerate more discrimination against women in society. Keck & Sikkink. Since the political regime in the target state is protected by selfinterested intervener states. East Carolina University]. they are less likely to be compelled by the pressure from the domestic opposition and transnational actors to strictly enforce women’s rights.Humanitarian Intervention www. as they become more repressive and less considerate of the demands of pro-human rights groups. Consequently.com
Page 129 of 158
BECAUSE UNILATERAL INTERVENORS TEND TO SUPPORT REPRESSIVE REGIMES.victorybriefs. SUCCESSOR STATES TEND TO BE LESS RESPONSIVE TO DOMESTIC LOBBYING AND INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE TO IMPROVE HUMAN RIGHTS Dursun Peksen [Dept. of Political Science. 1993. They do so to avoid the diplomatic and political pressure from the international community and domestic opposition groups. the external military and political support by unilateral interveners for a repressive state will reduce the extent of the pressure the government faces from domestic opposition groups and international advocacy networks. 1995. Moravcsik. the government is forced to enforce or make changes in domestic law and institutions to harmonize them with international human rights norms (Sikkink. On the contrary. 1998. there will be no prospects for greater gender equality through reforms in domestic laws and institutions or through the spread of norms favoring female empowerment in the society.” Journal of Peace Research (2011) 48: 455 Furthermore. Earlier research shows that the combination of both domestic and international pressure on the government is instrumental as a balancing act to keep the political leadership in check. Specifically.
“Foreign Military Intervention and Women’s Rights. East Carolina University]. of Political Science. 1988). Farer. ethno-political clashes. often under-enforced in the best of circumstances. triggering more violent opposition and resistance to the foreign interference (Gurr. The lack of support for unilateral interventions might subsequently worsen the already volatile circumstances of the target state. women’s rights.
. 2003.Humanitarian Intervention www.g. 2000).12NFL4. 1995. Doyle & Sambanis. Most target countries undergo various socio-economic and political instabilities (e. unilateral military operations might also have an indirect. civil wars. triggering more opposition to foreign interference.” Journal of Peace Research (2011) 48: 455 The quantitative data analysis in the following section tests only the direct impact of unilateral interventions on women’s rights. Yet.victorybriefs. or humanitarian disasters) that initially invoke external military interference. The unilateral use of force often fails to garner support among the key political groups and average citizens of the target society as well as within the international community because of the perception of such missions as illegitimate and self-interested acts (Gow & Dandeker. will be reduced by the further militarization and instability of the society caused by external armed interventions. Consequently. negative impact on women’s status.com
Page 130 of 158
THE PURSUIT OF WOMENS RIGHTS IS HARMED BY THE INSTABILITY THAT ATTENDS ANY FOREIGN MILITARY INTERVENTION Dursun Peksen [Dept.
2001. Rehn & Sirleaf. Enloe. 2000. 2001.com
Page 131 of 158
IN STATES TARGETED FOR MILITARY INTERVENTION WOMEN TEND TO BE SUBJECT TO MORE FORMS OF VIOLENCE Dursun Peksen [Dept. of Political Science. 2002. 2002. this line of research suggests that foreign intervention might escalate the problem of the suppression of women by making them frequent targets of sexual abuse. 2005. harassment.
. Plu¨mper & Neumayer. 2001. Pillay & Tursher. Seymour. “F oreign Military Intervention and Women’s Rights. as unilateral interventions become counterproductive and generate more political instabilities.victorybriefs. Therefore.g.12NFL4.Humanitarian Intervention www. 2006). there will be a resurgence of gender-based discrimination and violence. Moser & Clarke. 2007). Tickner. and physical violence. Meintjes. 2002. Bunch. Goldstein.” Journal of Peace Research (2011) 48: 455 Earlier research points out that political disorder and the militarization of society caused by foreign military operations increase the incidences of gender-based violence and women’s rights abuses (Cockburn & Zarkov. Women suffer severely from political violence and instabilities because of the persistence of structural inequality in access to economic and political resources. and gender-based cultural discrimination prevalent in hierarchical social settings (e. 2001. East Carolina University]. Specifically. Al-Ali.
Model 3 reports the results for the impact that military interventions have on women’s social rights. The variable for non-US unilateral interventions. on the other hand. the non-US unilateral interventions have no statistically significant effect on women’s well-being. however. The results for women’s economic rights (Model 2) reveal that US interventions will likely worsen the level of respect for women’s economic rights. The results also grant robust support for the hypothesis that IGO interventions are unlikely to inflict any major immediate damage on women. East Carolina University].com
Page 132 of 158
THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT MILITARY INTERVENTIONS CAN IMPROVE WOMENS RIGHTS Dursun Peksen [Dept. Contrary to US interventions. Indeed. As suggested above. Although the sign of the coefficients consistently shows a reverse relationship as expected. Any noticeable change in women’s social rights might take longer than the short. According to the results in Table I.” Journal of Peace Research (2011) 48: 455 Table I displays the findings of a multivariate logit analysis. positive impact on women’s political status.victorybriefs. the non-significance of the results for women’s social status might be because of the difficulties with any immediate change in the overall social or cultural treatment of women in the society by external interference. Comparing with economic and political rights.or mid-term domestic reforms and socio-economic transformation caused by international influences.
. IGO interventions appear to lead to a significant.Humanitarian Intervention www.12NFL4. such multilateral commitments are likely to have a positive impact on the level of respect for women’s political rights. The IGO or non-US unilateral attempts. even when it is in the form of military intervention. “Foreign Military Intervention and Women’s Rights. This suggests that military interventions may not cause a statistically significant positive or negative change in the overall respect for wom en’s social status. of Political Science. unilateral US interventions are likely to inflict significant negative damage on women’s political rights (Model 1). I find that all of the intervention variables fail to reach statistically significant associations with the social rights variable. the strength and dominance of US unilateral interventions appears to explain why they might be more detrimental to women’s status than other unilateral attempts. Overall. do not show a statistically significant association with the economic status of women. is not statistically significant in predicting women’s political status. the findings suggest that unilateral military operations by the USA will likely cause a decline in the overall treatment of women’s economic and political rights.
12NFL4. respectively. and Economic Openness. Moving from no intervention to US intervention increases the predicted probability of the violation of women’s economic rights by 68%. contribute to the improvements of women’s economic status by decreasing the predicted probability of the major violation of economic rights by 12%.
. GDP per capita. of Political Science.com
Page 133 of 158
MILITARY INTERVENTION SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED THE LIKELIHOOD OF VIOLATIONS FOR WOMENS RIGHTS Dursun Peksen [Dept. The other three significant variables. The dummy variables included for temporal dependence also show that higher respect for economic rights in the previous year (t–1) for each category of women’s rights significantly decreases the predicted value of the major violation of women’s economic rights. “Foreign Military Intervention and Women’s Rights. Democracy.Humanitarian Intervention www. East Carolina University]. and 14%.victorybriefs. 17%.” Journal of Peace Research (2011) 48: 455 Table III shows the changes in the predicted probability of major violation of women’s economic rights using the significant independent variables in Model 2.
including a rise in anti-American sentiment. In fact. <http://www. and threats to vital interests where none previously existed. will succeed in ending the fighting. recognize that many regional conflicts are so deeply rooted that no outside party. from within or outside the region.html> Regional conflicts have greatly increased since the end of the Cold War.Humanitarian Intervention www. intervention can create a number of problems for the United States. however.org/pubs/pas/pa-209.cato. interests might be involved. Barbara [foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute]. domestic skepticism about future military operations even when legitimate U.” Cato Policy Analysis No. Except in the rare cases in which regional conflicts threaten American national security. May 19. Global instability does not. 209. Intervention in Regional Conflicts. both security related and humanitarian. security. A policy that views disorder or instability as a security threat would force the United States to expend vast resources in pursuit of an unattainable objective. argument for intervention is that global instability is a threat to U. threaten vital American interests and is the normal state of affairs. military intervention frequently emerges as an option. and fallacious. That argument relies heavily on the discredited domino theory and the notion of deterrence by example.com MILITARY INTERVENTION IS GENERALLY FUTILE AND INEFFECTIVE
Page 134 of 158
Conry. 1994. however. “The Futility of U.victorybriefs.12NFL4.S. As Washington gropes for a policy toward regional wars. military involvement often aggravates the situation. As tragic as many of the regional wars are.S. military involvement in regional wars. the United States should encourage regional initiatives. as justifications for U. diminished American credibility if the mission fails. a trend that promises to continue. military intervention in regional conflicts is ill-advised.
. The most common. The Cato Institute. most cannot be resolved by American military intervention. Furthermore. Washington must.S. per se.S. Proponents of intervention cite a number of interests. Rather than attempt to stifle regional conflicts through military intervention.
deterrence by example suggests that a strong American response to aggression or unrest in one situation will discourage aggression elsewhere in the world. for example.S. While the domino theory posits that an isolated regional conflict will eventually threaten American security by engulfing other states in the area and spreading uncontrollably. deterrence by example is largely irrelevant in the context of actual events. “The Futility of U. Intervention in Regional Conflicts.html> Related to the domino theory is the idea of deterrence by example.S. 1994. 209. <http://www.cato. Barbara [foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute].Humanitarian Intervention www.(18) To formulate policy on such a premise would be a mistake. The Cato Institute. May 19.org/pubs/pas/pa-209. Like the domino theory. intervention in Haiti. The aborted U. is not going to lead to a rash of military dictatorships any more than strong American responses to Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein deterred Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic from pursuing his aims in Bosnia. Conversely.
.12NFL4. a weak American response will encourage it.victorybriefs.” Cato Policy Analysis No.com HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION HAS NO DETERRENT EFFECT
Page 135 of 158
1994." warns journalist Theo Sommer. rather than advancing.S.” Cato Policy Analysis No. it usually aggravates the situation. "Beware of the facile assumption that wars are fightable and winnable again. Barbara [foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute]. it does not work. The ability of military action to achieve political objectives in the modern era is very limited. Intervention in Regional Conflicts. “The Futility of U. were an aggravating rather than a stabilizing force. 209. It rarely achieves its purpose and often has the perverse effect of obstructing.victorybriefs.12NFL4.html> The United States should also avoid military intervention in regional conflicts because.(25) Even if a consensus were to develop that global stability or any other objective should be pursued by all viable means. May 19. for example. what it seeks to achieve. In fact. (American peacekeepers in Lebanon in 1983.org/pubs/pas/pa-209. The most compelling arguments against American intervention are its ineffectiveness and the harm it causes all parties involved. military intervention would remain an unwise course in most cases.) Intervention usually harms American interests as well.com MILITARY INTERVENTION IS HISTORICALLY INEFFECTIVE
Page 136 of 158
. in the vast majority of cases. The Cato Institute.cato.(26) Many deeply rooted political and economic problems are impervious to military solutions. Beware of the illusion that there is a military solution to every geopolitical problem.Humanitarian Intervention www. <http://www.
” Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement. Panel on the Responsibility to Protect and Human Rights].com A2 LIBERAL COSMOPOLITANISM
Page 137 of 158
PHILOSOPHICAL CRITICS OF LIBERALISM TEND TO OPPOSE HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION Roberta Cohen [Nonresident Senior Fellow. humanitarianism has a rival.Humanitarian Intervention www. In this case. and insofar as it permeates internationa l society it reneges on the sovereign rights of states. the rival narrative finds expression in a deep scepticism towards the possibility or desirability of enlisting the moral point of view in international politics. realism. it harbours all liberalism’s faults and failings.12NFL4. and multiplies the prospects of war. The range of criticism made of humanitarianism is evidence of the diverse grounds on which the moralization of international politics is rejected: including anti-liberalism. anticosmopolitanism. “The responsibility to protect: The Human rights and humanitarian dimensions. Foreign Policy. The counter-humanitarian narrative sees the moralization of international politics as a negative development. Like any narrative. and pacifism. Harvard Human Rights Panel Annual Symposium. engenders a more intolerant and belligerent international society. Why? Because insofar as it embodies liberal values. statism. various strains of Marxism.
. imposes Western forms of justice and power.victorybriefs. historicism.
NT is rejected because it neglects the distinctively political role of human rights.
. the moral duty to obey the law of any given political community being conditional on its compliance with them (Rawls. it has been argued that human rights essentially regulate the behaviour of the officials of a state or other such coercive institutional framework (Pogge. Cohen.Humanitarian Intervention www. it must be possible to justify human rights by appeal to a form of public reason that embodies distinctively political standards of justification. On one view. not by invoking the purported deliverances of correct or objectively true morality simply as such (Rawls. Williams. 6). respectively in Sections 2 and 3. e. some adherents of the political conception of human rights reject the unmediated appeal to ordinary moral reasoning as either necessary or sufficient to establish the existence of human rights. some interpret human rights as benchmarks of political legitimacy.12NFL4. this orthodoxy has been challenged by ‘political’ conceptions of human rights which reject one or both of NT and GT.g. In opposition to GT. 2). In this vein.com
Page 138 of 158
SOME THEORISTS CHALLENGE THE ORTHODOX VIEW THAT HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL AND REASON-BASED. they govern justifiable intervention among independent political communities (Rawls. it may be the regulation of certain kinds of distinctively political status or activity that is treated as definitive of their nature. In their view. which follow). the focus is on the bearers of the primary duties correlative to human rights. ch. “Are Human Rights Essentially Triggers for Intervention?” Philosophy Compass 4/6 (2009): 938–950 In recent years. Raz discussed. ARGUING THAT THIS ACCOUNT PAYS TOO LITTLE ATTENTION TO THE POLITICAL COMPONENT OF RIGHTS John Tasioulas [University of Oxford]. Cohen).victorybriefs. Alternatively. For others. ch.
the prospects of their finding favour among non-liberal societies is presumably markedly enhanced. Moreover. 390–5). so far as non-parochialism goes. the verdict on the non-parochialism count is not unequivocal. the conception of reasonableness Rawls deploys is derived from a liberal democratic public political culture that is the fixed horizon of his inquiry (Tasioulas 2002. 74). Second.
. There is a serious question. human rights play an undeniably important role. instead. outweighed by the parochialism of the liberal pathway Rawls follows in justifying his schedule of human rights. at best. in line with his rejection of GT.com
Page 139 of 158
RAWLS ACCOUNT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IS PREMISED ON THE VALIDITY OF WESTERN LIBERALISM John Tasioulas [University of Oxford]. First. The comparative minimalism of Rawls’ schedule of human rights ministers to the non-parochialism requirement (Rawls. he does not claim (or deny) that political liberalism is an objectively correct doctrine.Humanitarian Intervention www. Third. which are aggressive or engage in widespread violations of human rights against their own members. the doctrine of human rights is an extension of a broader liberal conception of justice according to which there are universal rights possessed by all humans – liberal constitutional rights – many of which are denied by non-liberal societies. according to the liberal conception of justice from which the doctrine of human rights is elaborated. even those non-liberal societies that can affirm the minimalist list of human rights (decent hierarchical peoples) or at least reliably conform with them (benevolent despotisms) turn out to be. The question is exacerbated when we observe that. consider how Rawls’ theory fares against our three desiderata for a theory of human rights (Section 1). 79) – and therefore occupy a distinctive place among the principles of justice. “Are Human Rights Essentially Triggers for Intervention?” Philosophy Compass 4/6 (2009): 938–950 Leaving these difficulties to one side. only ‘not fully unreasonable’ (Rawls. one must weigh three other factors. As defeasible triggers of military intervention. the category of states Rawls designates ‘outlaw states’. 65). then.victorybriefs. By admitting only a handful of urgent rights as human rights. would not accept the Law of Peoples and its doctrine of human rights. whether the gain secured by its minimalist content is. Against the gain achieved by its minimalist content. However. they are a proper subset of all rights – a ‘special class of urgent rights’ (Rawls. Yet these are precisely the states that are most vulnerable to military intervention according to that doctrine. in the context of Rawls’ overall theory.12NFL4.
exhibits a significant level of fidelity to the tradition. offers fidelity together with an urgently needed dose of criticism. Rawls’ theory fails to track important dimensions of the human rights culture. Most obviously. on this view.g. among others. expression and the press. in spite of initial appearances.Humanitarian Intervention www. on the score of fidelity. rights to political participation. Moreover. e.6 This translates as the claim that they are genuinely universal rights possessed by all – liberal constitutional rights – but not strictly speaking human rights. but criticism that draws on the inner well-spring of the human rights culture in order to rectify some of its deepest flaws. education. “Are Human Rights Essentially Triggers for Intervention?” Philosophy Compass 4/6 (2009): 938–950 Finally. It might be countered that Rawls’ theory. After all. Many of these excluded rights are characterized by him as ‘liberal aspirations’ rather than human rights proper. health care and social services. the freedom of assembly and association. reservations designed to render the rights nugatory to the extent that they conflict with established religious traditions.victorybriefs. Rawls’ theory. many rights that figure in the International Bill of Rights do not appear on his list: the freedom of opinion. rights against sex-based discrimination. no matter how extensive or grave.12NFL4. the minimalism of his account addresses the widespread sentiment internal to the human rights culture that the proliferation of human rights claims needs to be reined in on some principled basis.com
Page 140 of 158
RAWLS JUSTIFICATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS DOES NOT COHERE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CULTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS John Tasioulas [University of Oxford].
. because their violation by a political community. the documents that comprise the International Bill of Human Rights have been accepted by many states only subject to deep-going reservations. is incapable of generating a defeasible case for military intervention.
“The responsibility to protect: The Human rights and humanitarian dimensions.
. and when does it not. in humanitarian emergencies? While atrocity crimes can be expected to produce emergency situations and displacement. but this decision may be questionable in cases where crimes against humanity are committed in response to disasters and the victims are in need of international protection.com
Page 141 of 158
THE CONCEPT OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS INCONSISTENT BECAUSE IT IS NOT APPLIED TO NATURAL DISASTERS Roberta Cohen [Nonresident Senior Fellow. Foreign Policy. Second. Panel on the Responsibility to Protect and Human Rights]. R2P advocates have ruled out applying the concept to natural disasters. for example.Humanitarian Intervention www.12NFL4. The debate over Cyclone Nargis in Burma brought that problem to the fore. can be expected to uproot tens of millions and create severe assistance and protection problems. they are not the only cause. There will be many humanitarian situations where R2P will not apply.” Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement. when does R2P apply. Harvard Human Rights Panel Annual Symposium. Natural disasters and climate change.victorybriefs.
As Paul W. During the Gulf War. In the past. Intervention in Regional Conflicts. and a stance against "naked aggression" to obscure the harsher truth that he was deploying U.” Cato Policy Analysis No. humanitarian reasons or the advancement of various moral principles are in themselves adequate justification for U. protection of sovereignty. troops primarily to protect economic interests--American access to gulf oil.org/pubs/pas/pa-209.victorybriefs. President Bush invoked such notions as the preservation of the new world order. national self-determination.com
Page 142 of 158
INTERVENTION FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS MAKES A MOCKERY FOR THE VERY RIGHTS IT IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT Conry. a smattering of idealistic justifications has emerged. All are admirable ideals.12NFL4.S. Democracy. The Cato Institute. 209.(22) The idealistic arguments were essential to gain the support of those who are uncomfortable with the notion of war for selfinterest yet accept war as a tragic but necessary sacrifice for the sake of altruistic objectives. 1994. human rights. coercion tends to make a mockery of the very principle it was intended to defend.html> In the absence of a clear and defensible strategic rationale for intervention in regional conflicts. May 19. idealism sometimes served as a fig leaf for more mundane motives. the less the experience of defeat and failure is likely to be internalized in a useful way and lead to the kind of durable change desired. and humanitarian assistance are among the most common rationales for military intervention where no threat to national security exists."
. military involvement in regional wars. Barbara [foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute]. "The more the lesson desired is inflicted by external armed force. Yet military interventions based on such ideals are even more problematic than those that are at least rhetorically rooted in national security.Humanitarian Intervention www.S. for instance. If anything. and intervention is usually an ineffective way to advance ideals. <http://www. For some people.S. Schroeder of the United States Institute of Peace argued in the Washington Quarterly.cato. “The Futility of U.
12NFL4. President Clinton's special envoy to Somalia. Likewise. said. As Robert Oakley. “The Futility of U. The inconsistency and hypocrisy of those policies are evidence of the weakness of intervention on the basis of nebulous principles. If the United States were to declare genocide in Bosnia sufficient grounds for American military intervention. Intervention in Regional Conflicts.Humanitarian Intervention www. 1994.000 military forces each time there is an internal crisis in a failed state. Because it is impossible for the United States to intervene in every instance in which Ameri can principles are offended. troops protect democracy in Haiti are incongruous in light of Washington's quiet indifference toward the suspension of democracy in Algeria when Muslim extremists were poised to win elections in 1992.
.org/pubs/pas/pa-209. May 19. 1994 (100. 40.com
Page 143 of 158
MILITARY INTERVENTION FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS EMBRACES HYPOCRISY Conry. it would be blatantly hypocritical to ignore the (clearer and considerably more severe) genocide in Sudan.S.000 were said to have been killed in the first two weeks of fighting alone) except to evacuate Americans from the area.cato. 209. "The international community is not disposed to deploying 20. Similarly capricious was Washington's determination that the breakdown of the Somali government merited American intervention.” Cato Policy Analysis No. <http://www.html> Military intervention for reasons unrelated to American security also forces the United States to embrace inherently hypocritical policies. the necessary selection process inevitably gives priority to some conflicts while marginalizing others.S. demands that U. for example. while officials ignored the crisis in Rwanda after the apparent assassination of President Habyarimana on April 6. The Cato Institute. 60.victorybriefs. Barbara [foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute]."(24) To take action in some cases and not others does not make for consistent policy.
com STATES ARE SELF-INTERESTED
Page 144 of 158
THE DOCTRINE OF JUST ANTI-TOTALITARIAN WAR (JAW) MAY BE UNDERMINED BY THE SELF-INTERESTED MOTIVES OF INVADING STATES Daryl Glaser [Prof. 6:3. Heinze 2007. was to do so). the perception that the invading powers are wrongly motivated may undermine their credibility with the local population and therefore their chances of success in operations that require local support (Glaser 2006. two separate questions can be asked about their implications for JAW doctrine. to realize intentions that they sincerely possess. Department of Political Studies. especially a highly risky one whose successful execution demands sustained commitment. Johannesburg. First.. even on a consequentialist account? The case can be made that the self-interested motives of invading powers affect their capacity to realize JAW goals – in effect. 266. University of the Witwatersrand. 287-304 On the issue of motives and pretexts for war.
. If invaders do not instinctively and inwardly prioritize democracy and human rights. South Africa] (2010): Can the doctrine of just military intervention survive Iraq?. 16 –33). This is especially the case for operations launched among already suspicious populations. I think9 – that what counts in Iraq is whether the invasion promotes human rights and democracy (or whether the intention.Humanitarian Intervention www. as Arabs are toward Americans (see below). Journal of Global Ethics. they are unlikely (whatever their intention) to put sufficient energy into promoting them in practice.12NFL4.victorybriefs. as opposed to motive. does it matter that US motives were questionable and pretexts have proved false? As earlier noted. Suspicion of wrong motives (which naturally grows where pretexts are implausible) may thus be a source of prudential reasons to withhold support from an action. many war supporters hold – rightly. But are wrong motives and false pretexts irrelevant. Perhaps more seriously.
Candidate 2010. one must wonder how an intervention constructed solely of dropping bombs could quickly improve the plight of the Kosovars.115 Instead. in the self-interest of the intervener. and water treatment plants. electricity grids.12NFL4. factories. the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights issued various reports that directly condemned the manner in which NATO was conducting its operations. in harm’s way. drawing upon the principles of proportionality and legality. “THE RUSSO GEORGIAN WAR OF 2008: DEVELOPING THE LAW OF UNAUTHORIZED HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AFTER KOSOVO. rhetoric aside. while the bombing of the FRY was continuing. as it was by NATO.”118
.114 perhaps due to the results of the mission in Somalia. Vol.D.”113 While it might be possible to claim that NATO’s actions were purely altruistic. the actual intervention was severely limited in its ability to stop human-rights violations because NATO was unwilling to put its soldiers on the ground. 28:219 (2010) One of the main objections to unilateral interventions is that “without formal institutional determinations of whether the circumstances really warrant unilateral action.”116 In fact. Boston University School of Law]. These new targets included civilian-use facilities such as bridges. upon overwhelming humanitarian necessity. the action is likely to be taken.victorybriefs.com
Page 145 of 158
THE DESIRE TO AVOID PUTTING TROOPS ON THE GROUND CAN DRIVE INTERVENING NATIONS TO TACTICS THAT ACTUALLY HARM HUMAN RIGHTS Gregory Hafkin [J. “NATO stepped up its show of force by expanding its target list to includ e infrastructure within the FRY. in April 1999.Humanitarian Intervention www.117 As one scholar notes. “[i]f the intervention was predicated.” Boston University International Law Journal.
1991. Gartner. 1995. Hence. of Political Science. James & Oneal. enhancing national security. and increasing access to energy resources) above all other idealistic or humanitarian concerns.12NFL4. Doing so helps political leaders satisfy the policy demands of the domestic constituency and secure their political future. 1973..g. Chiozza & Goemans. 2003. protecting trade routes. 2003. Ostrom & Job.com
Page 146 of 158
UNILATERAL INTERVENTION IS LIKELY TO BE STRONGLY SELF-INTERESTED Dursun Peksen [Dept.
.” Journal of Peace Research (2011) 48: 455 Unilateral interventions might become detrimental to women’s status by enhancing or protecting repressive regimes in the target state. 2004). 1998. East Carolina University]. Gartner & Segura. the self-motivated intervener countries tend to prioritize their strategic interests (e. Segura & Barratt. Individual states are expected to pursue self-interested ends in most instances and are unlikely to bear unilaterally the full cost of a major foreign military intervention for purely humanitarian purposes (Bueno de Mesquita et al. securing investment interests. Bueno de Mesquita & Siverson. The use of force abroad is costly to leaders of intervener states because of the low toleration of the public for casualties and the high economic and political risks involved in military interventions (Mueller. 2006).victorybriefs. “Foreign Military Intervention and Women’s Rights. 1986.Humanitarian Intervention www. Bueno de Mesquita & Downs.
as of this writing. 90. demonstrates that neither the un nor any major power is willing or prepared to intervene when abusive leaders firmly control the state’s territory and the state’s security forces and are backed by influential allies.12NFL4.com
Page 147 of 158
STATES AND THE UN REMAIN UNWILLING TO ENGAGE IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AGAINST ENTRENCHED GOVERNMENTS LIKE THAT OF SYRIA John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. Furthermore.” Foreign Affairs. The international community’s inaction in the face of attacks on Syrian protesters. although international norms now enshrine civilian protection and levels of violence are down.Humanitarian Intervention www. Although humanitarian intervention can succeed in many cases. it is not always feasible. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. given these constraints. 6 (2011) Still. the concept of civilian protection still competes with deeply held norms of sovereignty. humanitarian interventions remain constrained by political and military realities.victorybriefs. Vol. No. especially in former colonies.
“The Futility of U.org/pubs/pas/pa-209.S. some regions of Somalia were actually producing an agricultural surplus at the time the United States intervened. May 19. scarce economic resources ($1.S. American troops were engaged for several months in a manhunt for "warlord" Mohammad Farah Aideed. <http://www. troops to Somalia in 1992.S.victorybriefs. The search for Aideed was futile and. the worst of the famine was over before American troops arrived. UN. in the end. he cited a humanitarian reason: to feed the starving Somali population. Civil order had broken down.3 billion for the United States alone). It is exceedingly difficult for any outside party. and American credibility were all squandered in the unsuccessful mission. Intervention in Regional Conflicts. to remain impartial during an armed conflict. culminating in a ferocious firefight on October 3.S. military plane carried "political leader" Aideed to a peace conference in Ethiopia only weeks after U. acting alone or in concert with others. In an ironic twist of events. troops strengthened the position of the Christian-dominated regime of President Amin Geymayel at the expense of the other factions. According to many sources.Humanitarian Intervention www.cato. The presence of U. While it is true that Somalis were no longer starving. that cost the lives of 18 Army Rangers. 1993. 209. Again. abandoned. U. 1994. The Cato Institute.S. the United States eventually found itself party to the civil war. Nothing substantial was accomplished.(30) "Mission creep" transformed the objective from easing starvation to "nation building. The Lebanon debacle underscores a larger problem. Street fighting diminished for a time. a U." and no substantive progress was made toward that goal. but even before the American withdrawal in March 1994 it began to resume. no matter how sincere the intention. Despite the simple and narrow focus of the mission. When President Bush sent U. Barbara [foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute]. troops gave up their search. and Somali lives. That point was painfully proven once again in Mogadishu 10 years after Beirut.12NFL4.” Cato Policy Analysis No.com
Page 148 of 158
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOMPLISH IMPARTIALLY Conry. involvement was not impartial.
. and warring factions were using starvation as a weapon against innocent people.html> Indeed. the costs have been tremendous: American. Under the auspices of the United Nations.S.
Management and Resolution should be enlarged to provide for deployment of peacekeeping forces and peace enforcement in circumstances provided in Article 4(h) and (j) of the AU Act (Levitt 2003:115).12NFL4. Given the importance attached to their sovereignty by the relatively young African States. the mandate of the OAU Mechanism for Conflict Prevention. “The end of humanitarian intervention: Evaluation of the African Union’s right of intervention. This point is strengthened by the OAU Secretary-General’s report which recommended that given the failure of the UN to forestall conflicts in Africa and the robust intervention provisions in the AU Act.com MULTILATERIALISM AND REGIONALISM BETTER
Page 149 of 158
AFRICA’S COLONIAL HISTORY MAKES MANY STATES SUSPICIOUS OF FOREIGN INTERVENTION.1 (2010) In light of their colonial experiences. even if it is meant to stop grave human rights abuses.Humanitarian Intervention www. their recent emphasis on the notion of sovereignty as responsibility’ (Deng 1993) and the concomitant policy of non-indifference (Kioko 2003:817) is a quantum leap towards the prevention of serious human rights violations. and thus these states are less inclined to view intervention as legitimate.
. many African and Asian countries have been sceptical about Western justifications for intervention. most of which became independent in the process of decolonisation after World War II. the States from the Southern hemisphere have insisted on UN authorisation as a prerequisite for intervention. Given the experience with mass atrocity crimes on the continent.” African Journal of Conflict Resolution 9. THEREFORE REGIONAL EFFORTS ARE CRUCIAL TO STOPPING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES Dan Kuwali [Fellow. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.victorybriefs. Together with Russia and China. the posture of collective enforcement action with or without authorisation of the UN is easy to explain. Harvard University].
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com
Page 150 of 158
THE FAILURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO ADDRESS SHAMEFUL HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN AFRICA HAS PROMPTED REGIONAL ACTION Dan Kuwali [Fellow, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard University], “The end of humanitarian intervention: Evaluation of the African Union’s right of intervention,” African Journal of Conflict Resolution 9.1 (2010) The UN General Assembly too has endorsed this emerging norm in its 2005 World Summit Outcome document. As UN Members, AU States have also unanimously endorsed that in the face of mass atrocity crimes the international community has a responsibility to protect (R2P) the population, be it with a State’s consent or not. Given this experience, it is obvious that implementing the right to intervene and putting the concept of R2P into practice should be at the heart of African legal, political and decision-making machinery. A ‘sense of shame at the passivity of the international response’ has been hugely important to the evolution of the AU right of intervention with the resultant political commitment of R2P (Williams 2007:23). The inaction of the Security Council in Rwanda in 1994, the codification of enforcement by consent in Article 4(h) is a milestone in the protection of human rights in Africa as the AU may be seen to surmount the potential impasse in the Security Council, towards an independent mechanism to respond to crises in Africa. Rather than a revolution, it is an evolution, because the AU has overturned the non-interference principle of its predecessor the OAU, and declared that Africans can no longer be ‘indifferent’ to mass atrocity crimes on the continent. In this way, claims of sovereignty cannot be a shield against multilateral enforcement action under Article 4(h) of the AU Act.
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com
Page 151 of 158
MULTILATERAL INTERVENTIONS ARE PREFERABLE TO UNILATERAL ONES BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS LIKELY TO ADVANCE A SELF-INTERESTED AGENDA Dursun Peksen [Dept. of Political Science, East Carolina University], “Foreign Military Intervention and Women’s Rights,” Journal of Peace Research (2011) 48: 455 Compared with unilateral interventions, IGO interventions might be less detrimental to women’s status. The collective nature of the military missions will likely mitigate the possibility of adventurism or any one state using the organization’s mission to further its own particular interests (Doyle, Johnstone & Orr, 1997; Doyle & Sambanis, 2000, 2006; Bellamy & Williams, 2005). IGO interventions might therefore hinder any individual state’s attempt to establish an authoritarian, patriarchal political system that is isolated from the global community.
12NFL4- Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs.com
Page 152 of 158
IGO INTERVENTIONS ARE MORE LIKELY TO IMPROVE WOMENS RIGHTS BY INCREASING INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF THE PROBLEM Dursun Peksen [Dept. of Political Science, East Carolina University], “Foreign Military Intervention and Women’s Rights,” Journal of Peace Research (2011) 48: 455 Furthermore, the involvement of multiple countries in IGO military interventions will also increase the international exposure of the extent of women’s rights violations along with other human rights problems in the target state. It will subsequently decrease the target government’s ability to use or tolerate repressive measures against its citizens. This is because the international awareness of poor human rights conditions, including the socio-economic and political treatment of women, increases the level of pressure that the government will face from transnational advocacy groups and international organizations (Sikkink, 1993; Moravcsik, 1995; Keck & Sikkink, 1998; Joachim, 2003; Adams & Kang, 2007; Murdie & Davis, 2011). Therefore, to undermine the pressure and maintain military and diplomatic support from the international community, the government will likely be forced to improve human rights conditions and tolerate less gender-based discrimination.
First. 2004. Most IGO interventions are deployed in countries with a collapsed government and civil society as a result of violent humanitarian crises. 2000: 106 –107. find that the UN-led multilateral military missions are more successful in promoting democratic freedoms in comparison to the ‘liberal’ interventions by France. Furthermore. on the other hand. Finnemore.
. an attempt by an IGO to restore political order and establish a functioning government might create opportunities for the advancement of women’s rights. Rothchild & Cousens. Call & Wyeth. Finnemore. In addition. 2005. 2003. 1993.” Journal of Peace Research (2011) 48: 455 Although the data analysis in the following section only tests the direct impact of IGO interventions on women’s status. as they reflect the will of the international community on an impartial basis (Farer. multilateral missions under the aegis of international or regional organizations are more likely to be perceived as normatively legitimate. If so. 2006. 2005. East Carolina University]. the contribution of IGO interventions to the target’s political stability might partially decrease the extent of gender-based discrimination in access to economic and political resources. Hence.Humanitarian Intervention www. Fortna. Pickering & Peceny (2006). IGO-led operations might also indirectly affect women’s wellbeing by promoting stability and peace. see also Ruggie. and the USA. Inglehart & Norris. Beer. Bellamy & Williams. Doyle & Sambanis.. That is. 2006). 2002.victorybriefs. 2000. 2009). Abbot & Snidal. 2001. “Foreign Military Intervention and Women’s Rights. 2003.com
Page 153 of 158
IGO INTERVENTIONS ARE MORE LIKELY TO PRODUCE STABILITY AND DEMOCRACY Dursun Peksen [Dept. 1998). 2006.12NFL4. Bellamy & Williams. a multilateral commitment at the international or regional level to a military mission will enhance the operation capacity of the intervention through burdensharing among the contributor states. Doyle & Sambanis. Great Britain. 2008). the existence of a stable political system with respect for basic human rights and political freedoms in general allows women to be actively involved in socio-economic and political life to promote their rights (Norris & Inglehart. of Political Science. interstate cooperation increases the possibility that adequate military and financial resources will be provided to bear the military and political costs of intervention (Regan. 2003. 2003. 2005) and attaining political stability (Stedman. Existing research shows that IGO interventions are effective in promoting more durable peace (Doyle & Sambanis. i ncluding reforms in the laws and institutions that protect women’s internationally recognized rights. Dobbins et al.
foreignaffairs. 90. 6 (2011) Outside the Balkans. Washington was long irritated by Syrian criticisms of Egypt over its peace treaty with Israel. It took the Arab Spring and the United States' worry about Iran's nuclear program to bring all of these resentments into focus. Assad's reaction to the unrest has primarily been to apply more force.” Foreign Affairs. but as yet there is no sign that their words. or those from any other quarter. and by Syria's own prolonged military presence in Lebanon. on occasion. European powers. U. Why Washington Didn't Intervene In Syria Last Time: Comparing 1982 to 2012. the Philippines (1978–81). However. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs from 1983-1989]. ambassador to Mauritania (1971–74). the un quickly authorized an 11. by Damascus' support for Iranian nurturing of Hezbollah and Hamas.12NFL4. it will be by leadership guaranteeing a multiparty political structure and a foreign policy free of Iranian influence. Russia and China vetoed a draft United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Syria that would have given a measure of hope to the opposition and pause to the regime. Syria (1974–78). There have been defections from the Syrian military. however. after a referendum on East Timor’s secession from Indonesia led to Indonesian atrocities against Timorese civilians. are having an impact.com
Page 154 of 158
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY SUCCESSFUL AS MORE REGIONAL FORCES HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED AS PEACEKEEPERS John Western [Associate Professor of International Relations at Mount Holyoke College] and Joshua S. Over the last 40 years. and Côte d’Ivoire used a similar model of deploying a regional military force in coordination with the UN and. [U. the Assad family built a reputation for safeguarding the country's minorities and for providing a predictable (if repressed) life for Syrians. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have spoken out repeatedly against Syria's repression of its own citizens. unless these increase massively or there is a coup from within the Syrian military ranks. The intervention eventually produced an independent East Timor at peace with Indonesia. very much in question.Humanitarian Intervention www.victorybriefs. policymakers must keep clearly in mind that the regime has its supporters in all walks of life and across Syria's religious communities. the international community continued to adapt its approach to conflicts with similar success. Goldstein [Professor Emeritus of International Relations at American University]. But U.S.000-strong Australian-led military force to end the violence. Washington is helping shape a more coherent political opposition.
SYRIA INTERVENTION IN SYRIA WOULD LEAD TO PROLONGED CONFRONTATION AND BLOODSHED Murphy. Foreign Affairs.S. and that to train an effective military force to confront that of his regime would be time-consuming and difficult. Later missions in Sierra Leone. and Saudi Arabia (1981–83).
.com/articles/137341/richardw-murphy/why-washington-didnt-intervene-in-syria-last-time?page=2#> Washington hopes that whenever the Assad regime is replaced. He benefits from the fact that the Syrian opposition remains highly fragmented. <http://www. Its policies have created both resistance to change and inertia. Liberia. In 1999. “Humanitarian Intervention Comes of Age: Lessons from Somalia to Libya. No. the prospect of prolonged confrontation and bloodshed in Syria is likely. What Washington can do to advance those goals is.S. Vol. Richard W.
Dmitri [Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center]. but that work has not even started. the conflict in Syria. Syria. with some of its leaders suspected of having links to al Qaeda. Russia’s material interests in Syria are real. Russian government officials and commentators close to them explain Western behavior in rather cynical terms: Washington let go of a long-time ally.contracts for military arms and railroad contracts -. however.com US INTERVENTION IN SYRIA WILL SOUR US-RUSSIA RELATIONS
Page 155 of 158
Trenin. February 5.victorybriefs. But these shared interests are not the only reasons why Russia has been unwilling to join the West in condemning Assad at the UN Security Council. the war’s long agony resulted in a number of deaths among civilians. What was billed as a revolution seemed to many in Moscow to be a civil war that replaced a dictatorship with chaos. where much of the Western world now sees a case for human rights and democracy. Syria’s ally. Russia has had to extend credit to Syria and forgive Damascus its multibillion-dollar debt to the Soviet Union. It also has been unable to control Qaddafi’s abandoned arsenals.foreignaffairs. with the Assad regime’s Alawite core coming under attack from mainly Sunni opposition. Iran. vicious as the Qaddafi government may have been. 2012. the sectarian violence in Iraq. as once feared. Russia's Line in the Sand on Syria: Why Moscow Wants To Halt the Arab Spring. too. http://www. As strategists in Moscow see it. and the aborted revolution in Bahrain are the proxy battlefields where the struggle for regional primacy is being fought. is already being drawn into the fray. above all in Lebanon but also in Jordan and Iraq. Mubarak. then in Tripoli and in Qaddafi strongholds such as Sirte. which was meant to prevent an impending massacre in Benghazi.but it certainly did not want to be seen as Muammar alQaddafi’s defender. Damascus continues to purchase a wide range of Russian arms. The Russian government wanted to help its partners in the United States and Europe. from tanks to aircraft and air defenses.Humanitarian Intervention www. he offered to build a nuclear reactor in Syria. is different. arms traders. As Moscow sees it. When Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited Damascus in 2010. In order to sell its armaments. And so far. thus allowing the adoption of the resolution calling for a no-fly zone over Libya.12NFL4. Recent events in Syria and Bahrain have caused the regional divide between Sunnis and Shiites to become more pronounced. heralding a possible clash between Saudi Arabia and Iran. As a result. if not so much in Benghazi.com/articles/137078/dmitri-trenin/russias-line-in-the-sand-onsyria?page=show Syria somewhat bucked this trend: Its continued relationship with post-Soviet Russia was largely due to the fact that Syria needed arms and Assad did not trust the United States. A civil war there. which it last used a few weeks ago. Foreign Affairs. Syria is Bahrain in reverse -. But Libya has always been peripheral to Middle Eastern geopolitics. or even preserve unity in its own ranks.a Sunni majority that feels oppressed by a relatively small sect that many believe is closer to the Shiites. the new Libyan regime has proved far less secular than the one it replaced. whom Russia needs for its plans for economic modernization. though limited. As Russian officials argued. And Moscow maintains a naval resupply facility at the Syrian port of Tartus. waged a war in Libya to
. when the Russian navy’s only aircraft carrier was sailing from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. could unsettle the entire region. the foreign militaries that intervened bear at least some responsibility for those deaths. Israel. and diplomats and senior members of the Assad regime. which has in effect already begun. These bilateral interests are supported by the personal connections between Russian military officers. most observers in Moscow today see geopolitics. To be sure. in order to retain influence in Egypt. Moscow has learned its lesson from how events unfolded in Libya last year. may be affected should Damascus encourage Palestinian militants or Hezbollah fighters to attack Israeli settlements or outposts. Today. but Syria does not represent a big or particularly lucrative market for these exports. Russia did have some material interests in Libya -. and where the Soviets in their day would have spotted national liberation movements or the rise of the masses. It abstained during the crucial UN vote on intervention in Libya. The NATO no-fly zone soon led to an offshore war against the Qaddafi regime.
.S. Fifth Fleet is based there.com
Page 156 of 158
keep oil contracts. but they do not want to bandwagon on a U.Humanitarian Intervention www.S.victorybriefs. the United States is trying to topple Assad to rob Iran of its sole ally in the Arab world.12NFL4. And now. and ignored the Saudi intervention in Bahrain because the U. The Russians themselves have no dogs in these fights. regional strategy that they believe is a losing and dangerous proposition.
victorybriefs. “The Futility of U.
. Barbara [foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute]."(6) Since the end of the Cold War. when Soviet expansionism was a factor and one faction in a conflict might be an ally or surrogate of the Soviet Union.” Cato Policy Analysis No. 1994.html> There is widespread acknowledgement that most regional conflicts do not represent an intrinsic threat to America's national security."(5) Indeed. with no viable and aggressive major expansionist power. and Bosnia should not be viewed as jeopardizing the nation's security.S.com US STRATEGIC INTERESTS
Page 157 of 158
NO STRATEGIC INTEREST IN INTERVENTION—REGIONAL CONFLICT POSE NO SECURITY THREAT TO THE US Conry. one of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's top aides conceded that "it takes some sophistication to see how Vietnam automatically involves [our vital interests]. Haiti. Referring to Vietnam. even more "sophistication" is required to connect remote regional conflicts with American security.cato. Even the interventionist-minded Clinton administration does not claim that regional wars are a direct threat to American vital interests. regional conflicts should not "detract from our ability to concentrate on the strategic priorities. <http://www.org/pubs/pas/pa-209. America's most ambitious intervention since World War II. and officials have been quick to point out that foreign policy failures in Somalia. Intervention in Regional Conflicts.Humanitarian Intervention www. 209. May 19. The Cato Institute. that thinking prevailed even during the Cold War.12NFL4. As Secretary of State Warren Christopher has cautioned.
cato.(11) "Peace is not the normal state of affairs. 1994. May 19.S.victorybriefs. However.(13) The conflicts in Ethiopia. Nicaragua. Unless Washington chooses to intervene.com GLOBAL INSTABILITY IS NOT A THREAT TO THE US
Page 158 of 158
Conry. bipolar Cold War era.” Cato Policy Analysis No. In Jonathan Clarke's words. Global instability is not unique to the post-Cold War era. “The Futility of U. The United States has always survived the disorder and instability that are endemic to the state system without serious economic or strategic repercussions. an international system of sovereign states is by its very nature unstable. India-Pakistan. But a policy that erroneously views global stability as essential to American security would force the United States to expend enormous resources in pursuit of an unattainable objective. vital interests and national security." concedes former assistant secretary of state Elliott Abrams. Sri Lanka. and El Salvador were only a few of the regional wars that raged.(12) Indeed.html> There is no compelling evidence that global instability per se is or ever has been a threat to American national security. Intervention in Regional Conflicts.(14)
. although it has become more pronounced.org/pubs/pas/pa-209. The militarized pursuit of global stability would exact costs that greatly outweighed any benefits it might confer.12NFL4. Angola. That has always been true--even during the relatively quiescent. Clearly. regional conflicts could and did occur. 209. The Cold War was more stable than the periods that immediately preceded and followed it. the most fundamental objective of foreign policy must be to protect U. thereby incurring risks. there is no regional upheaval that would seriously imperil American interests in the foreseeable future. Barbara [foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute]. The Cato Institute. <http://www. Equilibrium in the international system is not a natural or automatically realized phenomenon.Humanitarian Intervention www. Chad. "The history books burgeon with the records of major conflagrations" that occurred during the Cold War.S.