Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:08:02.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a Realist Ethics of Intervention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2012

Michael Wesley
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the September 11 attacks, a new security agenda has swept aside much of the old sensitivity and apathy about intervening in “failing” states. The war on terror has redefined “governance” from concentrating on issues of economic viability and popular rights to a focus on the capacity of states to generate sufficient “order” to deter or capture the agents of the new transnational security threats: terrorists, smugglers, money launderers, the carriers of zoonotic disease. As part of this process, the governance standards of other states became part of Western states' own security agendas, generating new, self-interested incentives for aid and intervention. In this article, I explore the possibilities for developing a realist-informed normative framework for humanitarian intervention in the context of the post–September 11international concern with transnational threats.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Ethics & International Affairs , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , September 2005, pp. 55 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 See, e.g., Chesterman, Simon, Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001Google Scholar); Chatterjee, Deen K. and Scheid, Don E., eds., Ethics and Foreign Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003Google Scholar); Hoffmann, Stanley, The Ethics and Politics of Humanitarian Intervention (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997Google Scholar); Holzgrefe, J. L. and Keohane, Robert O., eds., Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar); and Laberge, Pierre, “Humanitarian Intervention: Three Ethical Positions,” Ethics it? International Affairs 9 (1995), pp. 15–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See, e.g., Wheeler, Nicholas J., Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001Google Scholar).

3 The 2003 invasion of Iraq, even though partially justified by concern for the Iraqi people and committed to reconstructing Iraq's institutions of governance, was undertaken for predominantly strategic reasonsGoogle Scholar.

4 Although Linklater, Andrew, in his Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar), points out that jurists and philosophers have discussed such issues since the early modern period.

5 see Hobbes, Thomas, The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic (London: Cass, 1969Google Scholar), Part I; and Hume, David, A Treatise of Human Nature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978Google Scholar), Book III.

6 Machiavelli, Niccolò, The Prince, W. K. Marriott (London,: Dent, 1958Google Scholar).

7 see Walzer, Michael, “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 2, no. 2 (1973), pp. 163–64Google Scholar; Gaus, Gerald F., “Dirty Hands,” in Frey, R. G. and Wellman, Christopher Heath, eds., A Companion to Applied Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), pp. 167–79Google Scholar; Coady, C. A. J., “Politics and the Problem of Dirty Hands,” in Singer, Peter, ed., A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), pp. 373–83Google Scholar; and Hollis, Martin, “Dirty Hands,” British Journal of Political Science 12 (1982), pp. 385–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Wight, Martin, Systems of States (London,: Leicester University Press, 1977Google Scholar).

9 Schmitt, Carl, The Concept of the Political, trans. George Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996Google Scholar).

10 See, e.g., Wolfers, Arnold, Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962), pp. 47–65Google Scholar.

11 Inis, L.Claude, Jr., “Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations,” International Organization 20, no. 3 (1966), pp. 367 – 79Google Scholar.

12 Nye, Joseph S. Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (Washington,, D.C.: PublicAffairs, 2004Google Scholar).

13 Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society (London,: Macmillan, 1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Bull and his followers distinguish an attentiveness to principles of international order from the “Hobbesian” realist position in international relations, yet fail to provide any convincing evidence that realists have little regard for these issues.

14 See Bull, Hedley, ed., Intervention in World Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984Google Scholar); and Wheeler, Saving Strangers..

15 See Schwarzenberger, Georg, Power Politics: A Study of International Society (London: Stevens and Sons, 1951), pp. 218–32Google Scholar.

16 Freedman, Lawrence and Karsh, Efraim, The Gulf Conflict 1990–1991: Diplomacy and War in the New World Order (London,: Faber and Faber, 1993Google Scholar).

17 Jackson, Robert H., Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge,: Cambridge University Press, 1990Google Scholar).

18 The exception, of course, was France, which continued to consider itself bound by ongoing responsibilities toward its former colonies, especially in West Africa, and to intervene in their affairsGoogle Scholar.

19 Jackson, , Quasi-States , p. 196Google Scholar.

20 see Stephen, Krasner, “Power Structures and Regional Development Banks,” International Organization 35, no. 2 (1981), pp. 303 – 28Google Scholar.

21 Hogan, Michael J., The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947–1952 (Cambridge,: Cambridge University Press, 1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

22 A minor exception is the rise of government-funded programs, such as the Peace Corps, and civil society organizations, such as Oxfam, but these have never matched the scale or impact of Marshall Plan involvementGoogle Scholar.

23 World Bank, World Development Report 1997 (Washington,, D.C.: World Bank, 1997Google Scholar).

24 Toye, John, Dilemmas of Development (Oxford,: Black-well, 1987Google Scholar).

25 Easterly, William, “The Lost Decades: Developing Countries Stagnation in Spite of Policy Reform,” Journal of Economic Growth 6, no. 2 (2001), pp. 135 – 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Fukuyama, Francis, State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century (Ithaca,: Cornell University Press, 2004), p. 5Google Scholar.

27 Camdessus, Michel, “The IMF at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: Can We Establish a Humanized Globalization ?” Global Governance 7, no. 4 (1997), p. 364Google Scholar.

28 see Kiely, Ray, “Neoliberalism Revised? A Critical Account of World Bank Concepts of Good Governance and Market Friendly Intervention,” Capital and Class 64 (Spring 1998), pp. 63 – 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Soederberg, Susanne, “The Emperor's New Suit: The New International Financial Architecture as a Reinvention of the Washington Consensus,” Global Governance 7, no. 4 (2001), pp. 453–67Google Scholar.

29 Gaddis, John Lewis, The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War (New York,: Oxford University Press, 1987Google Scholar).

30 Examples include Iran in 1953, Chile in 1973, and Nicaragua in 1979Google Scholar.

31 Kirkpatrick, Jeane J., Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and Reason in Politics (New York,: Simon & Schuster, 1982Google Scholar).

32 see Mann, James, The Rise of the Vulcans (New York: Penguin Books, 2004Google Scholar), ch. 8, for an account of the development of concern for democracy and human rights as part of the conservative agenda in the United States.

33 Mead, Walter Russell, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (New York,: Routledge, 2002Google Scholar).

34 see Michael, W.Doyle, , “Liberalism and World Politics,” American Political Science Review 80, no. 4 (1986), pp. 1151 – 69Google Scholar.

35 See, e.g., Muravchik, Joshua, Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America's Destiny (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute Press, 1991Google Scholar).

36 see Hulsman, John C., A Paradigm for the New World Order (Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

37 Lake, Anthony, “From Containment to Enlargement,” Vital Speeches of the Day 60, no. 1 (1993), p. 17Google Scholar.

38 See, e.g., Fukuyama, Francis, The End of History and the Last Man (London: Penguin Books, 1992Google Scholar); and Muravchik, Exporting Democracy.

39 see Packenham, Robert, Liberal America and the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973Google Scholar).

40 Call, Charles T. and Cook, Susan E., “On Democratization and Peacebuilding,” Global Governance 9, no. 2 (2003), p. 235Google Scholar.

41 see Woodward, Bob, Plan of Attack (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004Google Scholar).

42 see Linz, Juan J. and Stepan, Alfred, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996Google Scholar).

43 Jackson, , Quasi-States , p. 152Google Scholar.

44 Donnelly, Jack, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (Ithaca,: Cornell University Press, 1989Google Scholar).

45 Vincent, R. J., Human Rights and International Relations (Cambridge,: Cambridge University Press, 1986Google Scholar).

46 Gutman, Roy, A Witness to Genocide (Shaftsbury, U.K.: Element, 1993Google Scholar); and Sonyel, Salahi Ramadan, The Muslims of Bosnia: The Genocide of a People (Markfield, U.K.: The Islamic Foundation, 1994Google Scholar).

47 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa,: IDRC, 2001Google Scholar).

48 Wesley, Michael, Casualties of the New World Order: The Causes of Failure of UN Missions to Civil Wars (Basingstoke, U.K.: Macmillan, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

49 Lake, “From Containment to Enlargement,” p. 17Google Scholar.

50 Ayoob, Mohammed, “Third World Perspectives on Humanitarian Intervention and International Administration,” Global Governance 10, no. 1 (2004), pp. 99 – 118Google Scholar.

51 Kosovo's effective independence from Serbia under the autonomy framework of the Rambouillet Accords is unlikely ever to be transformed into statehood; in the case of East Timor, the UN intervention occurred after the formal vote for independence from IndonesiaGoogle Scholar.

52 A good example of this can be seen by tracing the history of the various international peace plans for Bosnia and the Dayton Accords, all of which insisted that Bosnia would be reconstituted as a functioning multiethnic democracy; see Wesley, Casualties of the New World Order.Google Scholar.

53 See, e.g., World Bank, World Development Report 1997; and Rosenau, James N. and Czempiel, Ernst-Otto, eds., Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

54 United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Report,” London, U.K., May 2003, p. 3Google Scholar.

55 Fukuyama, State Building, p. xiGoogle Scholar.

56 See, e.g., Elsina, Wainwright, “Responding to State Failure: The Case of Australia and the Solomon Islands,” Australian Journal of International Affairs 57, no. 3 (2003), p. 489Google Scholar.

57 Haass, Richard N., “The Changing Nature of Sovereignty,” speech given to the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington,, D.C., January 14, 2003Google Scholar.

58 Government of Australia, “Advancing the National Interest: Australia's Foreign and Trade Policy White Paper,” Canberra, April 2003Google Scholar.

59 Barnett, Thomas P. M., The Pentagon's New Map (New York,: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 2004), p. 8Google Scholar.

60 John Howard, speech given to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Sydney, Australia, June 18, 2004; available at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech921.html.

61 Haass, “The Changing Nature of Sovereignty.”Google Scholar

62 Elke, Krahmann, “National, Regional and Global Governance: One Phenomenon or Many ?” Global Governance 9, no. 3 (2003), p. 327Google Scholar.

63 see Robert, I.Rotberg, , “Strengthening Governance: Ranking Countries Would Help,” Washington Quarterly 28, no. 1 (2004/05), pp. 71 – 81Google Scholar.

64 China and Russia reacted to September 11, 2001, not by focusing on governance but by emphasizing the great powers common struggle against radical pan-Islamism; see Cohen, Ariel, “Russia, Islam, and the War on Terrorism: An Uneasy Future,” Demokratizatsiya 10, no. 4 (2002), pp. 556–67Google Scholar; and Lutfi, Ahmad, “China's Islamic Awakening,” China Brief 4, no. 10 (2004Google Scholar); available at http://www.jamestown.org/images/pdf/cb_004_010.pdf.

5 Several South Pacific governments, for example, have expressed concern that their legal and bureaucratic systems will be unable to design and enact the required legislation by the deadlines setGoogle Scholar.

66 Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map, pp. 230–33Google Scholar.

67 Hugh White, “Not Hard Cop, Not Soft Cop, But Still Firmly into PNG,”Sydney Morning Herald, September 23, 2003Google Scholar; available at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/22/1064082927285.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true.

68 Foucault saw government as one possible modality of the exercise of power. His discussions of governmentality focus on the reciprocal relationship between governments that specify certain types of behavior and subjects that are variously willing to constitute themselves (as certain “subjectivities”) in ways that complement government preferences. See The Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984, Volume III: Power, ed. Faubion, James D., Hurley, Robert (London: Penguin Press, 1994Google Scholar).

69 Fukuyama, in State Building, draws attention to the cases of Russia and Argentina, which took technocratic advice on economic restructuring only to fall prey to catastrophic financial failures and long-term economic declineGoogle Scholar.

70 Durkheim, Émile, The Division of Labor in Society (New York,: Free Press, 1984CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

71 For example, the almost total dependence of modern societies on information infrastructure and “just-in-time” inventory and production systems is leading to an exponential growth in their exposure to losses should all or a part of their vital infrastructure fail; see, e.g., Lukasik, Stephen J., Goodman, Seymour E., and Longhurst, David W., “Protecting Critical Infrastructures Against Cyber-Attack,” Adelphi Paper no. 359 (London: IISS, 2003Google Scholar). This problem has been somewhat more polemically discussed in Beck, Ulrich, Risk Society, Towards a New Modernity, trans. Ritter, Mark (London: Sage Publications, 1992Google Scholar). My thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

72 Here I emphasize that transnational networks don't only rely on weak governance—transnational criminals and terrorists prefer to route their finances through states with stable institutions of financial governance but low reporting requirementsGoogle Scholar.