Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:37:46.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Just and Unjust Postwar Reconstruction: How Much External Interference Can Be Justified?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

Stefano Recchia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article seeks to reconcile a fundamental normative tension that underlies most international reconstruction efforts in war-torn societies: on the one hand, substantial outside interference in the domestic affairs of such societies may seem desirable to secure political stability, set up inclusive governance structures, and protect basic human rights; on the other hand, such interference is inherently paternalistic—and thus problematic—since it limits the policy options and broader freedom of maneuver of domestic political actors. I argue that for paternalistic interference in foreign countries to be justified, it needs to be strictly proportional to domestic impediments to self-government and basic rights protection. Based on this claim, I model different degrees of interference that are admissible at particular stages of the postwar reconstruction process. Extrapolating from John Rawls's Law of Peoples, I suggest that full-scale international trusteeship can be justified only so long as conditions on the ground remain “outlaw”—that is, so long as security remains volatile and basic rights, including the right to life, are systematically threatened. Once basic security has been reestablished, a lower degree of interference continues to be justified, until new domestic governance structures become entirely self-sustaining. During this second phase of postwar reconstruction, external actors ideally ought to share responsibility for law-enforcement and administration with domestic authorities, which implies in practice that domestic and international officials should jointly approve all major decisions. I discuss various approximations of such shared responsibility in recent international peace operations and speculate about how best to ensure a timely transition toward full domestic ownership.

Type
Postwar Justice and the Responsibility to Rebuild
Information
Ethics & International Affairs , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , Summer 2009 , pp. 165 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 2009

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.)

References

Notes

1 See, e.g., Paris, Roland, At War's End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Caplan, Richard, International Governance of War-torn Territories: Rule and Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Doyle, Michael W.andSambanis, Nicholas, Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 See, e.g., Orend, Brian, “Justice after War”, Ethics & International Affairs 16no.1 (2002), pp. 43–57; Bass, Gary, “Jus Post Bellum”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 32no.3 (2004), pp. 384–412; Feldman, Noah, What We Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation-Building (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004); Iasiello, Louis V., “The Moral Responsibilities of Victors in War”, Naval War College Review 57, (Summer/Fall2004), pp. 33–52; Walzer, Michael, “Just and Unjust Occupations”, Dissent 51, (Winter2004), pp. 61–63; Elshtain, Jean Bethke, “The Ethics of Fleeing: What America Still Owes Iraq”, World Affairs(Spring2008), pp. 91–98; and Bellamy, Alex J., “The Responsibilities of Victory: Jus Post Bellum and the Just War”, Review of International Studies 34no.4 (2008), pp. 601–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 See esp. Orend, “Justice after War”, p. 45; and Williams, RobertandCaldwell, Dan, “Jus Post Bellum: Just War Theory and the Principles of Just Peace”, International Studies Perspectives 7no.4 (2006), p. 316.Google Scholar

4 Ferguson, Niall, Colossus: The Price of America's Empire (New York: Penguin, 2004), pp. 171–73, emphasis in original; see alsoHelman, Gerald B. and Ratner, Steven R., “Saving Failed States”, Foreign Policy 89, (Winter1992–93), pp. 3–20; Indyk, Martin, “A Trusteeship for Palestine”, Foreign Affairs 82 (May/June 2003), pp. 51–66; Fearon, James D.andLaitin, David, “Neotrusteeship and the Problem of Weak States”, International Security 28no.4 (2004), pp. 5–43.Google Scholar

5 See esp. Kant, Immanuel, “The Metaphysics of Morals”, inReiss, Hans, ed., Kant: Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 132–34.Google Scholar

6 Rawls, John, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 85.Google Scholar

7 Locke, John, Second Treatise of Government (Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett Publishing, 1980[1690]), ch. 6; on Locke's argument in support of colonialism, see Tuck, Richard, The Rights of War and Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 166–81; Kant, “On the Common Saying: ‘This May Be True in Theory, but it Does not Apply in Practice”’, inReiss, , ed., Kant: Political Writings, p. 74, emphasis in original.Google Scholar

8 Mill, John Stuart, “Considerations on Representative Government”, inGray, John, ed., On Liberty and Other Essays (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 264.On de Tocqueville, see Pitts, Jennifer, ed., Alexis de Tocqueville: Writings on Empire and Slavery (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).On Mazzini, see Recchia, StefanoandUrbinati, Nadia, eds., A Cosmopolitanism of Nations: Giuseppe Mazzini's Writings on Democracy, Nation Building, and International Relations (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

9 Finnemore, Martha, “Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention”, inKatzenstein, Peter J., ed., The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), p. 172, emphasis in original. For an excellent discussion see alsoHolmes, Stephen, “Making Sense of Liberal Imperialism”, inUrbinati, NadiaandZakaras, Alex, eds., J. S. Mill's Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 298–346.Google Scholar

10 For a thorough discussion based on empirical research see Paris, Roland, “International Peacebuilding and the ‘Mission Civilisatrice, ’” Review of International Studies 28no.4 (2002), pp. 637–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Thompson, Dennis F., “Paternalistic Power”, in Political Ethics and Public Office (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987), pp. 148–49.Google Scholar

12 RawlsLaw of Peoples, p. 93; see alsoHoffmann, Stanley, “The Politics and Ethics of Military Intervention”, Survival 37no.4 (1995), pp. 29–51; and Doyle, Michael W., “The Ethics of Multilateral Intervention”, Theoria 53no.109 (2006), pp. 28–48.Google Scholar

13 Keohane, Robert O., “The Contingent Legitimacy of Multilateralism”, inNewman, Edward, Thakur, Ramesh, andTirman, John, eds., Multilateralism Under Challenge (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2006), p. 61.Google Scholar

14 Habermas, Jürgen, The Divided West (London: Polity, 2006), p. 184.Google Scholar

15 Keohane, Robert O., “Political Authority after Intervention: Gradations in Sovereignty”, inHolzgrefe, J. L.andKeohane, Robert O., eds., Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 280–81.Google Scholar

16 See, e.g., Beitz, Charles, “Rawls's Law of Peoples”, Ethics 110no.4 (2000), pp. 669–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kuper, Andrew, “Rawlsian Global Justice: Beyond the Law of Peoples to a Cosmopolitan Law of Persons”, Political Theory 28no.5 (2000), pp. 640–74; Caney, Simon, Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), ch. 4; and Pogge, Thomas, “Do Rawls's Two Theories of Justice Fit Together” ?inMartin, RexandReidy, David, eds., Rawls's Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia? (London: Blackwell, 2006), ch. 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 See, e.g., Simpson, Gerry, “Two Liberalisms”, European Journal of International Law 12no.3 (2001), pp. 537–71; and Jahn, Beate, “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs”, International Organization 59no.1 (2005), pp. 177–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Rawls, Law of Peoples, p.10; emphasis in original.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., p. 79; see also p. 65Google Scholar

20 Ibid., p. 93, footnote 6, emphasis added. For a more detailed discussion see Shue, Henry, “Rawls and the Outlaws”, Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1no.3 (2002), pp. 307–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Rawls, , Law of Peoples, p. 79.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., p. 93.

22 Ibid.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., p. 95.

25 Ibid., p. 94, footnote 6; see also pp. 93–96more generally.Google Scholar

26 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001), p. 17; see alsoUnited Nations General Assembly, World Summit Outcome, A/RES/60/1, October 24, 2005, § 138 and139.Google Scholar

27 Rawls, , Law of Peoples, p. 77.Google Scholar

28 See, e.g., Barnett, Michael, “Building a Republican Peace”, International Security 30no.4 (2006), pp. 97–101; and Chopra, JaratandHohe, Tanja, “Participatory Intervention”, Global Governance 10no.3 (2004), pp. 298–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Rawls, , Law of Peoples, p. 106.Google Scholar

30 see Jackson, Robert H., Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), ch. 3.Google Scholar

31 See alsoKokaz, Nancy, “Poverty and Global Justice”, Ethics & International Affairs 21no.3 (2007), p. 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Rawls, , Law of Peoples, footnote 16, p. 75.Google Scholar

33 Ibid., p. 111.

34 For a similar argument see Keohane, , “Political Authority after Intervention”, p. 279.Google Scholar

35 Rawls, , Law of Peoples, p. 106and p. 118, emphasis in original.Google Scholar

36 Ibid., p. 108.

37 Ibid., p. 93.

38 Krasner, Stephen D., “Sharing Sovereignty: New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing States”, International Security 29no.2 (2004), p. 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Ibid., p. 115.

40 See, e.g., Recchia, Stefano, “Beyond International Trusteeship: EU Peacebuilding in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Occasional Paper No. 66 (Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies, 2007);available at www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/occ66.pdf.Google Scholar

41 Mill, , On Liberty and Other Essays, p. 394.Google Scholar

42 See Doyle, Michael W., UN Peacekeeping in Cambodia: UNTAC's Civil Mandate (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1995), p. 43.Google Scholar

43 Barbera, Julien, “Antipodean Statebuilding: The Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands and Australian Intervention in the South Pacific”, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 2no.2 (2008), p. 134; see alsoPonzio, Richard, “The Solomon Islands: The UN and Intervention by Coalitions of the Willing”, International Peacekeeping 12no.2 (2005), p. 179.Google Scholar

44 Andersen, Louise, “Outsiders Inside the State: Post-Conflict Liberia Between Trusteeship and Partnership”, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, forthcoming.Google Scholar

45 See http:\\www.oecd.org/pdg.Google Scholar

46 Reno, William, “Anti-Corruption Efforts in Liberia: Are They Aimed at the Right Targets?” International Peacekeeping 15no.3 (2008), pp. 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 See Synder, JackandVinjamuri, Leslie, “Trials and Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice”, International Security 28no.3 (2003), pp. 5–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 For a good overview on the role of hybrid courts in postwar societies, see Dickinson, Laura A., “The Promise of Hybrid Courts”, American Journal of International Law 97no.2 (2003), pp. 295–310.For more specific discussions, see alsoKatzenstein, Suzanne, “Hybrid Tribunals: Searching for Justice in East Timor”, Harvard Human Rights Journal 16 (2003), pp. 245–78; and Serra, Gianluca, “Special Tribunal for Lebanon”, International Criminal Justice Review 18no.3 (2008), pp. 344–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 Marko, Joseph, “Five Years of Constitutional Jurisprudence in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, European Diversity and Autonomy Paper N o. 7 (2004), p. 33; available at www.eurac.edu/edap. See alsoBelloni, Roberto, State Building and International Intervention in Bosnia (New York: Routledge, 2007), pp. 58–72.Google Scholar

50 Macedo, Stephen, “What Self-governing Peoples Owe to One Another: Universalism, Diversity, and the Law of Peoples”, Fordham Law Review 72no.5 (2004), p. 1723, emphasis in original. See alsoWenar, Leif, “Why Rawls is Not a Cosmopolitan Egalitarian”, inMartin, andReidy, , eds., Rawls's Law of Peoples.Google Scholar

51 Barry, Brian, “International Society from a Cosmopolitan Perspective”, inMapel, David R.andNardin, Terry, eds., International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998), p. 160Google Scholar. For similar points of view, see Luban, David, “Just War and Human Rights”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 9no.2 (1980), pp. 160–81; and Téson, Fernando, “The Liberal Case for Humanitarian Intervention”, in, HolzgrefeandKeohane, , eds., Humanitarian Intervention, pp. 93–129.Google Scholar