Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:02:15.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Outlawing war is not enough to promote international peace: The ambivalence of liberal interventionism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2018

ANNA GEIS
ANNA GEIS*
Affiliation:
Helmut Schmidt University Hamburg, Institute of International Politics, Holstenhofweg 85, 22043 Hamburg, Germany
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Why has interstate war declined and why do states refrain from territorial conquests in the post-Second World War order? The 1928 Peace Pact cannot account for these remarkable developments. This article argues that outlawing war is not enough to promote international peace. International Relations debates on the influence of weapons of mass destruction, democratic regime types and political cultures on interstate behaviour provide further important insights into the delegitimation of certain types of war. Since the 1990s, a changing character of war and warfare has emerged that is especially promoted by democratic states. How democratic states have justified their military use of force and how they have conducted their military interventions has a strong and ambivalent impact on the liberal world order.

Keywords

democratic peacejustification of warliberal interventionismliberal world ordernuclear deterrence
Type
Special Articles
Information
Global Constitutionalism , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , November 2018 , pp. 342 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Acharya, Amitav. 2014. The End of American World Order. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Art, Robert J. and Cronin, Patrick M.. 2007. “Coercive Diplomacy.” In Leashing the Dogs of War, edited by Crocker, Chester A., Hampson, Fen Osler and Aall, Pamela, 299–318. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace.Google Scholar
Blair, Tony. 1999. “Address to the Economic Club in Chicago on 24 April, 1999.” Available at <http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page1297>..>Google Scholar
Chandler, David. 2017. Peacebuilding: The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1997–2017. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunne, Tim and Flockhart, Trine (eds). 2013. Liberal World Orders. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunoff, Jeffrey, Wiener, Antje, Kumm, Mattias, Lang, Anthony and Tully, James. 2015. “Hard Times: Progress Narratives, Historical Contingency and the Fate of Global Constitutionalism.” Global Constitutionalism 4(1):1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 2004. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Geis, Anna and Wagner, Wolfgang. 2011. “How Far Is It from Königsberg to Kandahar? Democratic Peace and Democratic Violence in International Relations.” Review of International Studies 37(4):1555–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geis, Anna and Wunderlich, Carmen. 2014. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Comparing the Notions of ‘Rogue’ and ‘Evil’ in International Politics.” International Politics 51(4):458–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geis, Anna, Müller, Harald and Schörnig, Niklas. 2013. “Liberal Democracies as Militant ‘Forces for Good’: A Comparative Perspective.” In The Janus Face of Liberal Democracies: Militant ‘Forces for Good’, edited by Geis, Anna, Müller, Harald and Schörnig, Niklas, 307–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geller, Daniel. 2017. “Nuclear Weapons and International Conflict: Theories and Empirical Evidence.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Available at <http://politics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-347>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hathaway, Oona A., Holste, William, Shapiro, Scott J., Van De Velde, Jacqueline and Wang, Lisa. 2017. War Manifestos Database. Available at <http://documents.law.yale.edu/manifestos>..>Google Scholar
Hathaway, Oona A. and Shapiro, Scott J.. 2017a. The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Hathaway, Oona A. and Shapiro, Scott J.. 2017b. “What Realists Don’t Understand About Law.” Foreign Policy (9 October). Available at <https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/09/what-realists-dont-understand-about-law/>.Google Scholar
Havercroft, Jonathan, Wiener, Antje, Kumm, Mattias and Dunoff, Jeffrey. 2018. “Editorial: Donald Trump as Global Constitutional Breaching Experiment.” Global Constitutionalism 7(1):1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, Regina, Kahl, Martin and Pisoiu, Daniela. 2012. “The ‘Dark Side’ of Normative Argumentation – The Case of Counterterrorism Policy.” Global Constitutionalism 1(2):278–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ish-Shalom, Piki. 2013. Democratic Peace: A Political Biography. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1988. “The Political Effects of Nuclear Weapons: A Comment.” International Security 13(2):80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumm, Mattias, Havercroft, Jonathan, Dunoff, Jeffrey and Wiener, Antje. 2017. “Editorial: The End of ‘the West’ and the Future of Global Constitutionalism.” Global Constitutionalism 6(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Louise Wiuff. 2018. “Counter-insurgency in the Somali Territories: The ‘Grey Zone’ between Peace and Pacification.” International Affairs 94(2):319–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, John. 1989. Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mueller, John. 1991. “Is War Still Becoming Obsolete?” Paper presented at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC (29 August–1 September). Available at <https://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/apsa1991.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Müller, Harald and Wolff, Jonas. 2006. ‘‘Democratic Peace: Many Data, Little Explanation?” In Democratic Wars, edited by Geis, Anna, Brock, Lothar and Müller, Harald, 41–73. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Harald and Wunderlich, Carmen (eds). 2013. Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Rauchhaus, Robert. 2009. “Evaluating the Nuclear Peace Thesis.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 53(2):258–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1995. “Democratic Peace – Warlike Democracies? A Social Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Argument.” European Journal of International Relations 1(4):491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory.” American Political Science Review 97(4):585–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, Bruce M. and Oneal, John. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Sauer, Frank. 2015. Atomic Anxiety: Deterrence, Taboo and the Non-Use of U.S. Nuclear Weapons. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2001. “The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union.” International Organization 55(1):47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schörnig, Niklas, Müller, Harald and Geis, Anna. 2013. ‘‘The Empirical Study of ‘Democratic Wars’: Methodology and Methods.” In The Janus Face of Liberal Democracies: Militant ‘Forces for Good’, edited by Geis, Anna, Müller, Harald and Schörnig, Niklas, 24–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth A. 2001. Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strachan, Hew and Scheipers, Sibylle (eds). 2013. The Changing Character of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tannenwald, Nina. 2007. The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Wolfgang, Werner, Wouter and Onderco, Michal (eds). 2014. Deviance in International Relations: ‘Rogue States’ and International Security. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 2017. “There’s Still No Reason to Think the Kellogg-Briand Pact Accomplished Anything.” Foreign Policy (29 September). Available at <https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/29/theres-still-no-reason-to-think-the-kellogg-briand-pact-accomplished-anything/>.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar