Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:16:35.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The concept of intervention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2013

CHRISTIAN REUS-SMIT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the end of the Cold War, the number of books and articles on intervention in world politics has grown dramatically. Yet curiously little of this work subjects the concept of intervention itself to critical scrutiny. Scholars often preface their analyses with definitional discussions about what intervention is, but these definitions take a common form, conceiving intervention within a ‘sovereignty frame’. This article questions this conception of intervention, arguing that it distorts our understanding of interventionary practices and forms of reasoning that occurred in non-sovereign international orders. After exploring the sovereignty framing of intervention in greater detail, I advance an alternative conception. International orders are systemic configurations of political authority: they comprise multiple units of such authority, each with its own realm of jurisdiction, organised according to some principle of differentiation. Importantly, this principle need not be territorial: it could be functional, for example. International intervention is the transgression of a unit's realm of jurisdiction, conducted by other units in the system. Unlike the sovereign framing of intervention, this conception is equally applicable to the interventionary ideas and practices of diverse international orders, and provides a better basis on which to understand how thinkers in different historical contexts have reasoned about intervention.

Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 39 , Issue 5: Intervention and the Ordering of the Modern World , December 2013 , pp. 1057 - 1076
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2013 

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

1 I have discussed this issue at length with respect to identifying the existence of the politics of individual rights. See Reus-Smit, Christian, Individual Rights and the Making of the International System (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 45–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Bull, Hedley, ‘Introduction’, in Bull, Hedley (ed.), Intervention in World Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 2Google Scholar.

3 See Ibid., p. 1; and Krasner, Stephen D., ‘Sovereignty and Intervention’, in Lyons, Gene M. and Mastanduno, Michael (eds), Beyond Westphalia: State Sovereignty and International Intervention (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 229Google Scholar.

4 Rosalyn Higgins, ‘Intervention and International Law’, in Bull (ed.), Intervention in World Politics, p. 31.

5 This is how the principle of non-intervention is worded in Article 2.4 of the Charter of the United Nations. Available at: {http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml} accessed 4 December 2012.

6 Gene M. Lyons and Michael Mastanduno, ‘Introduction: International Intervention, State Sovereignty, and the Future of International Society’, in Lyons and Mastanduno (eds), Beyond Westphalia, p. 10.

7 Ibid., p. 12.

8 Ibid., p. 15. Lyons and Mastanduno express here an argument first articulated by Stephen Krasner in his ‘Westphalia and All That’, in Goldstean, Judith and Keohane, Robert O. (eds), Ideas and Foreign Policy (Ithaca: Cornell Univeristy Press, 1993), pp. 66–94Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., p. 15.

10 Ibid., p. 264.

11 Stowell, Ellery, Intervention in International Law (Washington DC: John Byrne & Co., 1921), p. 53Google Scholar.

12 Holzgrefe, J. L., ‘The Humanitarian Intervention Debate’, in Holzgrefe, J. L. and Keohane, Robert O. (eds), Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Abiew, Francis Kofi, The Evolution of the Doctrine and Practice of Humanitarian Intervention (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp. 30–1Google Scholar.

14 Welsh, Jennifer M., ‘Introduction’, in Welsh, Jennifer M. (ed.), Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 3Google Scholar.

15 Weiss, Thomas G., Humanitarian Intervention (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007), p. 18Google Scholar.

16 Roberts, Adam, ‘The So-Called “Right” of Humanitarian Intervention’, in Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Volume Three (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser, 2002), pp. 3–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Marc Trachtenberg, ‘Intervention in Historical Perspective’, Unpublished Manuscript (23 January 1993), p. 3.

18 Ibid.

19 Hui, Victoria Tin-bor, ‘Problematizing Sovereignty: Relative Sovereignty in the Historical Transformation of Interstate and State-Society Relations’, in Davis, Michael C., Dietrich, Wolfgang, Scholdan, Bettina, and Sepp, Dieter (eds), International Intervention in the Post-Cold War World: Moral Responsibility and Power Politics (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2004), p. 83Google Scholar.

20 Ibid., pp. 87–94.

21 Ibid., pp. 94–8.

22 I use the term ‘international order’ broadly here, encompassing all political orders characterised by: (a) multiple units or centers of political authority, and (b) ‘systems effects’ that are not reducible to individual units or centers. On ‘systems effects’, see Jervis, Robert, Systems Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

23 Ruggie, John Gerard, ‘Continuity and Transformation’, World Politics, 35:2 (1983), p. 2Google Scholar.

24 Keene, Edward, Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Ruggie, John Gerard, ‘Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations’, International Organization, 47:1 (1993), p. 150CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Friedrich Kratochwil, ‘Sovereignty as Dominium: Is there a Right of Humanitarian Intervention?’, in Lyons and Mastanduno (eds), Beyond Westphalia, p. 22.

27 Ibid.

28 Finnemore, Martha, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004), p. 10Google Scholar.

29 Bull, The Anarchical Society, ch. 1.

30 On the constitutional structures of international orders, see Reus-Smit, Christian, The Moral Purpose of the State (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; and Philpott, Daniel, Revolutions in Sovereignty (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

31 Wight, Martin, Power Politics (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986), p. 197Google Scholar.

32 Skinner, Quentin, Visions of Politics, Vol.1: Regarding Method (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 149–50Google Scholar.

33 See, for example, David's Rodogno's short survey of pre-modern and early-modern ideas about humanitarian intervention that precedes his otherwise excellent study of intervention in the nineteenth century. Rodogno, David, Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815–1914 (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012), pp. 4–8Google Scholar.

34 This is evident in Recchia and Welsh's emphasis on two questions they see as animating writers from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries: what is the legitimate basis of intervention, and what is the likely impact of intervention and what are the associated risks? Missing here is any explicit interest in the very different politico-spatial assumptions that informed such historically disparate authors. See Recchia, Stefano and Welsh, Jennifer, ‘Introduction: The Enduring Relevance of Classical Thinkers’, in Recchia, and Welsh, (eds), Just and Unjust Military Interventions: European Thinkers from Vitoria to Mill (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 15–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar (typescript).

35 William Bain, ‘Vitoria: The Laws of War, Saving the Innocent, and the Image of God’, in Recchia and Welsh (eds), Just and Unjust Military Interventions, pp. 120–7 (typescript).

36 Koskenniemi, Martti, ‘Empire and International Law: The Real Spanish Contribution’, University of Toronto Law Journal, 61:1 (2011), pp. 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Ibid., p. 28.

38 Ibid.

39 Vitoria, Francisco de, ‘On the American Indians (De Indis)’, in Pagden, Anthony and Lawrance, Jeremy (eds), Vitoria: Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 238CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 ‘Christ, after all, undoubtedly had spiritual power over the whole world, over unbelievers as much at the faithful, and could enact laws which were universally binding, as He did in the case of baptism and articles of Faith; yet the pope does not have that power over unbelievers, nor can he excommunicate them, or prevent them from marrying within the degrees of consanguinity prohibited by divine law.’ Ibid., p. 261.

41 Ibid., p. 253.

42 Vitoria, Franciso de, ‘On the Power of the Church (De Potestate Ecclesiae Prior)’, in Pagden, Anthony and Lawrance, Jeremy (eds), Vitoria: Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 92–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Vitoria, Francisco de, ‘On the Law of War (De Iure Belli)’, in Pagden, Anthony and Lawrance, Jeremy (eds), Vitoria: Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 301CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Vitoria, Francisco de, ‘On Civil Power (De Potestate Civili)’, in Pagden, Anthony and Lawrance, Jeremy (eds), Vitoria: Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University, Press, 1991), pp. 30–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Vitoria, ‘On the Law of War (De Iure Belli)’, p. 302.

46 Vitoria, ‘On the American Indians (De Indis)’, p. 252.

47 Vitoria, , ‘On Law’, in Pagden, Anthony and Lawrance, Jeremy (eds), Vitoria: Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 169CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Vitoria, ‘On the American Indians (De Indis)’, p. 278.

49 Ibid., p. 250.

50 Ibid., p. 248.

51 Ibid., p. 246.

52 Ibid., p. 251.

53 Ibid., p. 265.

54 Ibid., p. 260.

55 Ibid., pp. 262–3.

56 Vitoria, Francisco de, ‘On the Law of War (De Iure Belli)’, in Pagden, Anthony and Lawrance, Jeremy (eds), Vitoria: Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 301CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Vitoria, ‘On the American Indians (De Indis)’, p. 278.

58 Ibid., p. 283.

59 Ibid., p. 278.

60 Ibid., p. 272.

61 Ibid., p. 288.

62 Ibid.

63 Ibid.

64 On this secularised discouse, see Barnett, Michael, Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; and Simms, Brendan and Trim, D.J.B. (eds), Humanitarian Intervention: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 See, for example, Bass, Gary J., Freedom's Battle: The Origin of Humanitarian Intervention (New York: Vintage Books, 2008)Google Scholar; Rodogno, Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in the Ottoman Empire, 1815–1914; and Simms and Trim (eds), Humanitarian Intervention.