Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:34:09.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intervention and the ordering of the modern world

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2013

JOHN MACMILLAN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This introductory discussion establishes the notion of intervention as a ‘social practice’ and carves out the contextual and conceptual space for the Special Issue as a whole. The first move is to recontextualise intervention in terms of ‘modernity’ as distinct from the sovereign states system. This shift enables a better appreciation of the dynamic and evolutionary context that generates variation in the practice of intervention over time and space and which is analytically sensitive to the economic and cultural (as well as Great Power) hierarchies that generate rationales for intervention. The second move is to reconceptualise intervention as a specific modality of coercion relatively well-suited to the regulation or mediation of conflict between territorially bounded political communities and transnational social forces. Third is to ‘historicise’ the practice of intervention through showing how it has changed in relation to a range of international orders that have defined the modern world and which are each characterised by a different notion of the relationship between social and territorial space. Fourth and finally is a brief consideration of the possibility of intervention's demise as a social practice.

Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 39 , Issue 5: Intervention and the Ordering of the Modern World , December 2013 , pp. 1039 - 1056
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 See, for example, ICISS (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty), The Responsibility to Protect (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 2001), p. 1Google Scholar; Paris, Roland, At War's End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hameiri, Shahar, Regulating Statehood: State Building and the Transformation of the Global Order (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2010), pp. 20–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Bass, Gary J., Freedom's Battle: The Origin of Humanitarian Intervention (New York: Vintage Books, 2008)Google Scholar; Barnett, Michael, Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Simms, Brendan and Trim, David, Humanitarian Intervention: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rodogno, Davide, Against Massacre: Humanitarian Interventions in The Ottoman Empire 1815–1914 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

3 Bull, Hedley, ‘Preface’, in Bull, Hedley (ed.), Intervention in World Politics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Stanley Hoffmann, ‘The Problem of Intervention’, in Bull, Intervention in World Politics, p. 7. See also Hoffmann, Stanley, ‘The Politics and Ethics of Military Intervention’, in Hoffmann, , World Disorders: Troubled Peace in the Post-Cold War Era (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998), pp. 152–76Google Scholar.

4 See, for example, Kaldor, Mary, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era (2nd edn, Cambridge: Polity, 2006)Google Scholar; Münkler, Herfried, The New Wars (Cambridge: Polity, 2005)Google Scholar; Colás, Alejandro, Empire (Cambridge, 2007)Google Scholar; Darwin, John, After Tamerlane, The Global History of Empire Since 1405 (London: Penguin, 2007)Google Scholar.

5 But for recent work, see Finnemore, Martha, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Weber, Cynthia, Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State, and Symbolic Exchange (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

6 See Stanley Hoffmann, ‘The Problem of Intervention’.

7 For a classic legal definition see Oppenheim, Lassa, International Law: A Treatise, vol. 1. (London: Longman, Green, and Co., 1905), pp. 181–2Google Scholar; for a seminal IR discussion see Vincent, John, Nonintervention and International Order (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974), pp. 3–16Google Scholar; and for contemporary thinking see, for example, Shahar Hameiri, Regulating Statehood, p. 38.

8 Adler, Emanuel and Pouliot, Vincent, ‘International Practices’, International Theory, 3:1 (2011), p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Adler and Pouliot, ‘International Practices’, pp. 6, 24, 29.

10 Vincent, Nonintervention, p. 14.

11 Krasner, Stephen D., Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Adler and Pouliot, ‘International Practices’, p. 5.

13 See Hobson, John M., ‘What's at stake in bringing historical sociology back into international relations? Transcending “chronofetishism” and “tempocentrism” in international relations’, in Hobden, Stephen and Hobson, John M. (eds), Historical Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 16Google Scholar; quote from Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Barry Buzan and George Lawson, ‘The Global Transformation: The Nineteenth Century and the Making of Modern International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly, (2012), p. 2; Giddens, Anthony, The Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity, 1991), p. 63Google Scholar.

15 See, notably, Owen, John M. IV, The Clash of Ideas in World Politics: Transnational Networks, States and Regime Change, 1510–2010 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 See Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Modelski, George, ‘The Long Cycle of Global Politics and the Nation-State’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 20:2 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosecrance, Richard, ‘Long Cycle Theory and International Relations’, International Organization, 41:2 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Arrighi, Giovanni, The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origins of Our Times (London: Verso, 2010)Google Scholar, see especially pp. 371–86; see also Chase-Dunn, Christopher, ‘Interstate System and Capitalist World-Economy: One Logic or Two?’, International Studies Quarterly, 25:1 (1981), pp. 19–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 See, for example, Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wight, Martin, Power Politics (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979)Google Scholar; Lake, David A., ‘Escape from the State of Nature: Authority and Hierarchy in World Politics’, International Security, 32:1 (2007), pp. 47–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clark, Ian, The Hierarchy of States: Reform and Resistance in the International Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 See, for example, Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Modern World System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the World-Economy, 1600–1750 (New York: Academic Press, 1980)Google Scholar and The Modern World System III. The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy 1730–1840s (New York: Academic Press, 1989).

20 See Gong, Gerrit W., The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984)Google Scholar; Keene, Edward, Beyond the Anarchical Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koskenniemi, Martti, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

21 For the role of the Great Powers see in particular Keene, Little, and Woodward below.

22 Bull, ‘Introduction’, Intervention in World Politics, p. 1; Wight, Power Politics, p. 193. For Wight, intervention in a Great Power's external affairs would be at the risk of war. For a more recent influential English School work on intervention see Wheeler, Nicholas J., Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

23 Bull, Anarchical Society, p. 207.

24 Lake, David A., ‘Escape from the State of Nature: Authority and Hierarchy in World Politics’, International Security, 32:1 (2007), p. 52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 See Vincent, Nonintervention and Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention; but see Bull, ‘Introduction’ to Intervention in World Politics.

26 For a recent discussion, see Buzan and Lawson, The Global Transformation, pp. 8–10; for the longer term see Wallerstein cited above and Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Grimes, Peter, ‘World-Systems Analysis’, Annual Review of Sociology, 21 (1995), pp. 387–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also MacMillan and Jones in this Special Issue.

27 See Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention, pp. 24–51.

28 See, in particular, the contributions of Reus-Smit and Shilliam in this Special Issue.

29 See Grovogui, Siba, Sovereigns, Quasi sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self-Determination in International Law (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

30 Keene, Beyond the Anarchical Society; Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations; Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law.

31 See Castlereagh's ‘Memorandum on the Treaties of 1814 and 1815, Aix-la-Chapelle, October 1818’ and ‘The State Paper of 5 May 1820; or the Foundations of British Foreign Policy’, in Temperley, H.W.V and Penson, L. M., Foundations of British Foreign Policy, 1792–1902 (London: Frank Cass, 1966), pp. 34–63Google Scholar.

32 See Rodogno, Against Massacre; also Bass, Freedom's Battle; Simms & Trim, Humanitarian Intervention.

33 See MacMillan, Jones, Woodward, and Dodge in this Special Issue.

34 See Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, pp. 98–178; also Shilliam in this Special Issue.

35 Gallagher, John and Robinson, Ronald, ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’, The Economic History Review, 6:1 (1953), pp. 6–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Curtin, Philip D., The Image of Africa: British Ideas and Action, 1780–1850 (London: Macmillan, 1965), pp. 314–15Google Scholar. For a recent discussion of humanitarian intervention in Africa, see Everill, Bronwen and Kaplan, Josiah (eds), The History and Practice of Humanitarian Intervention and Aid in Africa (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 P. H. Winfield, ‘The History of Intervention in International Law’, British Yearbook of International Law (1922–3), p. 131.

38 Oppenheim, International Law, pp. 181–2.

39 Winfield, ‘The History of Intervention’, p. 146.

40 Winfield dates usage of ‘intervention’ as a ‘technical’ phrase to the period circa 1817–30, ‘A History of Intervention’, p. 134.

41 Winfield, ‘The History of Intervention in International Law’, p. 139; see also Finnemore, ibid., p. 10.

42 Oppenheim, International Law, vol. 1, pp. 154–7, 160, 161.

43 Indeed, well after the demise of a right of intervention to collect contract debts one finds in the eighth edition of Oppenheim's International Law (1955, edited by Lauterpacht) the claim that ‘the right of protection over citizens abroad, which a State holds, may cause an intervention by right to which the other party is legally bound to submit. And it matters not whether protection of life, security, honour, or property of a citizen abroad is concerned.’ See Oppenheim, International Law, eighth edition, p. 309. By the ninth edition, however, intervention by a state to protect the property of its citizens was no longer regarded as lawful, which was now restricted to the immediate danger of loss of life or injury in situations in which the local territorial authorities were unable to protect those at risk. See Oppenheim, Lassa, International Law, ninth edition, edited by Jennings, R. and Watts, A. (London: Longman, Green & Co., 1993) pp. 441–2Google Scholar.

44 See Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention, p. 31.

45 Oppenheim, International Law, first edition, pp. 148–57.

46 See Bull, Hedley and Watson, Adam (eds), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984)Google Scholar.

47 Westad, Odd Arne, The Global Cold War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 4Google Scholar.

48 Ignatieff, Michael, Empire Lite: Nation-Building in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan (London: Vintage, 2003)Google Scholar.

49 See Gills, Barry, Rocamora, Joel, and Wilson, Richard (eds), Low Intensity Democracy (London: Pluto Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Robinson, William I., Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention and Hegemony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Hameiri, Regulating Statehood.

51 Duffield, Mark, Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples (Cambridge: Polity, 2007) p. 28Google Scholar, emphasis added.

52 See Harrison, Graham, The World Bank and Africa: The Construction of Governance States (London: Routledge, 2004)Google Scholar.

53 See Hameiri, Regulating Statehood, p. 6.

54 Agnew, John, Globalization and Sovereignty (Lanham: Rowman and Little, 2009)Google Scholar.

55 Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention, pp. 24–51.

56 See Buhari-Gulmez, Didem, ‘Stanford School on Sociological Institutionalism: A Global Cultural Approach’, International Political Sociology, 4 (2010), pp. 253–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keck, Margaret E. and Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

57 See Smith, Rupert, The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World (Penguin: London, 2005)Google Scholar; Rieff, David, A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis (London: Vintage, 2002)Google Scholar; Barnett, Empire of Humanity.

58 ICISS (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty), The Responsibility to Protect (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 2001)Google Scholar; see, for example, Chandler, David, International Statebuilding: The Rise of Post-Liberal Governance (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar; Newman, Edward, Paris, Roland, and Richmond, Oliver P. (eds), New Perspectives on Liberal Peacebuilding (Tokyo: United Nations Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Richmond, Oliver P., The Transformation of Peace (Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007)Google Scholar.

59 See Mogami, Toshiki, ‘The United Nations and Non-Violence’, in Sakamoto, Yoshikazu (ed.), Global Transformation: Challenges to the State System (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Roberts, Adam and Ash, Timothy Garton (eds), Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-Violent Action from Gandhi to the Present (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Chenoweth, Erica and Stephan, Maria J., Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011)Google Scholar.