International Relations- Intervention, Dissertation – Literature Example

Several authors seem to recognize a discrepancy in international relations regarding states’ decision on intervention. While Rioux (3) states that a context of a civil war or conflict is the determinant of an intervention, states seem to sometimes distance themselves from the problem, while in other cases they decide on intervention. The below review of different explanations of this discrepancy will provide a theoretical approach based on constructivist ideologies.

According to Wessels (26), social constructivism’s approach towards international relations is based on the examination of ideas, norms, rules, national identities and knowing. These ideas, norms and rules are influenced by states’ interaction and interdependence. Therefore, the above statement of constructivism clearly indicates that decisions whether or not to intervene are based on values, ideas, meanings of the action. Constructing agents are determined as culture, religion, views of the world, while motivations are determined by the process of construction, instead of simple material benefit of the state. (Wessels 28)

Wendt (336) approached the question of international relations from a nontraditional point of view. He criticized neorealism on the grounds that while it claims to examine structures, it does not provide adequate information on values, exchanges and the method of structuring political, national identity. The author states that “they understand the explanatory role

of those structures in individualist terms as constraining the choices of pre- existing state actor” (Wendt 336). He also insists that liberal and neorealist approaches do not work simply because they do not examine interactions. As he puts it: “society is made up of social relationships, which structure the interactions between these purposeful actors. According to constructivist views, the same is true for nation-states. Their interdependence does not only form their identity, but their approach toward intervention as well. Agents and structures, according to Wendt (349) are not “primitive units”, but changing entities. The changes are influenced based on the interaction between the agents. In contrast, he states that unlike neorealist and world-system approaches, “structurationist approach to the agent-structure problem” can help… “develop theoretical accounts of both state agents and system structures”. (Wendt 349)

Finnemore (3) applies the theory of constructivism to explain humanitarian intervention. The main assumptions of the author are:

• state interests are shaped by international norms
• liberal and realist theories make a mistake by neglecting the aspect of states’ interest.

Examining one of the most commonly mentioned intervention of international relations in recent years, the author states that while in 2003 the United States sought approval from the United Nations to intervene in the region, using a multilateral approach, however, the leaders still decided to act in their own interest and intervene without authorization. The author also questions the purpose of force in this case.

Finnemore (15) also states that constructivist approach is suitable to explain the discrepancy in decisions whether or not to intervene because motivations can be explained by the intervener’s social purpose at all times. For example, in the case of intervention on Yugoslavia,

the ideology and belief in democratic values, human rights motivated the United Nations. She states that “every intervention leaves a long trail of justification in its wake… and … reveals something about … shared social purpose” (Finnemore 15).  Humanitarian intervention, after the Cold War, according to Finnemore, became more “appealing”, and the author draws up examples such as operations in Somalia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

According to Finnemore, there are three main motives of intervention: to collect debts, to provide humanitarian relief or to maintain order and international security. The author proves the thesis that constructivism offers the best explanation to states’ intervention into the affairs of other sovereign states (military, trade embargo or humanitarian intervention) that it is usually based on a moral or ideological trait common between the oppressed and the intervening country.  While the early history of intervention is based on protecting Christians from states’ oppression. It was based on ideology. The later examples the author examines are based on balancing power to maintain security. In this case, security is the common goal and ideology that is followed. The progress of international political systems, according to the author (114) proceeded through four different principles: to balance power, concert (19^th Century), the spheres of influence (Cold War), and the system developed in recent years: the multilateral system. These changes in the approach towards history – according to Finnemore (97) cannot be explained through realist or liberal theories.

Viotti and Kauppi (173) states that structuralism has an economic aspect. The main aspects of economic structuralism are:

• understanding the global context of international relations
• importance of historical approach
• uneven development of stated due to dependency
• the considerations of economic factors

Later publications, such as Dixon’s (126) explanation of the influence of norms and behavior on decisions of states whether or not to intervene also try the theory of constructivism in international relations. The author states (just like Finnemore) that humanitarian intervention has become a “new norm” of international relations. He examines the reasons behind this global trend and the norms, behavior patterns, values that influenced it. Norms of sovereignty have changed over time, in particular after the end of the Cold War, according to the author (127). While state sovereignty was respected during the Cold War because the international balance had to be maintained, starting with the Iraqi War, interventionist behavior became more common and accepted by the international community. The answer of Dixon (142) to the question: “Why do states engage in humanitarian interventionist behaviour?” (128) seems to lie in ideas, norms and attitudes more than logical (rationalist) or liberal grounds. The most important element of intervention is legitimacy, which is based on the international construction of ideas.

One turning point the author mentions is the intervention in Kosovo. He asks the question: “Did Kosovo mark the elevation of humanitarian intervention above that of sovereignty- the legitimacy to intervene in humanitarian cases even without UNSC approval?”

If the answer to the above question is yes, that means that international standards, norms change. Even if Belarus, Russia and India called for the condemnation of NATO’s violation of the U.N. Charter of non-intervention, the motion was denied by the international community. This proves the initial statement of constructivism, which concludes that the interaction and interdependence of sovereign states creates or cancels legitimation, and states cannot be viewed as inactive, unchangeable actors.

Constitutional norms are changed, based on international organizations’ active discussions and considerations. This happened in Kosovo, and the author states that “constitutional normative setting in 1999 allowed for Kosovo to be a considered a legitimate action”. The focus is no longer on the motivation of states, but on the legitimization process of actions, such as military and humanitarian intervention. This indicates that constructivism does not only explain the process of developing international norms, but also the “social construction of meaning, identity and interest”, leading to decisions on intervention or non-interference. The most relevant thesis of constructivist theory related to state behavior and attitude towards intervention is that “actors develop identities and interests from the normative structural context” (Dixon 160).

References

Dixon, S.  Humanitarian Intervention: A Novel Constructivist Analysis of Norms and Behaviour. Journal of Politics & International Studies, Vol. 9, Summer 2013. Print.

Finnemore, M. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force. Ithaca: 2003. Print.

Roiux, J. Third Party Interventions In International Conflicts: Theory And Evidence. Presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Halifax, NS, May 30 – June 1^st,  2003. Print.

Viotti, P. and Kauppi, M. International Relations Theory.  New York: Longman, 2010. Print.

Wendt. A.  The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Summer, 1987) 1987. Print.

Wessels, D. International Relations ?: Notes. 2009. Web.