Why Do States Intervene in Other Sovereign Nation State? Dissertation – Literature Example

Literature Review

There are several different approaches used to explain why states intervene into the affairs of other sovereign states’ internal politics. No matter if it is a humanitarian intervention or a military action against the state’s government, its foundations will always be questioned. The below literature review will look at some approaches that try to explain the motivation of states to intervene. The three theories reviewed will be defensive/offensive realism, liberalism and cosmopolitanism. All the below theories have their own explanation of the state’s role, purpose, interest and preference, and as these roles change from one theory to another, the attitude towards third party intervention is developed.

What are Third Party Interventions

Rioux (3) confirms that “an intervention by any third party occurs within the context of a conflict, crisis or war”. Therefore, an intervention is a way of a third party to deal with an international conflict, according to the above definition. However, this definition assumes that states are without self-interest, which is, according to the theory of offensive realism is not true. Indeed, according to the approach, nothing “makes sense” or is logical that does not serve the state’s self-interest. Therefore, based on the above contradiction, there is a need to examine offensive realist theories’ explanation of third party intervention and compare it with other, emerging theories: liberal and cosmopolitan approaches.

Offensive Realism

According to this approach, anarchy leads to chaos. In order to prevent insecurity of the international world, aggression of states and intervention is needed. The power of balances needs to be maintained.  Mearsheimer reviewed American foreign policy in the past three decades. He describes the strategy as “America’s pursuit of global domi­nance” (Mearsheimer 34) compared with the previous approach of “offshore balancing”. This criticism highlights the fact that in offensive realism, power used to balance international politics is allowed, however, power used for gaining more dominance is not.

Lake (317) explains the balance-power approach in the American region, related to the American international politics as follows: “It is not just the ability of the United States to intervene in the internal affairs of its neighbors… but rather the periodic assertion by the regional hegemon that it possesses the right to intervene…” (317)”

Liberal Approaches

Moravcsik (517) summarizes the core assumptions of liberalism related to international relations. First of all, the approach considers civil society and their freedom above state authority. The interest of social groups and actors is important, just like social conditions. As a part of the approach, liberals consider states as “a subset of domestic society”. Their role is to represent the interest of the civil society. However, the interdependence of states in the international system creates interaction between domestic societies and third party states. Keohane et al. (458) also state that international policies, agreements determine whether or not the state intervenes. The authors state that “legal independence exists where cross-cutting interpretations are plausible, such as over the scope of legitimate exceptions to norms like free trade, nonintervention, and individual rights” (458). In liberal theories, based on the assumption of state interdependence, the routine of ‘‘intervention with the judiciary through higher decisions” (470) is more common than military or humanitarian type.

Talking about U.S. International politics, Moravcsik (345) states that the role of the United States in setting standards for intervention was great. He states that “the United

States has helped establish and enforce global human rights standards through rhetorical disapproval, foreign aid, sanctions, military intervention, and even multilateral negotiations” (Moravcsik 345). He calls this approach “unilateralism”. This means that liberal approaches towards states’ intervention into another sovereign state are described “in the form of social policies dictated by an international organization” (Moravcsik 362)

Reus-Smit (583) criticizes Moravcsik for abandoning the principles of international liberal theory. He also states that “multicausal liberal theory to explain critical twentieth-century foreign policy decisions, such as those taken in 1918, 1947” (583).

Cosmopolitanism

Archibugi (437) describes cosmopolitan law and peace, based on Kant’s ideology as a universality of human rights and freedom. According to the author, the main sources of cosmopolitan law and institutions lie in Kant’s design of international relations. Cosmopolitanism assumes that states, as members of an equal international community are bound to a principle of non-interference. However, the law of “jus gentium” goes against this principle. Archibugi (435) argues that according to cosmopolitan views, sovereign states’ action to impose power on other states is always wrong. Summarizing the main assumptions of cosmopolitan democracy, the author indicates that, according to the theory, “globalization erodes states’ political autonomy and thereby curtails the efficacy of state-based democracy” (Archibugi 439).

Vaughan-Williams (108) talks about the politics of singularity in relation with cosmopolitan international relations. His criticism includes a new approach, thinking beyond cosmopolitanism, in order to overcome the problematic aspects of the theory. He quotes Archibugi (7):

“For such problems as the protection of the environment, the regulation of migration and the use of natural resources to be subjected to necessary democratic control, democracy must transcend the borders of single states and assert itself on a global level”.

As a conclusion, cosmopolitanism asserts moral and ethical principles outside of the borders of sovereign states, creating a universal rule of governance. Therefore, intervention is indirect but allowed.

Liberal Cosmopolitanism

Liberal cosmopolitanism, according to Spalding (4), has a “moralised view of international society and humanitarianism, thus, prioritizing the alleviation of human suffering over the protection of state sovereignty”. According to the author, the main principles regarding states’ sovereignty, moral responsibilities to protect and intervention lie in Kant’s publication on morality. Liberal cosmopolitanism supports humanitarian intervention, based on three different assumptions (Spalding 7).

1. equal rights and freedoms of people provided and protected by institutions
2. right to freedom does not depend on culture, religion or nationality
3. all individuals, national and international organizations need to take responsibility to protect the above rights.

The three assumptions above indicated that liberal cosmopolitanism does not approach the question of intervention and international relations from the power and balance angle. The theory is based on the universality of moral principles and rights. Intervention is not based on the state’s self-interest, but their “duty to intervene”. (Spadling 9)

Still, Spalding (8) confirms that liberal cosmopolitanism focuses on justice instead of keeping order, and this is where its unique approach lies compared with realist and neorealist theories.

McRobbie tries to explain America’s 20^th Century international policies through liberal cosmopolitanism. She addresses the problematic aspects of America as a powerful sovereign state. She approaches international relations from the perspective of a “cosmopolitanized society”, While societies within sovereign states exist, their representation no longer depends on the law of the nation-state. Indeed, just like Moravcsik’ new liberal approach, state authority is degraded and civil society rights are exercised across the international community; independent of national borders. Indeed, the theory is based on the “new sociology of cosmopolitanization” (McRobbie, 69) which is the counter-process of “methodological nationalism”, as the author confirms.

References

Archibugi, D. “Immanuel Kant, Cosmoploitan Law and Peace” European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 1 (4) pp. 429-456. 1995. Print.

Archibugi, D. “Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics: A Review” European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 10(3): pp. 437–473 2004. Print.

Keohane, R., Moravcsik, A. and Slaughter, A. (2000) Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational” International Organization 54, 3, Summer 2000,  457–488 Print.

Lake, D. “The New Sovereignty In International Relations” International Studies Review. 5, pp. 303–323. 2003. Print.

McRobbie A.  “Vulnerability, violence and (cosmopolitan) ethics: Butler’s Precarious Life” Br J Sociol. 2006 Mar;57(1):69-86. Review. Erratum in: Br J Sociol. 2006 Jun;57(2):338.

Mearsheimer, J.  The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. 2001. Print.

Moravcsik, A. Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization 51, 4, pp. 513–53 1997. Print.

Moravcsik, A. “Why Is U.S. Human Rights Policy So Unilateralist?” in Shepard Forman and Patrick Stewart, eds., The Cost of Acting Alone: Multilateralism and US Foreign Policy 344-376 2001. Print.

Reus-Smit, C. “The Strange Death of Liberal International Theory” European Journal of International Law. Vol. 12. pp. 573-593. 2001. 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.

Spalding, L.  “A Critical Investigation of the IR Theories that Underpin the Debate on Humanitarian Intervention” International Public Policy Review Vol.7, No 2.  2013. Print.

Vaughan-Williams, N. “Beyond a Cosmopolitan Ideal: the Politics of Singularity” International Politics,  44, pp. 107–124. 2007. Print.