This policy in turn has major implications not just for intrastate conflicts but also for terrorism, crime and other international security problems. However, this fact alone does not mean that such interventions will fail, only that the stakeholders who undertake a more self-interested intervention must then work very hard to bolster the legitimacy and credibility of their efforts in three basic ways: by increasing the multilateral contributions to their efforts, by securing the endorsement of the UN and/or other legitimate IOs and by negotiating an invitation on the part of the warring parties to help solve their problem. On the positive side, more actors than ever before are willing to take a chance on helping weak or failing states early in the hopes of heading off problems later.

Inter/Intra: Theoretical approaches

Classical Realism: (See realism notes on google drive) The theory claims to rely upon an ancient tradition of thought which includes writers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Established in the post-World War II era that seeks to explain international politics as a result of human nature. The outbreak of World War II was seen by realists as evidence of the deficiencies of idealist thinking. There are various strands of modern-day realist thinking.

State Level theory that argues that all states seek power – first and last principle of state behavior. States seek to increase their power; they seek to decrease the power of their enemies; and everything they do is in the name of amassing power. States see other powerful states as rivals because power, when it is not in your hands, is threatening.  People are greedy, insecure, and aggressive, so the states they govern will have those same characteristics. This doesn’t mean war, however.  There can be peace, but a durable peace is based upon a stable balance of power – the big players in the international systems are roughly equal in power resources, so therefore no one thinks they can win a war.  If you don’t think you can win a war, you generally don’t start one.  The US and USSR were rivals in the cold war because they were the two most powerful states after WWII. They were both wary of each other’s power and became enemies.  But they did not go to war because they were roughly equal in power. level of analysis: international system: One of the central propositions of classical realism is that the relations between states are necessarily anarchic as there is n central power (Leviathan, world government) to maintain order and stability. Anarchy simply means a lack of a central power.

Neorealism: (See notes on google drive) Kenneth Waltz tried to revive the traditional realist theory by translating some core realist ideas into a deductive, top-down theoretical framework that eventually came to be called neorealism. Says power is the most important factor in international relations.

Level of analysis: State: the power of state translates into the national interest of that state. States are viewed as ‘black boxes’. Any politics within the state (i.e. the form of government) is irrelevant for understanding that states’ interests in international society. States are assumed to be power-seeking entities that enter into competition with one another in the absence of a central power to overawe them. This situation is anarchy. Anarchy simply means lack of central power (say Hobbes’ Leviathan) to which all states would pledge their obedience.

Neorealism builds on this classical theory making anarchy the logic of the international system. In other words, the anarchy of the international system is primary, compelling states to act as self-preserving, power-seeking entities. Thus, the structure (or system) of international politics is what compels states to act in the international system. The theory implies that states no longer have a conscious interest in forming foreign policy but that the best possible policy formulas are determined by the structure of the system itself (anarchy) and the states’ place within that system (distribution capabilities).

Liberalism: Liberalism has a shorter history than realism but has been a prominent theory since WWI. It is a concept with a variety of meanings. Rejection of power politics as the only possible outcome of international relations; it questions security/warfare principles of realism. It accentuates mutual benefits and international cooperation. It implements international organizations and nongovernmental actors for shaping state preferences and policy choices.

Levels of Analysis

System level analysis examines state behavior by looking at the international system.  In this level of analysis, the international system is the cause and state behavior is the effect.  Characteristics of the international system cause states to behave the way they do.  Change in the international system will cause change in state behavior.  The key variable in the international system is the power of a state within the system.  Some states are powerful; others are weak.  So for example, the cold war had two powerful states.  Therefore the central cause of all state behavior in the cold war was the fact that the US and USSR were the two powerful states in a bipolar system. 

State level analysis examines the foreign policy behavior of states in terms of state characteristics.  For example, some scholars say that all democracies behave a certain way; they don’t fight with other democracies.  Some scholars might look at the different behaviors of weak or strong states; states that live in rough neighborhoods (Germany or France) vs. states that live in more benign surroundings (the US).  Some scholars might say that the foreign policy behavior of every state is a cultural characteristic, defined by the historical legacy of the state, the religious or social traditions, or the economic and geographic nature of the state itself (see constructivism below). 

Organizational level analysis examines the way in which organizations within a state function to influence foreign policy behaviour.  States don’t make decisions.  Organizations bargain with each other to create a foreign policy that is a compromise between competing organizations.  This level of analysis for example, might look at the Iraq war and try to explain it by examining the interests of the US military, the department of defence, the state department, and central intelligence agency.  How did these organizations create US foreign policy would be the key question at this level of analysis?

Individual level analysis focuses on people.  People make decisions within nation states and therefore people make foreign policy.  Scholars might look at the roles of different leaders. This level of analysis might explain World War II by examining the role of Hitler.  It might look at the end of the cold war by studying Gorbachev.  It might suggest that the economic reforms in China are a result of the

Individual level analysis might ask questions such as these: Are there aspects of George W. Bush’s character and belief systems that have defined the US response to the 9/11 attacks?  Would Al Gore or John Kerry have behaved any differently in a similar situation?  How do Bush and his senior decision makers perceive the world and their role in it?

Causes of intrastate ethnic war

Factor 1: The state-nation balance. Factor 2: The weak/failed state debate. Factor 3: From passive to active causes: Ethnic communities and ‘hyper nationalism’. Factor 4: International security:  Internationalization; threats vs. victims

Solutions to intrastate war

A. Options: Diplomacy, aid/sanctions, force

B. Military force: Int’l. peacekeeping, peace-making, peace enforcement operations

C. State preservation vs. fragmentation; the balance of power and opposition cohesion

D. ‘Humanitarian’ military intervention & the ‘Responsibility to protect’ (R2P): rhetoric and reality

Humanitarian intervention:

Humanitarian intervention assumes a “right to intervene”, the R2P is based on a “responsibility to protect”. Humanitarian intervention and the R2P both agree on the fact that sovereignty is not absolute. However, the R2P doctrine shifts away from state-centred motivations to the interests of victims by focusing not on the right of states to intervene but on a responsibility to protect populations at risk. In addition, it introduces a new way of looking at the essence of sovereignty, moving away from issues of “control” and emphasising “responsibility” to one’s own citizens and the wider international community.

R2P rests on three pillars:

1.Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

2.The international community aims to help states achieve goal 1

3.States will intervene if the home state fails to do this States intervene using the third pillar of R2P.

Kosovo war-11 week bombing campaign by NATO in spring 1999 – unique as it was just sustained use of armed forces by NATO and without security council authorization

–  International Campaign of major bombing to halt crimes against humanity being committed by a state within its own borders

– This ‘humanitarian war’ marked a high point in increasing emphasis on human rights and humanitarian issues post the second world war

– NATO, inter-governmental bodies and individuals in field of human rights split over the intervention as their cause was being used for war, and potentially worsened violence against Kosobans than reduced it

– NATO leaders emphasized 5 objectives for Yugoslav president Slobodan Milošević->  Verifiable cessation of all combat activities and killings//Withdrawal of Serbians from Kosovo// Deployment of international military forces// Return of all refugees and unimpeded areas for humanitarian aid// A potential framework for Kosovo building on the Rambouillet accords

– Yugoslav forces left Kosovo on such terms, can be argued to be triumph for bombing as  a means of upholding human rights, but this can be a premature judgement