https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3136-0901
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The article offers a much-needed impulse to the debate on humanitarian military interventions, which is characterized by conceptual confusion and a lack of comparative research. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, we identify the most important definitional controversies and discuss the conceptual pros and cons of the respective positions. We illustrate how definitional choices affect comparative research using a new dataset covering all humanitarian military interventions since the Second World War. Classic definitions based on ideal types might have normative merits, but they cannot ground an empirical research programme because they vacate the universe of cases. However, military interventions for declared humanitarian purposes are here to stay, and they should be analysed instead of defined into oblivion. Thus, the definition should reflect the practice of humanitarian military interventions, not subordinate the humanitarian purpose to violations of sovereignty and international law. The definition must not be restricted to interventions reacting to death tolls that ‘shock the conscience of mankind’; it must also consider interventions in the early stages of conflict. Moreover, military interventions should not be disregarded when the humanitarian motive is not exclusive or predominant.
Acknowledgements
We thank Timofey Agarin, Lothar Brock, Ben Kamis, and the anonymous reviewers for commenting on previous versions. We are grateful for the work of our research assistants and interns at PRIF: Charlotte Felbinger, Delina Goxho, Xenija Grusha, Julia Haase, Raphael Haines, Joshua Marinescu-Pasoi, Heinrich Nachtsheim, Sofie Röhrig, Chris Ross, Julia Schaefermeyer, Anna Schwarz, Lisa Weis, and Svenja Windisch. The following students completed the research seminar ‘Humanitarian Military Interventions’ at the University of Frankfurt and contributed to the compilation: Hande Abay, Mira Ballmaier, Charlotte Brandes, Jan Dannheisig, Christian Diegelmann, Lena Diekmann, Markus Drews, Felix Haeckel, Fionn Harnischfeger, Lara Heckmann, Katharina Hemming, Kevin Horbach, Tanja Jacob, Svenja Jandrasits, Teresa Leiendecker, Lela Lindena, Vanessa Müller, Edina Pasztor, Christian Pogies, Alexander Quint, Julia Schaefermeyer, Paul Scherer, Laura Schelenz, Karolina Schmid, Anja Siegel, Jens Stappenbeck, Maximilian Stoll, Aurélie Wallaschkowski, and Marie Wittenius.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Matthias Dembinski is a senior researcher at the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF), Germany. He holds a PhD in political science from the Goethe University Frankfurt. His research interests are in the areas of European security, justice in International Relations and international interventions.
Thorsten Gromes is a senior researcher at PRIF. He holds a PhD in political science from the University of Marburg. His research focuses on peace processes, post-civil war societies, and humanitarian military interventions. Theresa Werner is with the Peace Office of the city of Augsburg, Germany. She was a student assistant at PRIF and holds a Master of Conflict Studies from the Augsburg University.
Notes
1 On R2P see: Bellamy and Dunne, Oxford Handbook; Knight and Egerton, Routledge Handbook.
2 E.g. Binder, The United Nations.
3 E.g. Seybolt, Humanitarian Military Intervention.
4 Kreide, “Preventing Military Humanitarian Intervention,” 96. Also see: ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, 15.
5 This argument does not deny the importance of analyzing non-military forms of humanitarian intervention, like sanctions or mediation. However, research on those types of intervention is already more advanced than research on humanitarian military interventions.
6 Ramsbotham and Woodhouse, Humanitarian Intervention, 112.
7 Welsh, “Introduction,” 3.
8 Rinke, Formella, and Ludemann, “Interventionen,” 87–114; Thompson, “Humanitarian Interventions, Past and Present,” 333.
9 Murray and Kujundžić, Critical Reflection, 129–36.
10 Wheeler, Saving Strangers.
11 Almost all studies evaluated agree that the purpose of saving strangers from violent emergencies characterizes humanitarian military interventions. A smaller but clear majority also agrees that the threat or use of force is also an essential criterion. The variation results from the fact that some authors start from a broader understanding of humanitarian interventions and include cases in which military as well as non-military means are employed. Such a definition, for example, ‘encompasses any international action that is primarily motivated by the humanitarian desire to protect civilian targets of state violence’, ranging from ‘rhetorical condemnation’ to ‘nonconsensual deployment of troops for peace enforcement’. Kuperman, “The Moral Hazard of Humanitarian Intervention,” 51–2. See also Ramsbotham and Woodhouse, Humanitarian Intervention, 113.
12 See, for e.g. Tesón, “Humanitarian Intervention,” 200.
13 Previous datasets omit some cases, do not allow the humanitarian military interventions to be identified without firm case knowledge, or provide only superficial information about the interventions. The most important datasets on military interventions are: ‘International Military Interventions’, https://www.k-state.edu/polsci/intervention/ (accessed September 4, 2018), see Pearson and Baumann, “International Military Intervention”; Pickering and Kisangani, “The International Military Intervention Dataset”; ‘Military Intervention by Powerful States’, http://plsullivan.web.unc.edu/?page_id=77 (accessed September 4, 2018), see Sullivan and Koch, “Military Intervention by Powerful States”; ‘Third Party Peacekeeping Missions 1946–2014’, http://uca.edu/politicalscience/files/2015/01/Third-Party-PKMs-version-3.1.xls (accessed September 4, 2018); Mullenbach, “Third-party Peacekeeping in Intrastate Disputes.”
14 It is available at http://www.humanitarian-military-interventions.com. Compiling the data proceeded as follows: initially, two coders drafted case descriptions of each intervention independently of each other. They then discussed discrepancies and prepared a consolidated version. Finally, experts commented on the case descriptions. To identify interventions, we relied on the datasets mentioned and on press accounts. See also Dembinski and Gromes; Practices and outcomes of humanitarian military interventions.
15 Including cases of merely threatened deployments is conceptually unconvincing and would create insurmountable operational problems. For example, is John Bolton’s intentionally or unintentionally displayed note ‘5,000 troops to Colombia’ with regard to the crisis in Venezuela a threat? Eli Rosenberg and Dan Lamothe, “‘5,000 Troops’: Photo of John Bolton’s Notes Raises Questions About U.S. Military Role in Venezuela Crisis,” The Washington Post, January 28, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/29/troops-photo-john-boltons-notes-raise-questions-about-military-role-venezuela-crisis/??noredirect=on (accessed February 27, 2019).
16 See: Gleditsch et al., “Armed Conflict 1946–2001”; Allansson, Melander, and Themnér, “Organized Violence, 1989–2016”; Sundberg, Eck, and Kreutz, “UCDP Non-state Conflict Dataset”; Eck and Hultman, “Violence Against Civilians”. Also see: http://ucdp.uu.se/downloads/ (accessed September 4, 2018).
17 Kreutz, “The War That Wasn’t There.”
18 Holzgrefe, “The Humanitarian Intervention Debate,” 18 (emphasis added).
19 Paris, “The ‘Responsibility to Protect’,” 594.
20 Thompson, “Humanitarian Interventions, Past and Present”. This assessment is shared by Pape, “When Duty Calls,” 44; Roberts, “The ‘Right’ of Humanitarian Intervention,” 5; Thakur, “Humanitarian Intervention,” 388; Trim and Simms, “Towards a History,” 4; Weiss, Humanitarian Intervention, 1.
21 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, 47.
22 E.g. Holzgrefe, “The Humanitarian Intervention Debate,” 18; Paris, “The ‘Responsibility to Protect,’” 594; Weiss, Humanitarian Intervention, 7.
23 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, 47, also see 16.
24 Rosenau, “Intervention as a Scientific Concept,” 161.
25 Bass, Freedom’s Battle, 155–231.
26 Pattison, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect, 26.
27 Welsh, “Introduction,” 3. Cf. Tesón, “Ending Tyranny in Iraq,” 2.
28 Some scholars insist that the intervention must be directed against the government and thus usually takes the form of war fighting. However, interventions permitted by the government are often opposed by powerful non-state armed groups and also turn into war-fighting. Moreover, we generally argue that humanitarian military interventions do not necessarily take the character of war fighting, as given, for instance, in the widely recognized cases East Timor 1999 and Bosnia-Herzegovina 1993–1995. The latter was heavily criticized for using force much too reluctantly.
29 Some studies that include the lack of permission nevertheless refer to cases as humanitarian military interventions in which this criterion did not obtain, such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and Rwanda in Seybolt, Humanitarian Military Intervention.
30 Arend and Beck, International Law, 113. This is shared by Kolb, “Note on Humanitarian Intervention,” 119.
31 Verwey, “Humanitarian Intervention Under International Law,” 375.
32 Kolb, “Note on Humanitarian Intervention,” 119. Also Fischer states that ‘humanitarian intervention’ implies a violation of international law. Fischer, “Der Schutz von Menschen im Krieg,” 97–8.
33 Kolb, “Note on Humanitarian Intervention,” 125.
34 Kabia, Humanitarian Intervention and Conflict Resolution in West Africa, 13.
35 Roth, “Was the Iraq War a Humanitarian Intervention?,” 85–6.
36 Verwey, “Humanitarian Intervention under International Law,” 375.
37 Verwey, “Legality of Humanitarian Interventions,” 114.
38 Bogen, “The Law of Humanitarian Intervention,” 311.
39 Parekh, “Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention,” 54. See also Maley, “Twelve Theses.”
40 Arend and Beck, International Law, 113.
41 Klose, The Emergence of Humanitarian Intervention, 8.
42 Kuperman uses similar wording, “The Moral Hazard of Humanitarian Intervention,” 51–2; Pattison, “Whose Responsibility to Protect?” 280.
43 Thompson, “Humanitarian Interventions, Past and Present,” 336.
44 Weiss, Humanitarian Intervention, 1.
45 Hehir, The Responsibility to Protect, 138.
46 Tesón criticizes the debate for confusing purpose or intention with motive. Following John Stuart Mill, he states that intention covers the contemplated act, while the motive is a further ‘goal that one wishes to accomplish with the intended act’. We doubt whether these concepts can be distinguished empirically. See Tesón, “Humanitarian Intervention,” 202.
47 Cf. Recchia, “Pragmatism Over Principle,” 14.
48 Indeed, colonial ties are an ambiguous criterion, as they could suggest both material self-interest as well as a sense of particular responsibility due to acts committed during the colonial era.
49 Krieg, Motivations for Humanitarian Intervention, 125.
50 Ulriksen, Gourlay, and Mace, “Operation Artemis,” 508.
51 Donnelly, “Humanitarian Intervention and American Policy,” 308; Eisner, “Humanitarian Intervention,” 195; Newman, Humanitarian Intervention, 1; and Pape, “When Duty Calls,” 44, use similar understandings of humanitarian emergencies.
52 Parekh, “Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention,” 55. For a similar understanding, see Abiew, Evolution of Doctrine and Practice, 18.
53 Welsh, “Introduction,” 3.
54 Lauterpacht, International Law and Human Rights, 121.
55 Trim and Simms, “Towards a History,” 4.
56 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, 47.
57 Kydd and Straus, “The Road to Hell?” 673.
58 Acharya, “Redefining Dilemmas of Humanitarian Intervention,” 374.
59 Nzelibe, “Courting Genocide,” 1172. See also Bellamy, “When States Go Bad,” 565.
60 Holzgrefe, “The Humanitarian Intervention Debate,” 18.
61 General Assembly Resolution 60/1, 2005 World Summit Outcome, A/RES/60/1 (September 16, 2005), available under http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_60_1.pdf, para. 138–9 (accessed September 4, 2018).
62 Roberts, Humanitarian Action in War; Finnemore, “Paradoxes in Humanitarian Intervention,” 4.
63 ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect, 31.
64 As mentioned, UCDP handles information on deaths quite cautiously, as Bosnia-Herzegovina exemplifies. Owing to efforts by the Research and Documentation Centre in Sarajevo and investigations for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, an emerging consensus is that about 105,000 people were killed in the war 1992–1995. Tabeu and Zwierzchowski, “A Review of Estimation Methods,” 220.