Humanitarian Intervention in the 19^th Century: The Heyday of a Controversial Concept

Abstract

This article dwells on the state of play of armed humanitarian intervention in the long 19^th century. It starts with the birth of the idea in previous centuries by jurists of the naturalist school. It then presents the behaviour of the great powers in three celebrated humanitarian cases of the 19^th century (the Greek independence struggle, the Lebanon-Syria massacres and the Bulgarian atrocities)with emphasis on their initial reluctance to intervene and their motives for intervening, as well as the role of public opinion in spurring intervention. The overall situation will be appraised with emphasis on the Christian bias and the Orientalist approach towards the Ottoman Empire. Then the views of international jurists (publicists) will be presented, followed by the attitude of major political philosophers. The overall picture that emerges in the 19^th century is one of striking relevance to today's concerns as seen by six concluding propositions.

Notes

1. James Mayall (ed.), The New Interventionism, 1991–1994: United Nations Experience in Cambodia, former Yugoslavia and Somalia (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1996); Michael W. Doyle and Nicholas Sambanis, Making War and Bringing Peace: United Nations Peace Operations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006); Mats Berdal and Spyros Economides (eds), United Nations Interventionism, 1991–2004 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2007).

2. Jarat Chopra and Thomas G.Weiss, “Sovereignty is no Longer Sacrosanct: Codifying Humanitarian Intervention”, Ethics and International Affairs, Vol. 6 (1992), p. 96.

3. Oliver Ramsbotham and Tom Woodhouse, Humanitarian Intervention: A Reconceptualization (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996); Nicholas Wheeler, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Simon Chesterman, Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); J.L. Holzgrefe and Robert O. Keohane (eds), Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Jennifer M. Welsh (ed.), Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

4. J.L. Holzgrefe, “The Humanitarian Intervention Debate”, in Holzgrefe and Keohane, op.cit., pp. 15–17.

5. Thomas G. Weiss, “The Sunset of Humanitarian Intervention? The Responsibility to Protect in a Unipolar Era”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 25, No .2 (2004), p. 135.

6. Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun, “The Responsibility to Protect”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 6 (2002), pp. 99–100; Weiss, op.cit., pp. 135–153; Thomas G. Weiss, “R2P after 9/11 and the World Summit”, Wisconsin International Law Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3 (2006), pp. 741–60; Carsten Stahn, “Responsibility to Protect: Political Rhetoric or Emerging Legal Norm?”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 101, No. 1 (2007), pp. 99–120.

7. Francis M. Deng, Sadikiel Kimaro, Terence Lyons, Donald Rothchild and I. William Zartman, Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1996).

8. The Helsinki Final Act with its “human dimension” (Principle VII on human rights and Basket III) is generally regarded as having rendered respect for human rights an essential factor for peace and security as against a rigid interpretation of the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs. See Alexis Heraclides, Security and Co-operation in Europe: The Human Dimension (London: Frank Cass, 1993), p.38 and passim.

9. Michael Akehurst, “Humanitarian Intervention”, in Hedley Bull (ed.), Intervention in World Politics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), p. 96.

10. Ibid., pp.95–99; John Salzberg, “UN Prevention of Human Rights Violations: The Bangladesh Case”, International Organization, Vol. 27, No. 1 (1973), pp. 115–27; Wheeler, op.cit., pp. 65–77, 89–110, 122–36; Chesterman, op.cit., pp. 71–4, 77–80.

11. The international lawyers supportive of armed humanitarian intervention during the Cold War include Lauterpacht, Guggenheim, Riesman, McDougal, Lillich, Behuniak, Chilstrom, Levitin, D'Amato, Nanda, Moore, Bazyler, Fonteyne, Umozurike and Tesón. Among activists the best known is Bernard Kushner.

12. Ellery C. Stowell, Intervention in International Law (Washington DC: John Byrne and Company, 1921), pp. 51–58 and passim; Jean-Pierre L. Fonteyne, “The Customary International Law Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention: Its Current Validity under the U.N. Charter”, California Western International Law Journal (1973–1974), pp. 205–36; Peter Malanczuk, Humanitarian Intervention and the Legitimacy of the Use of Force (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1993), pp. 9–11; Chesterman, op.cit., pp. 3, 24–44; Gary J. Bass, Freedom's Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention (New York: Vintage Books, 2009), p.8; Tonny Brems Knudsen, “The History of Humanitarian Intervention: The Rule or the Exception?”, paper delivered at the 50^th ISA Annual Convention, New York (15–18 February 2009).

13. Joachim von Elbe, “The Evolution of the Concept of the Just War in International Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 33, No. 4 (1939), pp. 668–70; Anthony Clark Arend and Robert J. Beck, International Law and the Use of Force (London: Routledge, 1993), pp. 12–15.

14. Hersch Lauterpacht, “The Grotian Tradition in International Law”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 23 (1946), p. 46.

15. Theodor Meron, “Common Rights of Mankind in Gentili, Grotius and Suarez”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 85, No. 1 (1991), p. 110. See also Benedict Kingsbury and Adam Roberts, “Introduction: Grotian Thought in International Relations”, in Hedley Bull, Benedict Kingsbury and Adam Roberts (eds), Hugo Grotius and International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 1–64.

16. Cited in Meron, op.cit., pp. 114–15.

17. Cited in Knudsen, op.cit., p. 5.

18. Cited in Meron, op.cit., p. 111. For the Grotian approach see Hedley Bull, “The Grotian Concept of International Society”, in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (eds), Diplomatic Investigations: Essay in the Theory of International Politics (London: Allen and Unwin, 1966), pp. 63–64; Tonny Brems Knudsen, “Humanitarian Intervention Revisited: Post-Cold War Responses to Classical Problems”, in Michael Pugh (ed.), The UN, Peace and Force (London: Frank Cass, 1997), pp. 147–148.

19. Meron, op.cit., p. 111.

20. Ibid.

21. R.J. Vincent, Nonintervention and International Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), p. 24.

22. Terry Nardin, “The Moral Basis for Humanitarian Intervention”, in Anthony F. Lang Jr. (ed.), Just Intervention (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), p. 16.

23. Chesterman, op.cit., p. 17.

24. Vincent, op.cit., p. 30.

25. Stowell, op. cit., p. 213.

26. Knudsen, “The History of Humanitarian Intervention”, op.cit., p. 7.

27. Antoine Rougier, “La théorie de l'intervention d'humanité”, Revue générale de droit international public, Vol. 17 (1910), p. 472; Fonteyne, op.cit., p. 206; Malanczuk, op.cit., p. 8.

28. Knudsen, “The History of Humanitarian Intervention”, p. 13.

29. Stanford Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), vol. I, p. 250.

30. P.H. Winfield, “The History of Intervention in International Law”, The British Year Book of International Law, Vol.3 (1922–1923), pp. 130, 136, 141.

31. Ibid., p. 130.

32. Charles G. Fenwick, “Intervention: Individual and Collective”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 39, No. 4 (1945), p. 645.

33. See e.g. Hedley Bull, “Introduction”, in Bull, op.cit., p. 1; Vincent, op.cit., p. 13.

34. L. Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise (London, New York, Toronto: Longmans, Greene and Co., 1937 [1905]), Vol.1, p. 249.

35. Stowell, op.cit., p. 51, footnote 7.

36. For various definitions of humanitarian intervention as it was understood in the 19^th and early 20^th century see Stowell, op.cit., pp. 51–54.

37. For references to all the 19^th century humanitarian interventions see: Rougier, op.cit., p. 469; Stowell, op.cit., pp. 63–316; André Mandelstam, “La protection des minorités”, Académie de droit international, Recueil des Cours, vol.1 (Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1925), pp. 374–379; Manouchehr Ganji, International Protection of Human Rights (Geneva: University of Geneva, 1962), pp. 26–37; Fonteyne, op.cit., pp. 207–213; Martha Finnemore, “Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention”, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 161–168; Knudsen, “The History of Humanitarian Intervention”, op.cit., pp.14–30.

38. Chesterman, op.cit., p. 35.

39. Stowell, op.cit., p. 481; Theodore S. Wolsey, quoted in ibid., pp. 57–58; Fenwick, op.cit., p. 651.

40. Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1977), p. 104.

41. See footnote 37.

42. Note that the atrocities by the Greeks, such as the some 8,000 Muslims massacred during the conquest of Tripolitza (autumn 1821) were downplayed by the European press.

43. For the Russian mobilisation in support of the Greeks see Theophilus C. Prousis, Russian Society and the Greek Revolution (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1994), pp. 8–24, 84–158.

44. William St. Clair, “The Philhellenes and the War of Independence”, in John T.A. Koumoulides (ed.), Greece in Transition. Essays in the History of Greece, 1821–1974 (London: Zeno, 1977), pp. 272–282.

45. Bass, op.cit., pp. 51–136.

46. Nicholas Onuf, “Normative Frameworks for Humanitarian Intervention”, in Lang, op.cit., p. 37.

47. The Concert of Europe which was set up in 1830 (during the Belgian crisis) was not primarily concerned with internal politics or revolutions, but with how best to manage and reconcile the ambitions of the five great powers (later six with the addition of Italy) and insure the proper functioning of balance of power, however defined.

48. Charles Petrie, Diplomatic History, 1713–1933 (London: Hollis and Carter, 1947), pp. 154–156.

49. Ibid., p. 157. Apparently this rumour was circulated by the Russians, namely by the Russian ambassador in London (see Bass, op.cit., pp. 123–124) and even though it was regarded farfetched by Canning it could not be taken lightly. Some took it at face value; see for example its mention in Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1866 [1836]), p. 115.

50. M.S. Anderson, The Eastern Question, 1774–1923 (London: Macmillan, 1966), p. 57.

51. Petrie, op.cit., p. 156.

52. Anderson, op.cit., 63–65, 67; Petrie, op.cit., pp. 158–162.

53. Bass, op.cit., pp. 137–151.

54. Wheaton, op.cit., p. 113.

55. Finnemore, op.cit., p. 163.

56. Wheaton, op.cit., p. 118, footnote 88.

57. Prousis, op.cit., p. 53.

58. Ibid., p. 53.

59. Stowell, op.cit., p. 79.

60. C.A. Woodhouse, “Diplomatic Development. Nineteenth and Twentieth Century,” in Koumoulides (ed.), op.cit., p. 94; St Clair, op.cit., pp. 279–280. In lieu of example, Nicholas told the Austrian ambassador in St.Petersburg, “I do not desire their [the Greeks'] enfranchisement … [I]t would be a very bad example for all other countries if they succeed in establishing it”. Cited in Prousis, op.cit., p. 53.

61. Finnemore, op.cit., pp. 163–164.

62. Engin Deniz Akarli, The Long Peace: Ottoman Lebanon, 1861–1920 (London: I.B.Tauris, 1993), p. 30.

63. Ibid., p. 30.

64. Bass, op.cit., pp. 163–186; Anderson, op.cit., pp. 156–157; Istvan Pogany, “Humanitarian Intervention in International Law: The French Intervention in Syria Re-examined”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 35 (1986), pp. 184–185; Stowell, op.cit., pp. 63–65.

65. Bass, op.cit., p. 186.

66. Ibid., pp. 163–189; Stowell, op.cit. pp. 64–66; Thomas M. Franck and Nigel S. Rodley, “After Bangladesh: The Law of Humanitarian Intervention by Military Force”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 67, No. 2 (1973), pp. 281–282; Finnemore, op.cit., pp. 164–165; Knudsen, “The History of Humanitarian Intervention”, op.cit., pp. 19–22.

67. Anderson, op.cit., pp. 156–158; Stowell, op.cit., p. 66; Akarli, op.cit., pp. 30–33; Bass, op.cit., pp. 188–231. For the downgrading of the role of France and the other powers in the operation see Pogany, op.cit., pp. 185–186; Shaw and Shaw, op.cit., p. 143.

68. Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 340; see also Stephen Kloepfer, “The Syrian Crisis, 1860–61: A Case Study in Classic Humanitarian Intervention”, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 23 (1985), pp. 246–258.

69. Pogany, op.cit., 186–190; Chesterman, op.cit., p. 33. The role of the Maronites as the instigators further undermines the humanitarian character of the venture, namely to save Christians from Muslims. For this aspect of the affair see Franck and Rodley, op.cit., pp. 281–283.

70. Pogany, op.cit., p. 188; Shaw and Shaw, op.cit., p. 143; Chesterman, op.cit., p. 33; Bass, op.cit., p. 231.

71. Chesterman, op.cit., p. 33.

72. Bass, op.cit., p. 231.

73. Anderson, op.cit., p. 158; Akarli, op.cit.

74. Ibid., pp. 181, 184–187; Bass, op.cit., pp. 250–254.

75. Anderson, op.cit., pp. 184; Bass, op.cit., pp. 235–237, 256–257.

76. Stowell, op.cit., pp. 127–278; Anderson, op.cit., p. 183.

77. Ibid., p. 184; Bass, op.cit., pp. 258–279, 65; Stowell, op.cit., pp. 127–128, 132–136.

78. Anderson, op.cit., pp. 181,185–190; Bass, op.cit., pp. 282–283, 286–288, 292–295.

79. Anderson, op.cit., pp. 191–192.

80. For developments in the Ottoman Empire in 1877, see Niyazi Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey (London: Hurst and Company, 1998 [1964]), pp. 223–250; Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London: Oxford University Press, 1966 [1961]), pp. 160–174.

81. Anderson, op.cit., pp. 187–188; Bass, op.cit., pp. 244–247, 252–254, 282–289, 294–295; Ada Dialla, Russian Attitudes towards the Balkans: Ideology and Politics in the Second Half of the 19 ^th Century (Athens: Alexandria, 2009) [in Greek], pp. 278–292.

82. Bass, op.cit., pp. 295–296; Anderson, op.cit., pp. 193–194; Stowell, op.cit., p. 129.

83. Ibid., p. 131.

84. Dialla, op.cit., p. 282.

85. Anderson, op.cit., pp. 205–214.

86. David MacKenzie, “Russia's Balkan Policies under Alexander II, 1855–1881”, in Hugh Ragsdale (ed.), Imperial Russian Foreign Policy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 225; Geoffrey Hosking, People and Empire, 1552–1917 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 371; Astrid S. Tuminez, Russian Nationalism since 1856. Ideology and the Making of Foreign Policy (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefields Publishers, 2000), p. 58. See also Anderson, op.cit., p. 203.

87. Hans Kohn, Panslavism. Its History and Ideology (New York: University of Notre Dame Press, 1953), p. 145; MacKenzie, op.cit., p. 236.

88. Dialla, op.cit., pp. 281–282.

89. Bass, op.cit., p. 8.

90. Ibid., p. 5.

91. Franck and Rodley, op.cit., p. 281.

92. See e.g. Hans Köchler, “Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power Politics”, Studies in International Relations, No. 26 (Vienna: International Progress Organization, 2001), pp. 3–4; 6–7.

93. Gerard Delanty, Inventing Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), pp. 92–99.

94. M. Şükrü Hanioğlu, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire (Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008), p. 85.

95. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), p. 38.

96. James Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations: A Treatise of the Jural Relations of Separate Political Communities (Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 2004 [1884]), pp. 101–102.

97. Ibid., p. 102. A rare exception to this view is Rougier, who claimed (in 1910) that Turkey could not be placed among the barbarous nations given its developed political, administrative and juridical organisation. See Rougier, op.cit., p. 469.

98. Köchler, op.cit., p. 9.

99. Iver B. Neumann, Uses of the Other: “The East” in European Identity Formation (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), pp. 39–40.

100. Bass, op.cit., p. 271.

101. Georges Scelle, “Studies on the Eastern Question”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1911), pp. 148–149.

102. Finnemore, op.cit., pp. 163–164; Köchler, op.cit., p. 9.

103. Martens in Malanczuk, op.cit., p. 8.

104. Nardin, op.cit., pp.13–14.

105. Nicholas Onuf, “Humanitarian Intervention: The Early Years”, paper presented at the Center for Global Peace and Conflict Studies Symposium on the Norms and Ethic of Humanitarian Intervention (University of California, Irvine, 5 May 2000), pp. 6–7, 28.

106. Ibid., pp. 6–7, 28, 43–4.

107. Knudsen, “The History of Humanitarian Intervention”, op.cit., p. 32.

108. Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 122–123.

109. Rougier, op.cit., pp. 468–526; Stowell, op.cit., pp. 51–62, 461–540; Fonteyne, op.cit., pp. 214–236; Ganji, op.cit., p. 41. The preponderance of supporters is accepted even by today's polemics of the notion. See e.g. Brownlie, op.cit., p. 338; Ulrich Beyerlin, “Humanitarian Intervention”, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1995), Vol. II, p. 927; Malaczuk, op.cit., pp. 9–10; Chesterman, op.cit., p. 36.

110. Rougier, op.cit., p.468; Beyerlin, op.cit., p. 927.

111. For more details and the names of some 90 international lawyers involved in the debate see Alexis Heraclides and Ada Dialla, Humanitarian Intervention in the Long 19 ^th Century: Setting the Precedent (Manchester: Manchester University Press, forthcoming).

112. Wheaton, op.cit., p. 113.

113. Cited in Knudsen, “The History of Humanitarian Intervention”, op.cit., p. 9.

114. Harcourt quoted in Stowell, op.cit., p. 38.

115. Rougier, op.cit., p. 473, note 1.

116. Ibid., p. 473.

117. Stowell, op.cit., p. 469.

118. Cited in ibid., p. 53, footnote 53.

119. Cited in Rougier, op.cit., pp. 490–491, note 3, 496, note 2.

120. Cited in ibid., p. 493.

121. Cited in Knudsen, “The History of Humanitarian Intervention”, op.cit., p. 8.

122. Cited in Stowell, op.cit., p. 54.

123. Oppenheim, op.cit., vol. I, p. 255.

124. Ibid., pp. 510–511.

125. Rougier, op.cit., pp. 468, 471.

126. Ibid., p. 478.

127. Ibid., pp. 484–526.

128. Ellery C. Stowell, “Humanitarian Intervention”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 33, No. 4 (1939), p. 734.

129. Rougier, op.cit., pp. 473–478, 499–526; Fonteyne, op.cit., pp. 226–227, 235.

130. Chesterman, op.cit., pp.38–39.

131. Cited in Rougier, op.cit., p. 482, note 1.

132. Ibid., p. 482, note 1.

133. Ibid., p. 481, note 1, p. 482, note 1.

134. Beyerlin, op.cit., Vol. II, p. 927.

135. Oppenheim, op.cit., vol.I, p. 255; see also Ganji, op.cit., p. 43.

136. Rougier, op.cit., p. 506. Rougier, who did not regard the Ottoman Empire as uncivilized, claims that this system was set up by the Treaty of Berlin. Ibid., p. 475.

137. See Onuf., op.cit., p. 3.

138. According to Pierre Laberge, there are some fifteen lines in Kant, three lines in Fichte and two in Hegel. See Pierre Laberge, “Humanitarian Intervention: Three Ethical Positions”, Ethics and International Affairs, Vol. 9 (1995), p. 15.

139. Ibid., p. 15.

140. Fernando R. Tesón, Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry into Law and Morality (New York: Transnational Publishers, 1988), p. 59.

141. Michael W. Doyle, “Sovereignty and Humanitarian Intervention” (Columbia University, March 2006), pdf, pp. 1–2.

142. Chris Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992), pp. 28–41.; Mark Hoffman, “Normative International Theory: Approaches and Issues”, in A.J.R. Groom and Margot Light (eds), Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory (London: Pinter Publisher, 1994), p. 29.

143. Immanuel Kant, “Toward Perpetual Peace”, in Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 319.

144. Laberge, op.cit., p. 18.

145. Brown, op.cit., pp. 31–37; Fernando R. Tesón, “The Kantian Theory of International Law”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 92, No. 1 (1992), pp. 54, 60–62, 67, 69–70. Tesón goes further claiming that Kant's “nonintervention principle is dependent upon compliance with the first definitive article. Internal legitimacy is what gives states the shield of sovereignty against foreign intervention” adding that “sovereignty is to be respected only when it is justly exercised”. Ibid., p. 92.

146. Richard B. Lillich, “Kant and the Current Debate over Humanitarian Intervention”, Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, 6 (1997), p. 397.

147. Kant, op.cit., pp. 319–320.

148. Ibid., p. 319–320.

149. Tesón, “The Kantian Theory of International Law”, op.cit., pp. 67–68.

150. Brown, op.cit., pp. 73–75; Michael W. Doyle, “A Few Words on Mill, Walzer, and Nonintervention”, Ethics and International Affairs, Vol. 23 (2009), p. 351.

151. Charles R. Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979), pp. 84–86; Michael Walzer, “The Rights of Political Communities”, in Charles R. Beitz et al., International Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), pp. 178–179; Anthony Ellis, “Utilitarianism and International Ethics”, in Terry Nardin and David R. Mapel (eds), Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 166–167.

152. John Stuart Mill, “A Few Words on Nonintervention”, in John Stuart Mill, Dissertations and Discussions, III (1867), p. 122.

153. Ibid., p. 122.

154. Ibid., p. 123.

155. Quoted in Morton Deutsch, The Resolution of Conflict (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973), p. 357.

156. Ibid., p. 357.

157. Walzer, op.cit., p. 179.

158. Ellis, op.cit., p. 167.

159. Michael Walzer, “The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics”, in Beitz et al., op.cit., p. 221.

160. Ellis, op.cit., p. 166.

161. Michael Doyle claims that Mill suggests no less than seven cases for intervention, including self-determination, humanitarian intervention and others. See Doyle, “A Few Words on Mill, Walzer, and Nonintervention”, op.cit., pp. 352–361. This over-stretching on the part of Doyle is questionable upon a strict reading of the essay and undermines Mill's essential anti-interventionist stance, but it can be attributed to Doyle's attempt at what he calls an “interpretative summary” of Mill (in ibid., p. 350). In fact Mill does not refer to intervention on humanitarian grounds or self-determination as such but subsumes both as reinforcing factors under extended civil wars.

162. Mill, op.cit., pp. 118–119. On these grounds Mill has been criticised as being an advocate of imperialism. Doyle regards Mill's stance as one of “benign colonialism”. See Doyle, “Sovereignty and Humanitarian Intervention”, op.cit., p. 10.

163. Mill, op.cit., p. 123. Note that the UN Charter era of today is anti-Millian; it is lopsided in favour of the incumbent. Foreign intervention is lawful if it is requested by the government and not by the rebels. As for the 19^th century concept of belligerent status for insurgents it has not been applied after the First World War.

164. Mill, op.cit., p. 124.

165. Mill, op.cit., p. 121. On this basis Walzer allows for intervention in cases of struggles for national liberation where the “existence of a political community” is obviously “in doubt”; and for humanitarian intervention in cases of acts “that shock the moral conscience of mankind”. See Walzer, “The Rights of Political Communities”, op.cit., pp. 193–194; Walzer, “The Moral Standing of States”, op.cit., pp. 225–226.

166. Akehurst, op.cit., p. 95.

167. Ibid., p. 95.

168. Franck and Rodley, op.cit., pp. 290–295.

169. Ibid., p. 285.

170. Ibid., p. 281.

171. Rougier, op.cit., p. 525.

172. Knudsen, “The History of Humanitarian Intervention”, op.cit., p. 31.

173. On “liberal humanitarians” and hard-liners later joining the fray, as seen in US involvement in Somalia and Bosnia, see Jon Western, “Sources of Humanitarian Intervention: Beliefs, Information, and Advocacy in the US Decisions on Somalia and Bosnia”, International Security, Vol. 26, No. 4 (2002), pp. 117–118, 127–129, 131–132.

174. Lawrence Freedman, “Introduction”, in Lawrence Freedman (ed.), Military Intervention in European Conflicts (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), p. 11; Richard H. Ullman, “The Wars of Yugoslavia and the International System after the Cold War”, in Richard H. Ullman (ed.), The World and Yugoslavia's Wars (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1996), p. 16.

175. On this question conservative realists and leftist radicals are, strange as it may seem, in the same boat. See Bass, op.cit., pp. 11–16.

176. Knudsen, “Humanitarian Intervention Revisited”, op.cit., p. 154.

177. Finnemore, op.cit., p. 159.