Framing intervention in a multipolar world

ABSTRACT

In this contribution to the forum, I draw attention to the persistent inadequacy of existing categories in the field of international studies to capture and frame patterns of intervention today. It is to be expected that this inadequacy will become more and more apparent as the unipolar system of the post–Cold War era evolves into a multipolar system in which patterns of intervention will become more complex. I will show this by focusing on two aspects of contemporary intervention. First, I will argue that patterns of intervention today invert the classical predictions and expectations of International Relations theory with regard to the behaviour of emerging powers (resulting in what I call ‘reverse revisionism’ – i.e. revisionism by leading states). Second, I will argue that the categories applied to understand Western interventions, already problematic in themselves, cannot be stretched to cover the behaviour of non-Western and emerging states.

KEYWORDS:

• Revisionism
• IR theory
• intervention
• power
• multipolarity

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. See Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis; Huiyan, ‘Is China a Revisionist Power?’; Rynning and Ringsmose, ‘Why are Revisionist States Revisionist?’.

2. See e.g. Allison, ‘What Xi Jinping Wants’; Dalmia, ‘History Must be Earned’.

3. Chesterman, Just War or Just Peace?

4. Sakwa, Russia Against the Rest.

5. See e.g. Linklater and Suganami, The English School of International Relations; and Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International Norm Dynamics’.

6. See Bricmont, Humanitarian Imperialism; and Klare, Blood and Oil.

7. See e.g. Drezner, ‘Why China Will be Able to Sell’.

8. Sakwa, Russia Against the Rest.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Philip Cunliffe

Philip Cunliffe is Senior Lecturer in International Conflict in the University of Kent. His most recent book is Lenin Lives! Reimagining the Russian Revolution 1917–2017 (Zero Books, 2017).