International Engagement in War-Torn Countries

Abstract

How should we understand the international administration of war-torn territories? A couple of caveats are necessary at the outset. I shall not deal with practical issues involved in making international administrations effective or successful; that will be left to the experts. Nor can I deal with what might be termed the pragmata of such administrations--that is, the degree to which there is evidence of an ad hoc, case-by-case approach on the ground in war-torn countries. I suspect that the closer one gets the more particular each case becomes. I must leave that close scrutiny to others who are more intimately familiar with each case than I am. (1) Instead, I address the question from a broader perspective of international political theory. My concern is to render such international activity intelligible in terms of leading ideas of international society, by which I mean that I shall try to interpret it. (2) Interpretation involves construing an activity, elucidating it, hopefully explaining it, but at least reading it correctly and thus understanding its meaning in the historical context in which it takes place. (3) The key words of this special issue express important ideas that invite interpretation: international, administration, war-torn, and territories. What do these terms imply or intimate concerning the international activity under discussion? How does the thinking involved in this sort of international activity fit into our received thought on international society? Does it suggest any change in our post-1945 conception of international society? I focus my remarks on a basic issue: the business of acquiring, exercising, and relinquishing international authority over such places--that is, international engagement in war-torn countries. The postwar cases of Germany (4) and Bosnia and Herzegovina will be examined briefly. In short, I shall be surveying these cases in broad outline from a high altitude, from which some details will be overlooked, but I hope that the broad contours will be clear. I address three groups of connected questions: * What circumstances or conditions invite or provoke such an international administration? In what places can it justifiably be carried on? In other words, what should we understand by the expression war-torn territories? * How is the activity authorized? From where does its mandate emanate and by what acts? What is its purpose? How and when should it end? * What sort of activity is the international administration of war-torn territories? How should we characterize it? What are the implications for our understanding of contemporary international society and its normative framework? War-Torn Territories In the wording of this symposium, war-torn evidently characterizes a circumstance or condition that would qualify a territory as a candidate for international administration. (5) That makes the expression a vital element in attempting to interpret the activity. It is not an established term of art in international law and diplomacy. But it conveys an idea that can be useful for studying foreign involvement in certain territories, both at present and historically. A war-torn territory is not an unambiguous state of affairs. The conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy on such questions is not the equivalent of a textbook exercise in political science. There is no definition according to which the issue can be decided scientifically or objectively. It is the international society, particularly its leading member states, that determines what will be deemed a war-torn territory in any specific instance. The phrase may be used with regard to certain places with discernible or attributable characteristics, and its use may frame part or all of a justification of international involvement. It may enter the lexicon of expressions that are used to justify such international activities. So war-torn territories is not only a descriptive term but also a prescriptive term that is employed in connection with the contemplation and execution of international involvement. …