Prevention and sovereignty: A vision and a strategy for a new world order?

Abstract

Prevention has become one of the declared objectives by national governments, the United Nations and the European Union to end violent conflict in the short term and to eradicate the causes of violent conflict in the longer run. Prevention defined as a comprehensive strategy includes the use of force through intervention if necessary. The article discusses first the relationship between prevention and intervention and their linkage to the international order. The abolition of inter-state war was the declared goal of the Charter of the UN. Today, the aim seems to include the abolition of internal war as well which implies a redefinition both of internal sovereignty and the non-intervention principle. During the Cold War the assumption by the two blocs was that the internal structure of states was believed to be a critical element of world peace, yet only after 1990 did this have practical consequences. Intervention has now become to some extent legitimate. Prevention as a strategy is, however fraught with a number of dilemmas. It seems to be a revised version of a collective security system which may, ironically, favour a renewed polarisation in the international system as it will in the end remain a selective policy pursued either unilaterally or multilaterally. It also remains unclear whether such a strategy to democratise the world will find the required support in the respective democracies who will have to carry the heaviest burden. Whether prevention is a form of – unintended or not – organised hypocrisy is therefore a legitimate question that this article poses. 1 The original ideas for this article were developed for the panel on Sovereignty, Intervention and Prevention for the IPSA 2003 in Durban. We wish to acknowledge the pertinent comments by the panelists, Sven Chojnacki, and two anonymous reviewers.