Rescuing Humanitarian Intervention from Liberal Hegemony

Thomas Peak

doi:10.1163/1875-984x-2020x002

Abstract

Abstract This article presents a normative account of legitimate humanitarian intervention. Presenting a pragmatic and ideologically neutral standard for intervention, it repositions humanitarian intervention within the context of its two most closely related practices: Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and liberal intervention. While distinct from R2P, humanitarian intervention is not in conflict with this political commitment. A consistent application of humanitarian intervention would indeed strengthen R2P. On the other hand, this normative account also distinguishes the principle of legitimate humanitarian intervention from the problematic conflation with liberal intervention. Liberal intervention reflects the more expansive project of international social engineering and ‘liberal hegemony’ pursued by the United States and its principle allies since the end of the Cold War. By clarifying the distinction between humanitarian intervention and liberal intervention, this revised standard overcomes several obstacles emerging from their conceptual confusion. It crafts a normatively acceptable standard for intervention which can garner broad international support.

Highlights

A consistent application of humanitarian intervention would strengthen R2P. This normative account distinguishes the principle of legitimate humanitarian intervention from the problematic conflation with liberal intervention
This article argues that a conceptual confusion compounds these objections, which follows from the failure to analytically distinguish humanitarian intervention from the broader practice of liberal interventionism.[2]
A normative account of legitimate humanitarian intervention is outlined which emphasises its key distinctions from liberal intervention: Humanitarian intervention is the timely and decisive utilisation of proportional and cross-border military force with human protection intent; humanitarian interveners comply, as far as is feasible, with principles of impartiality and neutrality amongst parties within the target state and take extreme precautions against collateral damage; action is a last reasonable response to ongoing or imminent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, occurring when the government of the target state is manifestly failing to exercise its Responsibility to Protect, and without meaningful consent or UN Security Council approval

Summary

Introduction

Global Responsibility toDoPwrnlooatdeedcfrtom13Bri(ll.2co0m2111)/032/720-251912:48:31PM via free access rescuing humanitarian intervention from liberal hegemony which encompasses activities such as democracy promotion, projection of human rights regimes, and revision of global sovereignty norms It is a practice deeply embedded within the strategy of liberal hegemony pursued by the United States since 1993, abetted by many of its closest allies, the United Kingdom above all.[3]. 1. Precedent: states and other actors are hesitant to acquiesce in military intervention to halt or prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity because these efforts might enable more liberal interventionism and a further erosion of the non-intervention principle in international politics. Global Responsibility to Protect 13 (2021) 37-59 Downloaded from Brill.com11/02/2021 12:48:31PM via free access

Responsibility to Protect and the Annan Dilemma

Liberal Intervention