Catherine Lu Just and Unjust Interventions in World Politics: Public and Private Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011. 239 pp., $31.00 (paper) ISBN: 978-0-230-28565-1The subject of military intervention has always been prominent feature of normative debates in international relations (IR), and the past decade has been no exception. In the past 10 years there have been so many publications and books about the subject of intervention and the corollary idea of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) that it has become increasingly difficult to say much new about it. Catherine Lu's book, however, succeeds in this regard by providing fresh normative analysis of intervention based on the public-private distinction borrowed from feminist political theory. Originally published in 2006, the paperback version of Lu's book, Just and Unjust Interventions in World Politics, was released in 2011 and contains new Afterword where the author addresses developments since the original publication of the book, most notably, the debate over R2P. The rest of the book, however, remains unchanged from the original edition.This book's central argument is that the debate over humanitarian intervention can be illuminated by the public-private distinction as espoused in feminist political theory. In short, the author uses the public-private distinction as analogous to the international-domestic distinction in IR and as way to illuminate the normative structure of international society more broadly, as well as to probe issues pertaining to the responsibilities of, and the relationships among, different international actors involved in intervention. The book also uses this public-private construct as way to critically examine prevailing normative approaches to the question of intervention and the legitimacy of recent interventionary practices.The book begins with an application of the public-private distinction to IR, with the main insight being essentially that affairs are those which states regard to be internal matters protected from interference from external actors, whereas matters are those which are the legitimate business of the international community. The analogy is thus both intriguing and intuitive. For example, family privacy has historically been way for domestic abuse to occur unchecked by outside authorities, similar to how state sovereignty has permitted states to commit variety of injustices toward their own people-such as mass atrocities-largely unchecked by international society. In both cases, we see how there should be clear limits placed upon what actions or policies can be justified as a private matter, which is to say as part of state's sovereign prerogative.In the next three chapters the author critically examines prevailing normative approaches to the issue of intervention in light of the public-private distinction. This analysis begins in chapter 3 with an examination of realism and ultimately concludes that this approach is incapable of supporting morally consistent normative position either for or against intervention. Chapter 4 is similarly critical investigation of communitarianism, which fares little better than realism, as the author reveals the inconsistency and inadequacy of communitarian accounts of the public and private lives of states. In chapter 5, however, Lu argues that unlike the realist and communitarian perspectives, cosmopolitan perspective is capable of generating moral considerations that can provide morally consistent account of intervention that can accommodate and shape the private and public lives of states. …