The Stance of Political Theories in International Relations on Humanitarian Interventions

Introduction

The transformations that the international system underwent after the Cold War, with the collapse of the socialist system and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, alongside the explosion of internal conflicts in many states, led to the emergence of the phenomenon of “humanitarian intervention.” Since the beginning of the 1990s, there have been numerous calls for international humanitarian intervention to stop human rights violations, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. This means that intervention is directed against a state accused of violating human rights against its citizens, in a manner that shocks the human conscience.

Humanitarian intervention falls within the literature on human rights, as it represents one of its mechanisms at the international level and can be defined as the act of a state or a group of states using military force, either under the auspices of the United Nations or outside of it, to curb the humanitarian violations committed by a state against its own citizens.

The international community has witnessed more than one case of humanitarian intervention in the post-Cold War period, whether it was collective intervention under the UN framework, such as the intervention in northern Iraq on April 5, 1991, Somalia on December 3, Bosnia and Herzegovina on June 14, 1993, and Rwanda on June 22, 1994. Alternatively, unilateral interventions occurred outside the UN framework, such as NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in April 1999.

Since its emergence on the international political stage in the post-Cold War era, humanitarian intervention has sparked political and legal debates at the unit level (nation-states), with supporters and opponents of the practice. The former argues that, in light of globalization, it is no longer possible to cling to the concept of national sovereignty, nor can states use this sovereignty to dominate and disrespect human rights against any population in any member state of the international community. Conversely, opponents claim that it contradicts the principle of national sovereignty and involves interference in domestic affairs, which can be exploited by major powers to achieve political objectives.

It is worth noting that the ruling authority in Syria has systematically violated human rights since mid-March of the previous year, and all Arab and international diplomatic initiatives, as well as economic and diplomatic sanctions imposed on the ruling authority in Syria by the Arab League, Western countries, and the European Union, have failed to deter it from its practices.

A review of the main theories in international relations may offer an explanation for the behavior of major and great powers in their hesitation to intervene in Syria to stop these violations, despite having intervened in similar circumstances in other countries where citizens faced humanitarian violations.

First: Realist Theory

This theory is one of the foremost intellectual theories for interpreting international relations, as it approaches the interpretation from the perspective of human nature, characterized by its inherent selfishness.

From this viewpoint, international relations represent a struggle for power and influence among states, which are mainly concerned with achieving their national interests. In a global system without a central authority to protect states from each other, each state must rely on itself to continue to exist. Conflicts and wars in this system are inevitable, as peace does not rely on international law or international organizations but rather on the balance of power. Intervention may thus become necessary to maintain this balance, exemplified by the Soviet intervention during the Cold War in Eastern Europe and the U.S. intervention in Central America.

Realists justify these interventions to maintain the international order and prevent the occurrence of misunderstandings or mistakes that could escalate to war.

The realist theory is based on a set of hypotheses that form its intellectual premises:

1. International relations are not founded on moral principles that favor benevolence over malevolence among states.
2. The foreign policy of states largely prioritizes national interest, considering their available capabilities and resources; thus, states pursue their international interests under all circumstances, adhering to moral principles and international law only when it aligns with their national interests.
3. The concepts of national interest and power are not static but evolve with changing environmental conditions, both internally and externally; a state’s national interest at a certain time may not remain the same due to political, economic, or cultural changes.
4. Each state’s national interest requires offensive military capabilities to defend itself and expand its control.
5. The system of states is anarchic, meaning there is no central authority capable of regulating state behavior.
6. States wishing to maintain their sovereignty and independence must keep power as the main driving force of their behavior.

Elements of Realist Theory: Despite the numerous branches of this theory, its proponents agree on the following elements:

• Firstly – The State: It is the cornerstone of realist theory. It is the dominant actor, and other actors in global politics are of lesser importance. Additionally, the state’s sovereignty indicates the presence of an independent political community that has legal authority over its territory.
• Secondly – Survival: The primary goal of all states is survival, which is the supreme national interest that leaders and politicians must commit to maintaining, while other objectives, like economic prosperity, are secondary. To uphold their state’s security, leaders should evaluate actions based on outcomes rather than the morality of individual acts.
• Thirdly – Self-Reliance: No state can rely on another to guarantee its survival, and the structure of the international political system does not allow for values like friendship, trust, and honor, but rather a persistent state of anarchy resulting from the absence of a global government. Coexistence is maintained through a balance of power. Based on these premises, some proponents of this theory believe that two main factors limit cooperation between states even after the Cold War:
  1. Deception: Although realists do not deny existing cooperation between states, they believe it has certain limits since states will always fear that others might breach agreements that give them a competitive edge, a significant risk given the nature of modern military technologies.
  2. Relative Gains: States prioritize relative over absolute gains, making cooperation a challenging goal due to the environment of suspicion and mistrust.

Thus, realism views human rights as merely a Western idea, with economic and military institutions consolidating the international system in the post-World War II stage. States intervene in other nations’ affairs when they deem such actions beneficial to their interests and refrain from intervention when it does not serve them, rendering the principle of non-intervention meaningless among major powers. Western states, represented by the U.S. and France, may view intervention—even for humanitarian reasons—as a means to achieve political objectives; removing the ruling authority in Syria would significantly curb Russia’s influence in the Arab world, especially after losing its ally in Libya. In addition, it would destabilize the Iranian-Syrian-Lebanese alliance represented by Hezbollah and the official Iraqi government, which became evident during the peaceful protests in Syria.

Given this, realism opposes international humanitarian intervention for the following reasons:

1. States do not engage in humanitarian interventions for humanitarian considerations; realists argue that states only regard their national interests and are unlikely to adopt humanitarian feelings in their political behavior.
2. States should not risk their soldiers’ lives to stop human rights violations or promote humanitarian values; leaders cannot justify the loss of their soldiers on humanitarian grounds and believe that a state is only responsible for its own citizens.
3. Misuse of humanitarian intervention: Realists argue that such interventions should not be justifiably considered a special exception to the principle prohibiting the use of force, as this opens the door to possible misuse by states under the pretext of defending themselves.
4. Selectivity of humanitarian intervention: Realists observe that states intervene selectively, resulting in contradictory policies driven by their perceived national interests.
5. Disagreement over the principles governing the right to humanitarian intervention: Realists maintain that intervention should not occur in the presence of disputes regarding the definition of gross human rights violations within the international community.

Second: Liberal Theory

Liberalism emerged after its victory over the European feudal ecclesiastical system, positioning itself as the ideological stream advocating progress through freedom, embodied in its principle of “let it pass, let it operate.” Consequently, many thinkers assert that the concept of human rights, as it is commonly understood today, owes its emergence to liberal theory.

Liberal theory is based on several foundations:

1. Theory of Natural Rights: Humans have natural rights derived from their humanity, which the state must recognize and respect to enable them to fulfill their roles.
2. Moral Theory: This highlights the need for full freedom for individuals to develop their capabilities, suggesting that societies allowing complete freedom will yield the best results for both the individual and society.
3. Social Contract Theory: It posits that the formation of the state occurs among individuals consensually, based on a contracting idea that ensures respect for their rights; individuals do not relinquish all their freedoms but only a portion to establish the contract.
4. Economic Theory: This asserts that a natural order governs economic phenomena, which can best provide happiness for individuals, working for the benefit of both individual and collective society.

In liberalism, international relations are not viewed as a “zero-sum game.” It rejects war as a natural extension of international politics, as well as the notion that conflict is a normal state of relations among states. The theory emphasizes international cooperation to counter the negative outcomes of international anarchy through the influence of international institutions on state behavior.

Despite the differences in understanding humanitarian intervention, proponents reconcile differences, justifying intervention when state structures collapse, as in Somalia in 1991 or when citizens face violations by their governments, such as the Kurds in Iraq in 1991 and Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992.

Liberalism has criticized the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, arguing that sovereignty is not an absolute good and is crucial for protecting people from tyranny and foreign interference. States that claim sovereignty deserve respect as long as they protect human rights. When this fails, the demand for complete sovereignty collapses. Interventions are deemed necessary to prevent disorder in a world where internal violence threatens to spread rapidly across borders.

Third: Marxist Theory

Marxist theory represented the main alternative to both realism and liberalism in interpreting international relations until the collapse of the socialist system and the end of the Cold War, providing a different interpretation of conflict from the previous two theories.

Marxism replaces concepts like power and national interest with imperialism, dependency, and exploitation, focusing on economic and social factors as the basis for clarifying conflicting interests that cannot be explained by political or strategic factors.

Marxism asserts that the state and its administrative institutions are manifestations of the ruling exploited class; thus, the relations among states are ultimately class relations. Foreign policy is merely an expression of a country’s mode of production and social organization.

Social class is the primary factor in the international economic system, not states. The activities of all similar actors are explained by class power, meaning that states and multinational corporations represent the dominant class interests in the global economic framework.

From a Marxist perspective, international conflict is fundamentally economic, resulting from the contradictions of capitalism that produce various forms of class conflict, whether within capitalist classes or between capitalist and socialist states, particularly as the latter is seen as a threat to the former.

Marxism also argues that the relationships between developed capitalist countries and developing ones are marked by dependency, which the latter succumb to with the help of their ruling classes. The solution lies in revolutionary governments committed to independent development.

In conclusion, Marxism critiques the concept of human rights, viewing it as a liberal notion that fails to achieve true liberation and instead reflects bourgeois class values. It prioritizes social and economic rights over civil and political rights, rejecting interventions under the guise of protecting human rights, whether individual or collective, as a violation of national sovereignty. Such interventions by developed capitalist states in the Global South are viewed as efforts to fulfill their strategic interests, often resulting in neo-colonial practices in regions experiencing internal conflicts.

In essence, Marxism explains humanitarian interventions as economic endeavors by dominant capitalist powers to prevent redistribution of wealth in the Global South and maintain political and security stability. The ideological framework surrounding interventions employs humanitarian rhetoric as a disguise for economic motives, seeking to reinforce the dependency of the Global South on the developed North, thus upholding the international capitalist structure.

This analysis suggests that if interventions in a state’s internal affairs previously occurred only in extraordinary circumstances, like post-war conditions or political system collapses, globalization has blurred the lines between internal and external events. With states governing populations that violate human rights, international intervention is increasingly seen as acceptable.

In conclusion, each of the aforementioned theories encompasses aspects of truth in explaining the phenomenon of international humanitarian intervention. Analyzing solely through a single political theory results in a distorted understanding. The end of the Cold War has reinforced the role of liberal theory in theorizing humanitarian interventions by stressing ethical principles and the importance of international legitimacy. Meanwhile, realist theory effectively explains the selectivity of these interventions, while Marxist theory emphasizes economic factors and dependency relations in the global system as vital to understanding humanitarian interventions. If intervention in Syria were to occur, realism would likely have the most substantial presence in shaping its context.

References

• Justifying War? From Humanitarian Intervention to Counterterrorism, Editors: Gilles Andréani and Pierre Hassner.
• World Orders in the Making: Humanitarian Intervention and Beyond, Editor: Jan Nederveen Pieterse.
• A Critical Humanitarian Intervention Approach, Author: Karina Z. Butler.
• Values and Weapons: From Humanitarian Intervention to Regime Change?, Author: Janne Haaland Matlary.
• The Politics of International Intervention: The Tyranny of Peace, Editors: Mandy Turner and Florian P. Kühn.
• Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, Editor: J.L. Holzgrefe and Robert O. Keohane.
• The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All, Author: Gareth Evans.
• Intervention in World Politics, Editor: Hedley Bull.
• Humanitarian Intervention: The United Nations in an Evolving World Order, Author: Sean D. Murphy.
• The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention, Editor: Don E. Scheid.