Abstract
The idea and practice of ‘humanitarian intervention’ is one of the most important issues to have emerged in international politics in the last 15 years, and has been the subject of a great deal of academic enquiry as well as practical political debate.1 This is not a book about humanitarian intervention, but the arguments about the nature, purpose and desirability of the development of a right, or possibly even a duty, of humanitarian intervention have a direct impact on the ways in which we understand the role of territorial borders in international politics and, most importantly here, about their ethical status.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
The humanitarian intervention literature is huge, and extends into a range of fields beyond international relations, including international law and moral philosophy. Still the best general survey of the subject, in my view, is Nicholas J. Wheeler (2000), Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press
From a public policy perspective a very interesting effort to establish the basis for a limited right of humanitarian intervention is provided by The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001), Responsibility to Protect, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
E.g. the participants in Roundtable (2003), ‘Evaluating the Pre-emptive Use of Force’, Ethics and International Affairs 17 (1).
In this speech, Blair recalls arguments made in Tony Blair (1999), ‘Doctrine of International Community’, speech made on 24.4.99. http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page1297.asp.
Elshtain provides a justification for what she labels ‘pre-emption’ but which would seem to be closer to preventative war in the ways in which these terms are more generally used. Jean Bethke Elshtain (2004), Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World, New York: Basic Books, pp. 184–91
For a discussion of the usage of these terms and the distinction between them, see Richard K. Betts (2003), ‘Striking First: A History of Thankfully Lost Opportunities’, Ethics and International Affairs 17 (1)
Also Allen Buchanan and Robert O. Keohane (2004), ‘Governing the Preventive Use of Force’, Ethics and International Affairs 18 (1).
Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer (2003), ‘An Unnecessary War’, Foreign Policy 134 (Jan./Feb.).
Barry Buzan (2004), From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45–62, 139–60.
E.g. Wheeler, Saving Strangers, especially Chapter 1. Fernando Téson (1998), Humanitarian Intervention: An Enquiry into Law and Morality, Dobbs Ferry: Transnational Publishers. ICISS, Responsibility to Protect.
For an alternative approach that possesses merit but has not really caught on, see Oliver Ramsbotham (1997), ‘Humanitarian Intervention 1990–95: A need to Reconceptualize?’ Review of International Studies 23 (4).
Also Nicholas J. Wheeler (2002), ‘Dying for Enduring Freedom: Accepting Responsibility for Civilian Casualties in the War Against Terrorism’, International Relations 16 (2)
Andrew Hurrell (2002), ’“There are No Rules” (George W. Bush): International Order After September 11’, International Relations 16 (2).
E.g. Barry Buzan (2002), ‘Who May We Bomb?’ in Ken Booth and Tim Dunne (eds), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order, Basingstoke: Macmillan. For a very critical response, see Martin Shaw, ‘Who May We Bomb: A Reply to Barry Buzan’, http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/justpeace/111ashaw.htm.
Richard Little (2000), ‘The English School’s Contribution to the Study of International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations 6 (3).
See, for example, Hedley Bull (1977), The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, London: Macmillan.
Hedley Bull (1984), Justice in International Relations: The Hagey Lectures, Ontario: University of Waterloo Press. Barry Buzan, From International to World Society? pp. 45–62
Nicholas J. Wheeler (1992), ‘Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society’, Millennium 21 (3). Wheeler, Saving Strangers, especially Chapter 1.
For a recent analysis of thinking about the state in IR theory, particularly the English school, that makes a similar point about the liberal tenor of much of this work and the need for greater engagement with its normative dimension, see Christian Reus-Smit (1999), The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity and Institutional Rationality in International Relations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
This is an argument that I have, previously, attempted to elaborate and defend. There is therefore an element of self-refutation in this chapter. See John Williams (1999), ‘The Ethics of Borders and the Borders of Ethics: International Society and Rights and Duties of Special Beneficence’, Global Society 13 (4).
See John Williams (2006), ‘Order and Society’, in Richard Little and John Williams (eds), The Anarchical Society in a Globalized World, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Also, Robert H. Jackson (2000), The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States, Oxford: Oxford University Press
James Mayall (1990), Nationalism and International Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
James Mayall (2000), World Politics: Progress and Its Limits, Cambridge: Polity.
The origins of this taxonomy are generally seen as lying in the work of Martin Wight, see Martin Wight (1991), International Theory: The Three Traditions, edited by Brian Porter and Gabriele Wight, Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Edward Keene (2002), Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Andrew Hurrell (2003), ‘International Law and the Making and Unmaking of Boundaries’, in Allen Buchanan and Margaret Moore (eds), States, Nations and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
John Williams (2005), ‘Pluralism, Solidarism and the Emergence of World Society in English School Theory’, International Relations 19 (1).
Timothy Dunne (1995), ‘The Social Construction of International Society’, European Journal of International Relations 1 (3).
The idea of a ‘classical method’, as defended by Bull in the 1960s, has received an important contemporary re-statement in Jackson, Global Covenant, pp. 44–96. See also Hedley Bull (1969), ‘International Theory: The Case for the Classical Approach’, in Klaus Knorr and James N. Rosenau (eds), Contending Approaches to International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press
For a rather different take on a ‘classical approach’, see Richard Shapcott (2004), ‘IR as Practical Philosophy: Defining a “Classical Approach”’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6 (3).
Alexander Wendt (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This reaches its height, as far as authors who can reasonably be regarded as drawing on or developing the English school tradition is concerned, in the work of Andrew Linklater. See in particular Andrew Linklater (1998), The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations for a Post-Westphalian Era, Cambridge: Polity.
A useful summary of much recent literature can be found in David A. Lake (2003), ‘The New Sovereignty in International Relations’, International Studies Review 5 (3).
A classic statement of this position, still very widely quoted, comes from R. J. Vincent (1974), Non-Intervention and International Order, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
This kind of account could be drawn from almost any textbook in international relations, although it should be noted that such a straightforward telling of the story has come under growing fire, see Krasner, Sovereignty — Organized Hypocrisy; Benno Teschke (2003), The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations, London: Verso.
E.g. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson (eds) (1984), The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Clarendon
Adam Watson (1992), The Evolution of International Society, London: Routledge.
Bull, Anarchical Society pp. 24–38. For a helpful summary of the debate over the status of non-European peoples, particularly in Latin America, and its relationship to some more contemporary discussions of human rights, see Chris Brown (2000), ‘Cultural Diversity and International Political Theory: From the Requirement to “Mutual Respect”?’ Review of International Studies 26 (2)
For an analysis of the role of the native peoples of Latin America in the creation of the idea of a ‘state of nature’ in European political thought, and the influence this had on international relations, see Beate Jahn (2000), The Cultural Construction of International Relations: The Invention of the State of Nature, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
John Rawls (1999), A Theory of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press
John Rawls (1993), Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press
Brian Barry (1995), Justice as Impartiality, Oxford: Clarendon
Henry Shue (1996), Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence and US Foreign Policy (Second edition), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Andrew Linklater (1990), Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory in International Relations, Basingstoke: Macmillan; Linklater, Transformation of Political Community.
Richard Shapcott (2001), Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nigel Dower (1998), World Ethics: The New Agenda, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Peter Jones (2001), ‘Human Rights and Diverse Cultures: Continuity or Discontinuity’ in Simon Caney and Peter Jones (eds), Human Rights and Global Diversity, London: Frank Cass.
Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler (1996), ‘Hedley Bull’s Pluralism of the Intellect and Solidarism of the Will’, International Affairs 72 (1).
See the different analyses of the nature, role and effectiveness of human rights in international relations in Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler (eds) (1999), Human Rights in Global Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barbara F. Walter (2003), ‘Explaining the intractability of territorial conflict’, International Studies Review 5 (4).
On the idea of ‘global prohibition regimes’, see Ethan A. Nadelman (1990), ‘Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society’, International Organization 44 (4).
One of the strongest examples of this sort of claim, which is quite widespread in the literature on cosmopolitan ethics in international political theory, is the ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ project particularly associated with the work of David Held and Daniele Archibugi. E.g. David Held (1995), Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Cambridge: Polity.
Nicholas J. Wheeler (1996), ‘Guardian Angel or Global Gangster: A Review of the Ethical Claims of International Society’, Political Studies 44 (1).
E.g. Robin Atfield (2002), ‘Global Citizenship and the Global Environment’, in Nigel Dower and John Williams (eds), Global Citizenship: A Critical Reader, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
For an account and analysis of the practice of returning terrorism subjects to states where torture is used, see Human Rights Watch (2005), Still at Risk: Diplomatic Assurances No Safeguard Against Torture, New York: Human Rights Watch, available at http://hrw.org/reports/2005/eca0405/.
Also Human Rights Watch (2004), The United States’ Disappeared’: The CIA’s Long-Term ‘Ghost Detainees’, New York, Human Rights Watch, available at http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/us1004/index.htm which alleges the use of torture by CIA agents on non-US citizens held in communicado outside the United States, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Algeria.
This kind of argument draws on an ethic of statesmanship that is often associated with classical realism, although this is not in any way to claim that realists defend torture. See Joel H. Rosenthal (1991), Righteous Realists: Political Realism, Responsible Power and American Culture in the Nuclear Age, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press
Ken Booth (1995), ‘Human Wrongs and International Relations’, International Affairs 71 (1).
E.g. Martha Nussbaum (1996), ‘Cosmopolitanism and Patriotism’, in Joshua Cohen (ed.), For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism, Boston: Beacon Books.
This appeals to a classic liberal exposition of the idea of citizenship associated with T. H. Marshall (1973), Class, Citizenship and Social Development, Westport CN: Greenwood Press.
Peter Singer ( 1985 [1972]), ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’, in Charles R. Reitz et al. (eds), International Ethics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
A variety of defences of patriotism against a cosmopolitan ethical perspective can be found in the responses to Martha Nussbaum’s famous piece ‘Cosmopolitanism and Patriotism’. Cohen (ed.), For Love of Country. Also Michael Walzer (1983), Spheres of Justice, New York: Basic Books.
E.g. Richard Falk (2000), ‘An Emergent Matrix of Citizenship: Complex, Uneven and Fluid’, in Dower and Williams (eds), Global Citizenship.
Frances Harbour argues that the idea of rights and duties of special beneficence has great utility because it is one of very few ethical ideas that can be found in all known human societies. Frances V. Harbour (1995), ‘Basic Moral Values: A Shared Core’, Ethics and International Affairs 9.
E.g. Jonathan Eyal (1993), Europe and Yugoslavia: Lessons From a Failure, London: Royal United Services Institute.
John Kampfner (2003), Blair’s Wars, London: Free Press, pp. 65–77.
E.g. Bruce D. Jones (1995), ‘Intervention Without Borders: Humanitarian Intervention in Rwanda’, Millennium 24 (2)
For a damning verdict on the actions of all members of the international community, see Linda Melvern (2000), Rwanda — a Nation Betrayed, London: Zed Press.
George W. Bush (2001), ‘Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People’, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920–8.html.
Dale C. Copeland (2003), ‘A Realist Critique of the English School’, Review of International Studies 29 (3).
John Agnew and Stuart Corbridge (1995), Mastering Space: Hegemony, Territory and Political Economy, London: Routledge.
For a summary of environmental theory in international relations, see Matthew Paterson (2005), ‘Green Politics’, in Scott Burchill et al., International Relations Theory (Third edition), Basingstoke: Palgrave.
A good summary of the entrenchment of the territorial integrity rule is provided by Mark W. Zacher (2002), ‘The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force’, International Organization 55 (2).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2006 John Williams
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Williams, J. (2006). The Ethical Contingency of Territorial Borders?. In: The Ethics of Territorial Borders. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230624825_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230624825_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-28071-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-62482-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)