The Intervention Imperative: Contradictions Between Liberalism, Democracy, and Humanitarian Intervention
Date
2008
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Some ideals and practices exist at the interstice between democracy and liberalism, deriving their roots from one or both yet in conflict with some element of either liberal or democratic foundational principles. One such concept is humanitarian intervention, a contested notion theoretically and morally grounded in the traditions of liberalism and democracy. Despite its liberal-democratic origins, humanitarian intervention reveals tensions between these political and moral frameworks, highlighting the contradictions between them and calling into question the very practice of humanitarian intervention by liberal democratic states. These tensions manifest themselves in three different ways. First, with respect to the basic principles underlying the practice of intervention, liberalism and democracy are not in accord. Second, the two frameworks diverge in their understandings of the appropriate method for authorizing the decision to stage an intervention, resulting in a democratic deficit in the conduct of global politics. Third, even an effective intervention raises serious issues resulting from contradictions between the moral imperatives of liberalism and the democratic right of peoples to self-determination. While these tensions are not irreconcilable, they demand hard questions of liberal, democratic, or liberal-democratic states that would undertake military intervention for humanitarian reasons.