Review Article: Theorizing Military Intervention
In: International affairs, Band 80, Heft 2, S. 355-365
ISSN: 0020-5850
A review essay on books by (1) Neta Crawford, Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization and Humanitarian Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 2002); (2) Martha Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force (Ithaca, NY: Cornell U Press, 2003); & (3) Anthony F. Lang, Jr., Agency and Ethics: The Politics of Military Intervention (New York: State U New York Press, 2002). A number of theory-driven books have recently appeared on the subject of military intervention. The three under review in this article are timely in explicitly associating past colonial practice with more recent military adventures. Yet each author seems to suggest that colonial (& decolonization) practices actually reinforce the humanity of the West & the validity of recent 'humanitarian' justifications for war rather than expose much that is unseemly about contemporary interventionary practice. What is the source of this apparent paradox? One answer can be found in the theoretical framework of each book. Notwithstanding the extent to which the authors have sought to be self-reflective concerning power & critical of the International Relations mainstream, all offer legitimizations for imperial/humanitarian war in wide & problematic ways. Adapted from the source document.