The politics and ethics of military intervention
In: Survival: global politics and strategy, Band 37, Heft 4, S. 29-51
ISSN: 1468-2699
In: Survival: global politics and strategy, Band 37, Heft 4, S. 29-51
ISSN: 1468-2699
In: The political quarterly: PQ, S. 56-75
ISSN: 0032-3179
In: International affairs, Band 62, Heft 2, S. 290-291
ISSN: 1468-2346
In: MERIP reports: Middle East research & information project, Heft 93, S. 5
In: Journal of politics in Latin America, Band 14, Heft 1, S. 31-54
ISSN: 1868-4890
Between 2016 and 2020, a group of activist generals successfully plotted the Brazilian military's gradual return to the political center stage with powers unseen since the dictatorship. They achieved this without formally breaking the law, suspending the democratic process or overthrowing the government. We call this a "stealth intervention," an incremental yet systematic attempt to redesign politics without causing a rupture, that fits neither in the existing typology of coups nor in the literature on democratic backsliding. We argue that Brazil's stealth intervention, built upon the military's existing tutelary prerogatives and driven by an unreformed praetorian worldview that resurfaced amidst a sustained crisis of democracy, challenges the prevalent view of the armed forces as a reactive force that intervenes in civilian politics only when its institutional interests are threatened. Finally, we show that democratic backsliding in Brazil started under Bolsonaro's predecessor, Michel Temer, and point to the generals' understudied role in this process. (JPLA/GIGA)
World Affairs Online
In: Journal of politics in Latin America, Band 14, Heft 1, S. 31-54
ISSN: 1868-4890
Between 2016 and 2020, a group of activist generals successfully plotted the Brazilian military's gradual return to the political center stage with powers unseen since the dictatorship. They achieved this without formally breaking the law, suspending the democratic process or overthrowing the government. We call this a "stealth intervention," an incremental yet systematic attempt to redesign politics without causing a rupture, that fits neither in the existing typology of coups nor in the literature on democratic backsliding. We argue that Brazil's stealth intervention, built upon the military's existing tutelary prerogatives and driven by an unreformed praetorian worldview that resurfaced amidst a sustained crisis of democracy, challenges the prevalent view of the armed forces as a reactive force that intervenes in civilian politics only when its institutional interests are threatened. Finally, we show that democratic backsliding in Brazil started under Bolsonaro's predecessor, Michel Temer, and point to the generals' understudied role in this process.
In: International affairs, Band 84, Heft 4, S. 615-639
ISSN: 1468-2346
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.
In: Who Wins?, S. 106-126
In: Defence studies, Band 11, Heft 2, S. 350-352
ISSN: 1743-9698
In: International affairs, Band 78, Heft 4, S. 892-894
ISSN: 0020-5850
In: The public opinion quarterly: POQ, Band 46, Heft 4, S. 592
ISSN: 1537-5331
In an era where the use of military intervention is being debated by governments and societies all around the globe, the potentially radicalizing impact of the specific form of intervention has remained chronically underexplored. The article addresses this lack of research, by examining the radicalizing effects of full-scale military engagement and the consequences of more limited, aerial intervention. In an effort to inform the contentious discussion around foreign military intervention, it draws examples from the 'War on Terror' in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the more recent airstrikes employed through the US drone programme against Al-Qaeda and coalition strikes against the so-called Islamic State, illustrating the risks and outcomes of 'boots on the ground' versus engaging in more 'distant' warfare. It concludes that whilst other factors clearly play a role in an individual's journey towards extremism, intervention by a foreign power can encourage the process of radicalization, or 'de-pluralization' - the developing perception that there exists only one solution, extreme violence - to take place. However, it finds that the type of intervention plays a critical role in determining how individuals experience this process of de-pluralization; full-scale intervention can result in a lack of monitoring alongside frustrations (about lost sovereignty for example), a combination which paves the way for radical ideology. Conversely, airstrikes present those underneath with unequal and unassailable power that cannot be fairly fought, fuelling interest in exporting terrorism back to the intervening countries.
BASE
In: Religion and International Security
For many years religion has been the neglected component of international relations and yet in an age of globalization and terrorism, religious identity has become increasingly important in the lives of people in the West as well as the developing world. The secularization thesis has been overtaken by an increased desire to understand how religious actors contribute to both conflict and the resolution of conflict. This volume brings an exciting new perspective with fresh ideas and analyses of the events shaping conflict and conflict resolution today. The book uniquely combines chapters highlighting Christian and Islamist theological approaches to understanding and interpreting conflict, as well as case studies on the role of religion in US foreign policy and the Iraq war, with religious perspectives on building peace once conflicts are resolved. The volume provides an ideal starting point for anyone wishing to gain a deeper understanding of the religious character of conflict in the twenty-first century and how such conflict could be resolved