1993Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooksRequires access

The Pragmatic Case Against Intervention

Caroline Thomas

Open publisher page 21 citations

Abstract

In this chapter the case against intervention to promote human causes is put forward. Fundamental to this position is the fact that the state is the common value in international politics. If an international community can be said to exist, it is through the recognition of international rights and duties inherent in statehood that this is so. International law and diplomacy, in which non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states plays a key role, are designed to serve the state and the state system. The rights and obligations which exist in the international sphere are the rights and obligations of states and not of individuals, with the possible exception of the right to self-determination. Yet even the latter is generally recognised only within the established territorial boundaries of existing states; a movement for national self-determination which threatens the territorial integrity of existing states is outlawed by the community of states. Any attempt to establish a basis for interventionary action premised on a universal formula of human rights, even if this could be achieved in theory, cannot be translated into state practice for three simple reasons: state sovereignty, heterogeneity within the system, and the hierarchical nature of the system. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In this chapter the case against intervention to promote human causes is put forward. Fundamental to this position is the fact that the state is the common value in international politics. If an international community can be said to exist, it is through the recognition of international rights and duties inherent in statehood that this is so. International law and diplomacy, in which non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states plays a key role, are designed to serve the state and the state system. The rights and obligations which exist in the international sphere are the rights and obligations of states and not of individuals, with the possible exception of the right to self-determination. Yet even the latter is generally recognised only within the established territorial boundaries of existing states; a movement for national self-determination which threatens the territorial integrity of existing states is outlawed by the community of states. Any attempt to establish a basis for interventionary action premised on a universal formula of human rights, even if this could be achieved in theory, cannot be translated into state practice for three simple reasons: state sovereignty, heterogeneity within the system, and the hierarchical nature of the system. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 21 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In this chapter the case against intervention to promote human causes is put forward. Fundamental to this position is the fact that the state is the common value in international politics. If an international community can be said to exist, it is through the recognition of international rights and duties inherent in statehood that this is so. International law and diplomacy, in which non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states plays a key role, are designed to serve the state and the state system. The rights and obligations which exist in the international sphere are the rights and obligations of states and not of individuals, with the possible exception of the right to self-determination. Yet even the latter is generally recognised only within the established territorial boundaries of existing states; a movement for national self-determination which threatens the territorial integrity of existing states is outlawed by the community of states. Any attempt to establish a basis for interventionary action premised on a universal formula of human rights, even if this could be achieved in theory, cannot be translated into state practice for three simple reasons: state sovereignty, heterogeneity within the system, and the hierarchical nature of the system. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Key concepts: Sovereignty, Political science, Human rights, Intervention (counseling), International law, State (computer science), Sovereign state, Territorial integrity

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Pragmatic Case Against Intervention — Research Paper | ScholarLens