No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Challenging humanitarian intervention in the twenty-first century: British domestic actors and horizontal foreign policy contestation during the Syrian crisis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2020
Abstract
Twenty years after the NATO intervention in Kosovo, domestic Western societies seem to have become more distrustful of the possibility of invoking and implementing humanitarian intervention (HI). This paper focuses on the 2011–2015 British domestic debate on the possibility of using force against the Syrian Government of Bashar al-Assad and against the Islamic State in Syrian territory. The goal is to understand how relevant domestic actors, namely the Government and the political parties, debated the concept of HI and engaged in several discursive strategies with the goal of influencing the decision on whether or not to intervene. The perception of the Members of Parliament about the failure of previous British governments of different ideological affiliations to carry out successful and useful interventions, especially in Iraq and Libya, favoured the development of an ‘intersubjective understanding’ that reflects a more precarious consensus on HI. The paper explains how the historical analogies of operations Iraqi Freedom against Saddam Hussein and Unified Protector against Muammar Gaddafi shaped the perceptions of political parties by pushing them to claim a larger say in disputes related to the legitimacy and feasibility of these operations.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Akande, D and Milanovic, M (2015) The constructive ambiguity of the Security Council ISIS resolution. European Journal of International Law Blog, 21 November.Google Scholar
Ambos, K (1999) Comment on the articles by Bruno Simma, ‘NATO the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects’ and Antonio Cassese ‘Ex Iniuria Ius Oritur’. Available at http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol10/No1/coma.html.Google Scholar
Bellamy, A (2006) Whither the responsibility to protect? Humanitarian intervention and the 2005 world summit. Ethics and International Affairs 20, 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevir, M, Daddow, O and Hall, I (2013) Introduction: interpreting British foreign policy. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 15, 163–174.10.1111/j.1467-856X.2012.00537.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockmeier, S, Stuenkel, O and Tourinho, M (2016) The impact of the Libyan intervention debates on norm protection. Global Society 30, 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantir, C and Kaarbo, J (2012) Contested roles and domestic politics: reflections on role theory in foreign policy analysis and IR theory. Foreign Policy Analysis 8, 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantir, C and Kaarbo, J (eds) (2016) Domestic Role Contestation, Foreign Policy, and International Relations. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, D (2011) Libya: the end of intervention. In Stark A (ed), The Responsibility to Protect: Challenges & Opportunities in Light of the Libyan Intervention. Bristol: E-International Relations, pp. 24–25.Google Scholar
Checkel, JT (1997) International norms and domestic politics: bridging the rationalist-constructivist divide. European Journal of International Relations 3, pp. 473–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, N, Hughes, S, Ashdown, P and Williams, S (2013) Why we must Act against Syria's Chemical Weapons. Evening Standard, 29 August.Google Scholar
Daalder, I and O'Hanlon, M (2000) Winning Ugly: NATO's War to Save Kosovo. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Daddow, O and Schnapper, P (2013) Liberal intervention in the foreign policy thinking of Tony Blair and David Cameron. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 26, 330–349.10.1080/09557571.2012.737763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunne, T (1998) Inventing International Society: A History of the English School. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, R (2017) China and the international human protection regime: beliefs, power, and status in a changing normative order. International Affairs 611, 1–11.Google Scholar
Gaskarth, J (2014) Strategising Britain's role in the world. International Affairs 90, 559–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskarth, J (2016) Intervention, domestic contestation, and Britain's national role conceptions. In Cantir, C and Kaarbo, J (eds), Domestic Role Contestation, Foreign Policy, and International Relations. London: Routledge, pp. 105–121.Google Scholar
George, A and Bennett, A (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Glennon, JM (1999) The new interventionism: the search for a just international law. Foreign Affairs 78(3), 2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, JD, Everts, PP, Fukui, H and Stempel, JD (2001) Foreign policy by coalition: deadlock, compromise, and anarchy. International Studies Review 3, 169–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnisch, S, Frank, C and Maull, HW (2011) Role Theory in International Relations: Approaches and Analyses. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, R (2000) Intra-party politics and peacemaking in democratic societies: Israel's Labor Party and the middle east peace process, 1992–96. Journal of Peace Research 37, 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heffernan, R (2005) Why the prime minister cannot be a president: comparing institutional imperatives in Britain and America. Parliamentary Affairs 58, 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hehir, A (2011) The illusion of progress: Libya and the future of R2P. In Stark A (ed), The Responsibility to Protect: Challenges & Opportunities in Light of the Libyan Intervention. Bristol: E-International Relations, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
Hoekema, J (2004). Srebrenica, Dutchbat, and the role of the Netherlands’ parliament. In Born, H and Hanggi, H (eds), The Double Democratic Deficit: Parliamentary Accountability and the Use of Force under International Auspices. London: Ashgate, pp. 73–89.Google Scholar
Holsti, K (1970) National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly 14, 233–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzgrefe, JL (2003) The humanitarian intervention debate. In Holzgrefe, JL and Keohane, RO (eds), Humanitarian Intervention Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houghton, DP (1996) The role of analogical reasoning in novel foreign-policy situations. British Journal of Political Science 26, 523–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, R (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kaarbo, J and Kenealy, D (2014) The House of Common's vote on British intervention in Syria. ISPI, Analysis 228, January.Google Scholar
Kaarbo, J and Kenealy, D (2015) No, prime minister: explaining the House of Common's vote on intervention in Syria. European Security 25(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Kaarbo, J and Kenealy, D (2017) Precedents, parliaments, and foreign policy: historical analogy in the House of Commons vote on Syria. West European Politics 40(1), 62–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesgin, B and Kaarbo, J (2010) When and how parliaments influence foreign policy: the case of Turkey's Iraq decision. International Studies Perspectives 1, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettel, S (2013) Dilemmas of discourse: legitimising Britain's war on terror. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 15, 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khong, YF (1992) Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, ER (1973) Lessons of the Past: The Use and Misuse of History in American Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCourt, D (2013) Embracing humanitarian intervention: Atlanticism and the UK interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 15, 246–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mello, PA (2017) Curbing the royal prerogative to use military force: the British House of Commons and the conflicts in Libya and Syria. West European Politics 40, 80–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, IB (2008) Discourse analysis. In Klotz, A and Prakash, D (eds), Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide. London: Palgrave, pp. 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neustadt, RE and May, ER (1986) Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Peters, D and Wagner, W (2014) Executive privilege or parliamentary proviso? Exploring the sources of parliamentary war powers. Armed Forces and Society 40, 310–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, MJ (1997) The use of analogies in developing outer space law. International Organization 51, 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ralph, J, Holland, J and Zhekova, K (2017) Before the vote: UK foreign policy discourse on Syria 2011–2013. Review of International Studies 43, 875–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathbun, BC (2004) Partisan Interventions European Party Politics and Peace Enforcement in the Balkans. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raunio, T and Wagner, W (2017) Towards Parliamentarisation of foreign and security policy? West European Politics 40, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reifler, J, Clarke, HD, Scotto, TJ, Sanders, D, Stewart, MC and Whiteley, P (2014) Prudence, principle and minimal heuristics: British public opinion toward the use of military force in Afghanistan and Libya. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 16, 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, D and Tillman, E (2002) Public, legislative, and executive constraints on the democratic initiation of conflict. The Journal of Politics 64, 810–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reus-Smit, C (1999) The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity and Institutional Rationality in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Risse, T (2000) ‘Let's argue!’ communicative action in world politics. International Organization 54, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saideman, S and Auerswald, DP (2012) Comparing caveats: understanding the sources of national restrictions upon NATO's mission in Afghanistan. International Studies Quarterly 56, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simma, B (1999) NATO, the UN, and the use of force: legal aspects. European Journal of International Law 10(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, J (2015) Why parliaments now decides on war: tracing the growth of the parliamentary prerogative through Syria, Libya, and Iraq. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 17(4), 604–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, W, Herranz-Surralles, A, Kaarbo, J and Ostermann, F (2018) Party politics at the water's edge: contestation of military operations in Europe. European Political Science Review 10(4), 537–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, TG (2004) The sunset of humanitarian intervention? Responsibility to protect in a unipolar era. Security Dialogue 35, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, TG (2014) After Syria: whither R2P? In Murray, RW and McKay, A (eds), Into the Eleventh Hour: R2P, Syria, and Humanitarianism in Crisis. Bristol: E-International Relations, pp. 34–37.Google Scholar
Weller, M (2015) Permanent Imminence of Armed Attacks: Resolution 2249 (2015) and the Right to Self Defence against Designated Terrorist Groups. European Journal of International Law Blog, 25 November.Google Scholar