ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses contemporary liberal internationalism that is specifically relevant to the practice of intervention and describes how contemporary liberal theories have abstracted away from liberalism's historical practices-originally advocated by Locke-thus leading to the paradoxical normative prescriptions, and ultimately practices and outcomes, of contemporary liberal intervention. It focuses on the ways in which these theories seek to justify military intervention on the basis of protecting human rights norms globally and spreading liberal democracy to non-democratic states, utilizing Jahn's analysis of Locke as a way to interrogate these arguments. The chapter examines the three aforementioned cases of intervention to illustrate these tendencies and show that interventions premised on liberal internationalism are likely to continue to fail or produce paradoxical outcomes, and should either be abandoned as a policy of liberal actors, or profoundly reformed in light of these inherent contradictions. These cases are legality of the interventions, stated motives of the interveners and short- and long-term outcomes of these interventions.
