ABSTRACT
The principle of non-interference in the sovereign affairs of other states has long been the foundation of order in the international system. The rule protects small states from the predations of the strong and precludes military adventurism except in self-defence. Yet in reality, intervention has a long history in international politics. States have frequently intervened in the domestic affairs of other states. Often this is to protect their political or economic interests. On other occasions, states have been motivated by a desire to protect vulnerable populations from mass killings by their governments or in the context of a failed state. In some cases, threats to regional security or to human rights have motivated some states to effect regime change through invasion or other military means.
This chapter examines the practice of military intervention in sovereign states. Concepts covered in the chapter include humanitarian intervention, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and forced Regime Change. While humanitarian intervention was based on the principle that the international community had a right to intervene in cases of serious crimes against humanity, R2P rested more on the notion that it had an obligation to do so. Regime Change involves the forceful removal of a government from power for humanitarian or strategic reasons.
The chapter discusses when and why states might seek to militarily intervene in other nations and the legal, moral and practical obstacles to such action. It considers the relative strength of humanitarian versus strategic motivations and asks when the international community will act to halt mass killings, crimes against humanity and genocide. It finds that a complex combination of altruism, interest and a favourable regional environment is necessary for intervention on humanitarian grounds. Despite claims of an emerging norm of R2P, intervention for strategic rather than humanitarian purposes remains the most common practice in international politics.
