ABSTRACT
Individual intervention carries the danger that the conflict will spread. An adversary's invitation is likely to precipitate invitations from the opposing side, seeking to return the balance of military force to its initial weighting. The effect of intervention on regional and strategic balances must be seen as part of the responsibility of an invited intervenor. The problem of outside intervention masquerading as indigenous rebellion is equally difficult. An agreement is binding so long as the agent acting on behalf of the state had apparent authority. But in the case of intervention within domestic armed conflicts, we may wish to impose a stronger obligation to evaluate the internal constitutional competence of the requesting organ. A domestic government faced with the Hobson's choice of suffering intervention against its will, or of giving pro forma consent, may well have to take the second course to avoid the confession of impotence.
