ABSTRACT
Introduction A great deal is expected of military action. 1 We 2 assume it capable of defending our political communities, protecting civilians, and realizing our political goals and our conceptions of justice. In international relations theory and political theory – so, in the international and domestic realms, to the extent that these remain distinct today – violence is given the privileged position of final arbiter status. In relations between states, military power is viewed as the ultimate tool of the realist “self-help” system, the only way states can ensure their sovereignty and defend it against potential aggressors under conditions of anarchy (Waltz 1979). Though at times simply the presence of a military capability is enough for a state’s intentions to be taken seriously (Art 1980), even this implicit threat relies on an underlying assumption that, if carried out, military action would be decisive. Though some have questioned the utility or relevance of military action in certain circumstances in light of nuclear weapons (Martin 1973), economic interdependence (Keohane and Nye 1977), or normative change (Mueller 1989), its assumed efficacy – in situations where it really matters, where security is at stake – remains the bedrock of international relations theory. Domestically, a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is the most commonly invoked defining characteristic of a state (Weber 2004 [1919]); while the weight of law itself may draw some compliance, it is – many argue – the coercive apparatus backing law within a state that makes law enforceable, and this is what presumably makes domestic law qualitatively different from international law (Hobbes 1988 [1651]). Though I will be focusing here more on the type of violence employed between sovereign (or semi-sovereign) units than on that employed within sovereign units (where legitimacy is more consolidated), identifying the privileged position violence inhabits in both realms helps us realize just how much is staked upon its ability to do the things asked of it. There is a pervasive and deeply held assumption in political thought and practice that violence – and military action, more specifically – is effective.
