The Contradictory Logics of International Intervention

Abstract

In the rapidly unfolding multipolar world order, an unprecedented number of states, international organisations, advocacy groups, and other actors are devising and implementing a growing number of interventions to strengthen democracy, peace, and security. The political and normative views on these external interventions differ fundamentally. Negative connotations predominate with respect to the term "intervention" in the international promotion of democracy, peace, and security. This is mostly due to its popular association with military operations, the increasingly blurred divide between "the external" and "the internal," contested legitimacy, and the prevailing focus on Western actors. However, a narrow understanding focused on military operations leaves aside an increasing variety of less coercive forms of intervention. Differentiating between the various forms, goals, and contexts of intervention is a precondition for proper analysis and application. The most important factors are the actors involved, the mode of operation (coercive vs. less ­coercive), and the specific targets to be achieved – for instance, the underlying concept of "peace." Current trends in the international arena include the ever-increasing number of actors, the erosion of dominant norms, the crisis of multilateralism, and the decrease in democracy-promotion activities in favour of addressing security concerns. Due to the complex nature of international interventions, assessing their effects can be frustrating. It is most important to adequately tackle the individual interventions' contexts and to group similar kinds of intervention. For instance, UN peacekeeping, in conjunction with other factors, has often contributed to the ending of severe violent conflicts. Western states are no longer the dominant powers when it comes to democracy promotion, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding. Against this background, pursuing pragmatic approaches to safeguard minimum conditions of democratic governance and security seems to be the most feasible option. To properly assess individual interventions' effects, practitioners (and scholars) should make more consistent efforts to establish yardsticks and evaluation designs before devising specific interventions.