Exterior Interventions in Sovereign States

Governments represents only those whose consentof weaker states the strong enforcing their will
they have sought, action to prevent them fromagainst the weak, claiming moral superiority where
oppressing those whose consent they have notonly technological superiority is demonstrated. This
sought ceases to be seen as 'intervention' in themay lead to modem versions of 'gunboat' diplomacy
traditional sense. Those who try to protect the-or its more frightening modem version, 'cruise missile'
oppressed would not be interfering in the internaldiplomacy.
workings of a sovereign territory or trying to breakThe possibility of regression is the key reason why I
down the walls around a sovereign state. They wouldam not an intervention 'hawk'. Up to this point, you
be assisting in a conflict between international legalmight be forgiven for thinking that I am about as
persons. What would previously have been calledhawkish as one could be; prepared to level the walls
'intervention' will take on a different character, morearound sovereign states to allow intervention by
like action taken to assist the self-defense of aothers for the protection of the rights of citizens
sovereign government. It might still be calledagainst those who gain power without consent. But
'intervention' as it will still involve 'coming between'the issue is not just whether intervention is justified;
other persons. However, taking such action will losebut who is justified in intervening and what processes
its normative stigma.should be involved in making the decision about who
This does not mean that all such 'interventions' will bemay intervene.
justified. If you intervene in a bar room brawl, youThose who authorize intervention cannot be those
may do much good or much harm. If you assist thewho intervene, as that would make them judges in
bully, if you exacerbate the dispute, if you increasetheir own cause. Intervention may one day be
the harm, or if you just join in the fight with yourauthorized by treaty within a wide range of states.
mates, you will be in the wrong. If you encourage itOne might envisage a 'Democratic League' formed by
or precipitate it, you are as guilty of the breach ofan international treaty between democratic nations. It
the peace as they are. If you seek to intervene inwould set standards for its membership and be
place of the lawful authorities you are usurping theirauthorized to intervene in any of its member nations
authority in a way that generally endangers thein a coup situation or if any other action, which
peace.fundamentally breached the conditions of
It is easy to see how interventions will be justified tomembership, arose. The treaty could not justify
protect the oppression of excluded minorities.intervention in countries that had not ratified. This is
However, the future is not necessarily benign. Just asthe sort of club in which voluntary membership is the
challenges to liberal democratic values may lead toonly kind. Such remedies will take longer but it is
regression towards old ideologies, the breakdown ofmore likely to work in the longer term. However, the
weaker states may not herald a progression to akinds of nations which are likely to sign up to such a
new world order. Instead it may involve regressiontreaty are, coups apart, unlikely to be justifiable
towards interference by strong states in the affairssubjects for intervention.