#11822. Legitimacy of violence: extra-military versus intra-military legitimacy
July 2026 | publication date |
Proposal available till | 22-05-2025 |
4 total number of authors per manuscript | 0 $ |
The title of the journal is available only for the authors who have already paid for |
|
|
Journal’s subject area: |
History;
Law;
Political Science and International Relations;
Sociology and Political Science;
Social Sciences (miscellaneous);
Management Science and Operations Research; |
Places in the authors’ list:
1 place - free (for sale)
2 place - free (for sale)
3 place - free (for sale)
4 place - free (for sale)
Abstract:
In this article, I analyse the theory and practice of interventions in foreign civil wars to assist rebels fighting against violently oppressive government. The indirect nature of this kind of intervention gives rise to political complications that are either absent from or less obvious in humanitarian interventions aimed chiefly at defending human rights from imminent threats. First, it requires a theory of indirect warfare accounting for how the ends of the interveners’ added violence relate to those of the rebels’ violence. Second, it requires a theory of indirect political leadership, paying careful attention both to the political status of the rebel leaders vis-à-vis the people on whose behalf they fight and to the relationship between those leaders and the interveners. Third, the peculiarities of indirect military intervention mean that the violence it introduces isn’t easily explained purely in terms of defensive goals. An adequate account needs additionally to pay attention to the role of violence in shaping new political movements and institutions. The value of such goals is less easily quantified than those of humanitarian intervention, making it harder to set upper limits on permissible ‘proportionate’ harm.
Keywords:
Humanitarian interventions; military; political movements; human rights
Contacts :