Normative War-Fighting and the New World Order

B. Howe
{"title":"Normative War-Fighting and the New World Order","authors":"B. Howe","doi":"10.1177/1743453X0600200104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Francis Fukuyama (1989, 1992) declaring the ‘end of history’ in 1989, and President George Bush (cited by Ross, 2002: 247), in a State of the Union Address in January of 1991, declaring a “New World Order ... to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind – peace and security, freedom and the rule of law” caused a great stir and helped revitalize debate in this area, but they were essentially referring to liberal tenets that were decades, or even centuries old. The basic liberal argument is that at some point the world radically changed, forcing a re-evaluation of the nature of international interaction. In the brave new liberal world, the logic of cooperation takes over from the logic of competition and survival of the fittest. The promotion of shared values and interests supersedes the pursuit of selfish national interest, morality is placed at the centre stage of statecraft, and the basic human concern for the well being of others makes progress possible. Liberal beliefs do not make war unthinkable, but do challenge traditional assumptions of when it is justifiable to wage war. There is no more dramatic manifestation of liberal leadership than so-called ‘normative war-fighting’ or militarized humanitarian intervention. J. L. Holzgrefe (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003: 18) defines humanitarian intervention as ‘the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory is applied’. The concept of normative war-fighting or militarized humanitarian intervention is herein used in the same way, but with an additional and deliberate emphasis on the role of the military and the decision-makers commanding their deployment. This paper assesses the degree to which the triumph of Western liberal states in the Cold War has led to a new kind of international system,","PeriodicalId":381236,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Ethics Review","volume":"185 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and Ethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1743453X0600200104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Francis Fukuyama (1989, 1992) declaring the ‘end of history’ in 1989, and President George Bush (cited by Ross, 2002: 247), in a State of the Union Address in January of 1991, declaring a “New World Order ... to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind – peace and security, freedom and the rule of law” caused a great stir and helped revitalize debate in this area, but they were essentially referring to liberal tenets that were decades, or even centuries old. The basic liberal argument is that at some point the world radically changed, forcing a re-evaluation of the nature of international interaction. In the brave new liberal world, the logic of cooperation takes over from the logic of competition and survival of the fittest. The promotion of shared values and interests supersedes the pursuit of selfish national interest, morality is placed at the centre stage of statecraft, and the basic human concern for the well being of others makes progress possible. Liberal beliefs do not make war unthinkable, but do challenge traditional assumptions of when it is justifiable to wage war. There is no more dramatic manifestation of liberal leadership than so-called ‘normative war-fighting’ or militarized humanitarian intervention. J. L. Holzgrefe (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003: 18) defines humanitarian intervention as ‘the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory is applied’. The concept of normative war-fighting or militarized humanitarian intervention is herein used in the same way, but with an additional and deliberate emphasis on the role of the military and the decision-makers commanding their deployment. This paper assesses the degree to which the triumph of Western liberal states in the Cold War has led to a new kind of international system,
规范战争与世界新秩序
弗朗西斯·福山(1989,1992)在1989年宣布“历史的终结”,乔治·布什总统(罗斯引用,2002:247)在1991年1月的国情咨文中宣布“世界新秩序……“为了实现人类的普遍愿望- -和平与安全、自由和法治”引起了巨大的轰动,并帮助恢复了这一领域的辩论,但它们实质上指的是几十年甚至几百年前的自由主义原则。自由主义的基本论点是,在某个时刻,世界发生了根本性的变化,迫使人们重新评估国际互动的本质。在这个美丽的自由新世界里,合作的逻辑取代了竞争和适者生存的逻辑。促进共同的价值观和利益取代了对自私的国家利益的追求,道德被置于治国方略的中心,人类对他人福祉的基本关切使进步成为可能。自由主义信仰并没有让战争变得不可想象,但它确实挑战了关于什么时候发动战争是正当的传统假设。没有什么比所谓的“规范的战争”或军事化的人道主义干预更能体现自由主义的领导力了。J. L. Holzgrefe (Holzgrefe and Keohane, 2003: 18)将人道主义干预定义为“一个国家(或国家集团)在未经其领土范围内的国家许可的情况下,跨越国界威胁或使用武力,旨在防止或结束对其本国公民以外的个人的普遍和严重侵犯基本人权的行为”。规范的战争或军事化的人道主义干预的概念在这里也以同样的方式使用,但对军队和指挥其部署的决策者的作用作了额外和有意的强调。本文评估了西方自由主义国家在冷战中的胜利在多大程度上导致了一种新的国际体系,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信