The Justification of Military Intervention

THE JUSTIFICATION OF

MILITARY INTERVENTION

Pamela A. Ryan

ABSTRACT

There exists a strong prohibition against military

intervention. This thesis shows that, given certain

assumptions about human rights, military intervention can

be justifiable.

Chapter One sets out the basic assumptions to be

used in this thesis. A basic human right to political

self-determination and to life are assumed. From this the

state's right to non-intervention is assumed. Chapter One

also discusses the distinction between a nation and a

state.

When discussing the justification of intervention it

becomes apparent that these rights come into conflict.

When this happens the right to life that people possess

and their right to self-determination can override a

state's right to self-determination and to non-

intervention. It is through this analysis that we see how

military intervention can be justified.

Chapter Two presents seven situations in which

intervention may be considered as a course of action. Each

situation uses the rights assumed in Chapter One and analyses

the situation and discusses the justification of

intervention. Chapter Two considers self-defense,

persecution, national liberation, revolutions, counter-

intervention, humanitarian intervention and rescue

missions.

Chapter Three draws the discussion to a close with

a few brief concluding remarks.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the contributions of many people

to the progression of my philosophical development. I

wish to thank my father, for his unending ability to

debate a point, my mother for her sensitivity and my

aunt for her constant encouragement.

I am grateful to my fellow graduate students for

their constant intellectual challenge. And I am

unendingly grateful to Margy, Pat and Diane f r th_eir

assistance in every aspect of my graduate career.

I wish to thank Jim Child, my thesis chair, for his confidence and his

support. And I thank Chris Morris for his expectations andencouragement.

But most of all I wish to thank Pete and our pack foreverything.

1' V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER ONE 3

I.11.

111.

Distinguishing Nation and State ..... . .. ........ . 4

Self-Determination.... . .. .. .. .

. . ...... . .. . . . 6

A State's Right to Non-Intervention..... . ...

... .. . 12I. Intervention-Provoking Situations 15

11.

Situation One:Self-Defense

111.

Situa

tion Two: Persecution . ................ . .. . 22

IV. Situation Three: National Liberation 27

V. Situation Four: Revolutions . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

VI. Situation Five: Counter-Intervention.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

VII. Situation Six: Humanitarian Intervention .. . . . . . . . . . . 35

VIII.Situation Seven: Rescue Missions 41

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

.BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

CHAPTER TWO 15

INTRODUCTION

The United Nations Charter forbids interference into the

internal affairs of a state by foreigners. 1 It is held that

such an action is inexcusable. There seem to be however,

certain situations that may occur that make military

intervention at least justifiable, and sometimes even

obligatory. This thesis will present and discuss the

situations in which intervention may be justifiable, but I

will never assert an obligation to intervene. Chapter One

will look at the foundational assumptions of this

thesis. Using a generally contractarian theory of the

state, and with some assumptions about human rights, I

will show that military intervention can be justified

under certain circumstances.

I will assume that a state can possess the right

to self-determination and non-interference only through its

people. Because people possess this right, the state

they have also possesses this right. However there are other

rights, namely the right to life, that will be of primary

importance for this thesis. Chapter Two will present an

analysis of justifiable military intervention by looking

at instances of justifiable and unjustifiable intervention.

I shall conclude that there are very few situations in which

a people's right to self determination can be overridden,

but that there are indeed situations in which self-

determination is not the most important factor.

In these situations,

1 Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.

2

allowing for feasibility, military intervention can be justifiable.

So let us start our inquiry by assuming that people

have the right to associate with whom they choose. A part

of this right is the right to associate politically in

a manner in which they see fit, as judged by themselves

. I do not think that this assumption is too

controversial, although some may believe that it requires

defense. However, for the purposes of the present thesis ,

I will not defend this assumption.

I will also assume that a state derives any rights it

may have from its people. Hence any right to non-

interference that a state possesses must stem from a

similar right that its people possess. A state does not

have any rights that are not directly derived from its

people. A person has rights. But a state is a

collectivity that can not have a right of its own that is

not derived from its people.

Of utmost import in this thesis will be the rights of

people to self determination and to life. These two rights

will at times be in tension. It is obvious though, that a

person can not exercise his or her right to self

3determination if he or she is dead. For this reason, a

person's right to life will at times be allowed to carry

more weight than his or her right to self determination.

This thesis will show that the state's right to self-

determination needs to be balanced with other human rights.

Because of this need to balance, sometimes a state's right

to self-determination will be outweighed and military

intervention will be justifiable .

2

CHAPTER ONE

I. Distinguishing Nation and State

It will be important for this thesis to

distinguish between the concepts of nation and state. A

nation is a collectivity that is based in some sense on a

common language, culture, and history. It is a self-

identifiable collectivity that is too large to be based on

kinship alone.2 The people of a nation associate with each

other in many ways, and part of this association is

political. We have already asserted that people have a right

to associate politically in a manner in which they see

fit. From this we see that the people of a nation

have a right to associate politically in a manner in

which they see fit. That is, the people of a nation have a

right to political self determination. This will be

discussed further below.

A nation however does not have rights. For our

purposes, it is at least theoretically reducible to the

people who make up the collectivity. When nation is

used here it will be assumed that it is understood as

3

a reducible term, and any reference to the rights of a

nation simply refer to the rights of the people

associated in that nation. There may at times

exist a conflict

2 This was formulated by my thesis committee members, James Child and Christopher Morris. I gratefully acknowledge their contribution.

4

between a state and a nation. For our purposes here,

this is reducible to a conflict between a government and

people.

It is generally believed that people as a nation have

a right to found states and once the state has been

founded it has rights. The working definition here of a

state will be people plus territory plus a ·centralized

government. According to Bull, "...the state should be the

expression of a nation".3 And most states do represent only

one major nation, i.e. France, England, Germany, the

United States. In general , this seems to work best.

It is true of course that these states have ruthlessly

suppressed other nations within them. States that attempt to

represent more than one nation seem historically to have

internal troubles in holding the state together, for

example, the Soviet Union, which at present is made up of

many nations, or Canada in which the province of Quebec,

which is a separate nation, may want to secede.

It can be said that the nation contracts with the

state for its governance and defense. There is not of

course a literal contract nor does anyone literally hire

anyone. This is a matter of speaking metaphorically that

5refers to the association between the governed and their

governors. A nation hires a state to act as its agent.

But these statements are reducible to the people involved.

It is the people who contract with the state, through

their support, for their common governance and defense.Certain

3 Hedley Bull, "The Problem of Intervention", Hedley Bull,ed. Intervention in World Politics (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1984), p.14.

4

people, in some institionalized format constitute a

government which is metaphorically hired by others (the

nation) to act as their agent, in international affairs,

in congress, etc. The government which is acting acts

legitimately when it acts as the agent of the others (the

state acts legitimately when it is acting as the agent of

the people). Agency is a voluntary association on both

parts that results in one party representing the other's

interests in good faith.

Nations may choose to join together under one state,

and it is their prerogative to do so. If the nations of

the Soviet Union do not secede and voluntarily continue to

stay, they may all form one nation, or they may be

able . to cooperate effectively, many nations in one state.

The nations of Europe are presently cooperating

effectively and have, through their states acting as their

agents, contracted with one another to form at least an

economic union.

Problems are involved when a state and a nation come

into conflict. A state with many nations may attempt to

suppress one or more of the nations,

e.g.the Soviet Union. As we shall see, this violates the

5right of the people of the nation to self-determination.

This by itself is not a justifiable act, but intervention

to prevent this is not always justifiable.

A nation may also become tired or disillusioned of

its state and wish the state to change. A state, which

most often has the power of the police, the military, etc.

may decide to suppress the nation and maintain its power

through tyranny. It is also unjustifiable of the state

to behave in this manner

6

because this violates the people's rights to self-

determination. Tyranny alone however does not justify

outside intervention. These and other situations will be

discussed further in Chapter Two.

It is not always a state or its government which

represents a nation. Mr. Arafat may represent the nation of

Palestine. The Palestinians have no land, no government,

except the PLO, yet the Palestinian people, as a

collectivity, as a nation, continue to exist. The people

continue to have a common desire to live together under

one government, and have a common hope for the future and

common memories of the past. When a nation is in exile, as

some of the Palestinians are now, their need to have land,

a government of their own and legitimacy, in short, their

need for a state, causes great conflict and suffering

throughout the region. In a case such as this, it may be

said that the nation of Palestine has certain rights,

but this simply means that the Palestinian people have

certain rights, and one of these rights is the right to

political self-determination through a state of their choice.

II. Self-Determination

5As stated above, the people of a nation have a right to

political self determination. People and states have a

right to non-intervention because they have a right to

political self-determination, and any military

intervention will override this right. In order to

justify intervention then, we need to justify

7

overriding the right to self-determination of a people.

As we will see below and in Chapter Two, the right to

self-determination can sometimes be overridden.

The right to political self-determination is the

right of people to decide by whom and how they will be

governed. It is a limited right in the sense that it can

be overridden by other rights. It is also limited in that

it is not a right to be completely self-determining. No

one can have a right to be completely self-determining. We

live among other people. If the right to political self-

determination were not a limited right, then the nation

would not be able to function. Everyone can not have

everything that they want. The right to political self-

determination then is a matter of degree. A person has

the right to political self-determination only to such an

extent that all others within the given nation can also

have this right to the same extent. The right of a state

to self-determination is the right to be free of violent

force or threat of violent force imposed by an external

source, applied internally, in order to obtain an action

or non-action.

J.S. Mill did not follow such a limited right to self-

determination. He claimed that self-determination was the

right of a person or a people to "become free by their

own efforts, if they can".4 Non-intervention then would

be the principle that guarantees that their efforts will not

be impeded, or helped, by outside forces. For Mill,

this may mean that some people's efforts

4 John Stuart Mill, "A Few Words on Non-Intervention", John Stuart Mill Dissertations and Discussions Vol. Ill (Boston: Spencer Press, 1868), p. 240.

8

at freedom go unrewarded and that they live under tyranny.

Mill believed that as a person cannot be made truly virtuous

by others, a society cannot be made truly free by

outsiders. For Mill, virtue and freedom are things

that one must get for themselves. Mill went by the

principle that people generally get the government they

deserve. If people live under tyranny they have the choice

to rid themselves of this tyranny through their labor and

the risking of their lives and property. If they are not

willing to pay this price, then they are not deserving of

freedom .

The problem with a right to self-determination like

this is obvious. Governments have control of the military

and many other extremely powerful weapons to use in order

to maintain its power. The people do not have such

weapons. The people are often at the mercy of their

governments. Perhaps it is true that a government that

commits enough atrocities against its own people will be

brought down by its own people. To say that people

always need to help themselves, and outsiders can not

help them to become free is to ignore some realities. In

all fairness, at the writing of the essay, governments

had not yet developed such extensive means of control as

exist today. Today, a situation may arise in which a

government has clearly turned on its people, but the extent

of oppression is such that the people are not capable of

overthrowing it without outside assistance. A situation

like this will be discussed further in Chapter Two. We

will not accept Mill's definition of the right to self-

determination in this thesis.

9

Can any group call itself a nation and demand an

independent state? If a group of people are large enough

to not be based on kinship alone, and have a common

language, history, etc and are self-identifiable, they can

claim themselves to be a nation. The principle of self-

determination allows for people of a nation to have a

right to self-determination, to the extent to which all

others can have the same extent. If the group forms a

nation and can not be seen as part of a larger nation, it

has a right to self-determination as a nation. But if

the group is small enough to be based on kinship then it

is not likely that it truly forms an independent nation

but that the group is rather part of a larger nation.

The group then can not have any more of a right to

self-determination that is compatible with all others within

that nation having the right to an equivalent extent. The

local Bowling Green Garden Club could not decide to secede

from the United States because it wants self-

determination. The Garden Club is not an independent nation,

because it is small enough to be based on kinship. Then

the right to self-determination of the members of the Garden

Club is limited in the way previously discussed. That

is, the members have a right to self-determination only to

such an extent that all other members of the nation

would be able to have the same right to an equal

extent. Not all members of our nation could decide to

become completely self-determining without the nation

falling apart. The members of the Garden Club have as

much and not more of a right to self-determination as

the rest of us.

10

Do all states have a right to self-determination?

Walzer argues that a state's moral status rests on "the

reality of the common life it protects and the extent to

which the sacrifices required...are willingly accepted". 5

That is, a state's moral standing rests on its

relationship -with its people, on whether they do or do

not willingly support the state. Let's leave aside for a

moment the difficulties in determining support, and focus

on the heart of the issue. A state that is supported by

its citizens has a right to exist. For our purposes it

will also have a right to self-determination. This right

is based on the right of it's people. It only exists so

long as its people have, through their own self

determination determined that they want this state to

govern them, that this state_ is the agent of the people.

So not all states will have the right to self

determination. A state that does not have the support of

its people will not have the right to self-determination.

There will, however, be a problem in determining if a

state has the support of its people. This will be

returned to below.

A state's right to self-determination stems from

the people it governs. This seems relatively clear. But

Beitz 6 claims that this line of argument necessarily fails.

He claims that most, if not all, governments are not

freely chosen by free political associations, that

people have no real choice in

5 Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, (NewYork:

Basic

Books, Inc.,1977), p.54. Hereafter referred to as JUW.

6 Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations, (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1979), p. 89.

11

determining who governs them. Hence there is no way

to legitimize a state in the above way because it is not

possible for a people, or a nation, to be self-determining

in setting up a state. As previously discussed, self

determination is a relative concept, no person or state is

completely self determining, or expected to be. Beitz'

point is true, but is insignificant here. The fact that

no state can possibly be based on a total relationship of

agency with its people doesn't mean that no state can have

a right to self determination. It is true that no

people, or nation can be completely self determining in

setting up a state. For our purposes this is not

relevant. All we need in order for a state to have the

right to self-determination is that the state have the

support of its people.

A state has the right to be as self-determining as

possible as long as it has the support of its people. This

right however does not override other rights that people

possess. The right to self-determination needs to be

balanced with other human rights. After all, the right to

self-determination of states is reducible to the right to

self-determination of people. And people have other

rights, e.g. the right to life.

Assertions of independence are usually problematic .

Canada does not really want to let Quebec form an

independent state. Yet to deny Quebec this would be to

deny the people of Quebec, the nation of Quebec, their

right to self -determination. The right to self-determination

of a people must not be overridden unless doing so would be

required for the protection of the right to life or if

the people in question were in a situation such that

they would not

12

be able to free themselves from an oppressive violent

regime. If Quebec were to decide to attempt to secede, it

should be allowed to do so. Of course, in a thorough

analysis of this situation, other moral and legal and

practical considerations would of course come into play. For

our present purposes we do not need to go into these

considerations.

Ill. A State's Right to Non-Intervention

Intervention into a legitimate state amounts to an

violation of the right to self-determination of the

people of that state. For this reason, intervention must

be presumed to be unjustifiable. As Locke asserts," ...the

designation of the persons who are to bear rule, is as

natural and necessary ...[as] the government itself ...and

is that which had its establishment originally from the

people". 7 I agree with Locke, as discussed before, it is

up to the people to determine who and how they will be

governed.

States gain legitimacy through being formed by theconsent of the

people, _ or nation(s), they represent. A state that is only

a puppet of a foreign state or a state that is forced

upon the people, is not likely to be supported or to

gain legitimacy or hence to have a right to self-

determination. It is for

7 C.B. Macpherson, ed., John Locke: Second Treatise of Government,(lndiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1980), p.101

13

this reason that a people, or a nation, must in general

be allowed to form their own state, without

interference. If a state is illegitimate and outsiders

rush in and establish a new state, the new state is not

necessarily any more legitimate than the old state.

There is of course a necessary caveat here. As stated

above, what needs to be of utmost concern is the rights of

people, not states. People surely have the right to

determine who should govern them and in what manner. This

is an extremely important right. There is however one

right people possess that is of more import. This right,

of course, is a right to life. All people have a right to

life. At the outset this right however does not necessarily

put a duty on others to defend that right. As asserted in

the introduction, I claim no duty to intervene, only the

justifiability of intervening under certain circumstances.

In Cahpter Two we will discuss what the violation of

this right to life by the state means to intervention.

Hare and Joynt argue that intervention involves "a

conflict between two basic principles-the right of self-

defense and the right of self-government". 6 Self-defence

for Hare and Joynt includes the defense of

innocents. The conflict for this

thesis arises between a right to self-determination and

other human rights such as the right to life.

Military intervention is

a conflict in basic principles . When these two

principles do conflict though, for this thesis,

6 J.E. Hare and Carey 8. Joynt, Ethics and International Affairs, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1982), p.151.

14

the right to life will be able to outweigh the right to

self-determination. People have a right to life and a right

to self-determination. Sometimes one person's right to

self-determination will come into conflict with another

person's right to life. When this happens, the right to

life is of primary importance. This is also true of a

state's right to self-determination when it comes into

conflict with a people's right to life. The right to life

takes precedence.

In Chapter Two we will see how the concepts outlined

above come into play when determining the justifiability

of intervention.

15

CHAPTER TWO

I. Intervention Provoking Situations

We will now begin to discuss situations in which

military intervention may or may not be justifiable. Below

there are seven situations in which policy makers would

be likely to consider military intervention as a course of

action. Each situation is outlined and the use of real

examples are included where possible. An argument is then

offered whether or not each situation would be a

justifiable intervention. My conclusions are based on

the premises outlined in Chapter One, balancing the

right to self-determination of a people, nation or state

with the right to life which all humans possess, along

with other human rights. There are situations in which

other human rights override the right to self-

determination. We will discuss these below. And we will

see that intervention can sometimes be justifiable.

16

II. Situation One: Self-Defense

It is often argued that a morally legitimate reason to

wage war is in self-defense. 9 I will here assume that

legitimate states have a moral right to self-defense. One of

the problems when considering the justifiability of

intervention based on self-defense stems from balancing a

state's right to self-defense with a foreign state's or

nation's right to self-determination. As we shall see,

intervention based on self-defense is neither always

justifiable nor is·it the only manner in which to justify

intervention.

Let us take an example. Suppose that Iraq bombs Israel

because Iraq believes the very presence of Israel is a

threat. Let us further suppose that Israel is in fact,

planning an attack on Iraq in the near future. Is a

pre emptive strike by Iraq justifiable intervention based

on claims of self-defense?

First we must need to establish that Iraq's motives

here would be to move in and set up a government that

17is friendly to the Arab states. This is a move of self-

defense for Iraq for Iraqis believe that Israel does

pose a threat to the existence of the Arab states.

Furthermore, the Iraqis know from reliable intelligence

data that Israel was planning on attacking them in

the

9 James Child, Nuclear War:The Moral Dimension, (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1986), p.18.

16

near future. In fact, the lraquis believe that eventually

Israel, if left alone, will attack and overtake the Arab

states. If Iraq initiates armed conflict with the intention

of overthrowing the Israeli government in order to

establish a friendly government, then Iraq has violated the

rights of the Israeli nation to self determination. This can

not be justifiable, even based on self-defense. But does

this mean that a state must wait to be attacked before

being able to defend itself?

No, Iraq would have been justified in attacking an

Israeli military installation in order to thwart the

planned Israeli attack on Iraq. But an action aimed at

overthrowing an unfriendly government based on claims of

self defense is a violation of the target people's rights

to self-determination that is not warranted by the

interveners right to self-defense. No one's right to self

defense means that they can do whatever they want. If I

believe my neighbor is planning an attack on my home, I

am not justified in pre-emptively going into his home and

killing him. I may be justified in many other actions,

calling the police, arming myself, or stealing his

ammunition. My neighbor's right to self-determination

17doesn't mean he can attack my home, but my right to self-

defense doesn't mean I can pre-emptively kill him

either. A state's right to self-defense doesn't mean they

can intervene into other states to set up governments that

are friendly to them.

In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The

Soviets claimed that the invasion was an act of self-

defense in that the Marxist People's Democratic Party

of Afghanistan (P.D.P.A.) was in danger of

being

18

overthrown. Brezhnev explained in June 1980 that the

invasion was necessary "to preserve the gains of the

April revolution" .10 This was the coup of 1978 that had

brought the P.D.P.A. into power. Brezhnev further claimed

that the United States, China, and pro-American Middle

Eastern countries were providing aid to the insurgents of

1979.

The insurgents were groups of Moslem countrymen who

were dissatisfied with the Marxists rise to power. When

the P.D.P.A. tried to bring about land reform and other

social changes they were met with armed resistance by the

conservative Muslims. In early 1979 the P.D.P.A. tried to

crush the resistance with air raids and other military

tactics against the rebels. By doing so, the Soviet

supported government lost most of the legitimacy that it

had once had. Afghanistan was not two independent

nations, but rather one nation with two political

factions. One faction, with the assistance of outsiders

(the Soviets) had gained control. The people in power

were not supported by the Afghans but by the Soviets.

The insurgents came to believe they were at war. The

Soviet Union saw the imbalance in the region as a threat

19

to their security. Brezhnev commented that the insurgents

"created a real danger of Afghanistan losing its

independence and being turned into an imperialist

military bridgehead on

10 Steossinger, John G. Why Nations Go To War, St.Martin's Press, New York:1982. p.142.

likely would have caused some

problems for the Soviets.

But this is notenough of a reason to

invade.This is self-defense that

does not justify

18

our country's southern borders".11 It was in this manner

that the military crossing by the Soviet Union of the

border into Afghanistan was claimed to be justifiable

by the Soviets.

The Afghan nation was in a process of transition, of

determining what was the proper state for it and the

Soviets feared that the people might set up an anti-

Soviet state. Under the pretense of invitation and self-

defense, the Soviets invaded. By doing so, they

interfered with the self-determination of the Afghans in

a fashion that was violent and self serving.

It may be true that, had the insurgents gained

power, the government of Afghanistan would have become

unfriendly toward the Soviet Union. It is not

believable, however, that the country of Afghanistan

could pose a military threat to Soviet security. The

security that Brezhnev referred to then must have been

the security of having a friend in the Middle East. If

the United States had been able to capitalize on the

Afghanistans' mistrust of the Soviet Union, the U.S. may

have been able to set up listening posts and other high

tech equipment that could indeed pose a threat to the

19

security of the Soviet Union. It is not

entirely unclear that the Soviets fear

of Afghanistan's revolution going against them was not

based on reality. It could and most

,, Ralph B. Levering, The Cold War:1945-1987, (Illinois: Harlan Davidson, 1988), p.166. Hereafter referred to as TCW.

20intervening.

In this example, the right to self-determination of the

Afghans is more important than the possible threat to the

Soviet Union posed by a possibly unfriendly Afghan state. If

the threat were clear and present and the Soviets motivation

was not to overthrow but to thwart an attack, then the

Soviets would have been justified in intervening just enough

to prevent an attack by the Afghans. But this was most

definitely not the situation here. Here the Soviets

motivation was to ensure that a government friendly to

the Soviet Union was in place in the strategically

important Afghanistan. This is beyond the scope of a

state's right to self-defense.

· Brezhnev's second claim that there was already

intervention in Afghanistan by various other anti-Soviet

world powers is also invalid. Even if the claim was true,

which it might have been, the intervention in

Afghanistan by anti-Soviet powers were non-military. What

Brezhnev seemed to be claiming here was the right to

counter-intervention. Counter-intervention is the right to

intervene into a foreign country to repel a previously

intervening force. The previously intervening force however

21must be in the form of military force. And even then

counter-intervention is of questionable justification. Since

the previously intervening forces in Afghanistan were not

military, at the very least, the Soviet military move

can be regarded as an over-reaction, or worse, as

aggression.

Brezhnev's claims then do not stand. The problems

caused by a pro- west Afghanistan would simply need

to be faced by the Soviets. In all

20likelihood, the use of proper diplomacy could have sufficed

to keep a safe balance of power in the region. Military

force was unnecessary. Its use in this situation is

clearly aimed at the expansion of the Soviet sphere of

influence. And this is how it was regarded by the world.

The use of the military to cross borders for the

purpose of expanding one's sphere of influence is

unjustifiable. Doing so shows a disregard for the people of

the target state. It is a violation of their most basic

political rights. As discussed in Chapter One, if people

have any political rights at all, they have a right to

self-determination as a group.

On Yorn Kippur in October of 1973, Egypt and Syria

attacked Israel from the North and South. Israeli

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan claimed that he had advance

information that the attack was imminent but that he had

decided against a preemptive strike in order to "have

the political advantage of not having attacked first".12 It

is here true that the Egyptian and Syrian governments posed

a danger to Israel.

Let us go from here and push this example a bit

further. Suppose Mr. Dayan was convinced (as well he may

21have been) that the security of the Middle East would never

be secure until friendly Arab governments existed and

that Israel ought to intervene into Syria in order to

establish a government friendly toward Israel. (Ignore the

impracticalities obvious in this example.) If it were

politically practical, and were militarily feasible

should Israel have gone in to establish governments in

order to prevent further war

12 Levering, TCW, p. 140.

22

and instability?

The Syrians can feel however they want to in regards

to Israel. They may even want Israel destroyed, just as

Israel may want Egypt and Syria destroyed. But neither side

has a right to wage war based on these beliefs. Regardless of

this, any intervention attempting to usurp the government of

a foreign country in order to insert a friendly one is a

violation of the rights of the people of that state to

self-determination. The Syrian people can hate Israel if

they want to. The rest of the world can stand on

the outside and talk about the futility of these

emotions in establishing peace in the region. We can

even make diplomatic ties to each state and attempt to bring

peace through talks and diplomacy. But we can not intervene

into their affairs and make them, at gunpoint, elect

someone who will cooperate with Israel.

Israel could, in self-defense, act in other ways, such

as arming themselves, keeping a high profile, negotiations,

etc. But to force a government on people is not

justifiable under self-defense, it would be a violation

of the target people's right to self-determination.

21Ill. Situation Two: Persecution

Situations arise within states in which certain

people become persecuted. It is not necessarily a threat

to their life itself, although it affects the way in

which their life is led. All people have certain rights.

As presented in Chapter One and as we shall

see when we discuss

23humanitarian intervention below, a person's right to

life can sometimes override a state's right to self-

determination. But what of violations of other human

rights, e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of travel?

Violations of these rights are in themselves violations of

the persecuted people's right to self determination performed

by their own state, or at least by the state they live

under. We shall see that intervention to defend a persecuted

people can also sometimes be justifiable .

As discussed in Chapter One, self-determination is a

matter of degree. No one person is completely self-

determining, nor can one expect to be. The degree to which a

certain state's persecution of its people interferes with its

people's ability to be self-determining is an essential

ingredient in determining the justifiability of intervention.

Persecution can be seen as anything from liberty

inhibiting drug laws to systematic discrimination, such

as apartheid. All of these can be seen as a state's

interfering with a person's self determination, yet

surely not all of these warrant outside military

intervention.

Suppose Mexico were to decide that the drug laws in

the United States were too liberty inhibiting to poor

American drug users and so sent their military across the

Rio Grande in order to liberate these poor persecuted

people. This is obviously absurd. Our definition of

persecution that could justify intervention then must be

very strict. Claiming inhibition of self determination is

also not clear enough for we already know that no one is

completely self-determining. So it becomes a matter of

degree of persecution and degree of self-determination.

24

Each case must be looked at carefully and

individually. If it is possible for the people who are

being persecuted to become more self-determining by

themselves, they should be left alone to do so. This is

because it is better to let people fight their own

battles if it is at all possible. But if it is a

situation where the state has oppressed the people to a

degree of subjugation from which they are not likely to

ever gain their freedom by themselves, outsiders may be

able to justify intervention, if, of course, the

intervention has a probable chance of success.

Let us look at an example. Suppose that there

exists a small island on which there are a few thousand

inhabitants of one religion, let us say religion z, and a

few hundred inhabitants of another religion, religion y.

The members of religion z have for years maintained a

system of separation of the religions. The followers of

religion y are made to stay in certain areas, therefore

they are forced to work certain jobs, menial jobs because

the industrial part of the island is on the side where

the followers of religion z live. The followers of

religion y are of a different skin color than the

followers of religion z so it is easily determinable who

is of what social standing. The followers of religion y

are forced to carry identification papers on them and are

often harassed by the island police force which is

entirely made up of people who follow religion z.

All people on the island vote for their somewhat

democratic government leaders. There are never any

followers of religion y in power, though because the

voting structure is such that candidates win by a majority

25of the votes from all islanders, not certain districts.

The followers of religion y live a limited life. They are

not allowed to do a lot of things they would like to do.

All the good beaches are on the other side of the island.

They have schools and hospitals, although not nearly as

nice as the others.

Just north of this island, on the mainland continent,

is a country, of similar racial origins as the followers

of religion y, and this country is contemplating

intervening into the island's affairs in order to

establish a more humane system of governance.

But military intervention here would not be

justifiable. It is true that the followers of religion y

are having their right to self-determination violated.

However, it is not apparent that they will never be able

to free themselves from this system. They should be left

alone to fight their own battles, if they want to.

Non-military intervention may be justifiable, for

example, military aid, military advisers, humanitarian

aid, etc. But these islanders have not even reached that

point, and an intervention from outside to set things

right would simply be interference and a violation · of

the self-determination of the islanders.

Let's suppose though that the followers of religion ystart to get fed up

with this systematic persecution. They begin to stage

protests and demand a fair voting system that would allow

them to put some of their own into power. The response of

the followers of religion z is violent. They begin to

torture

and make and enforce even stricter laws. Thepeople from the mainland

26have started to provide the followers of religion y with

military and political advice. In response to this, the

followers of religion z cut off all routes into the west

side of the island where the minority lives.

But the mainland is receiving reliable information

about the condition of the people on the west side. There is

rampant health and crime problems. Security around the area

is stricter than ever before. It is doubtful that the

people of the west side will be able to free themselves

from this persecution without outside interference. The

people on the west side have reached a level of

persecution that justifies outside military assistance.

If the mainlanders believe there is a probable chance of

success in freeing the followers of religion y from this

situation and establishing their own government on the

west side of the island, the mainlanders could be

justified in intervening. They would be violating the

rights of the people of the east side to self-

determination. But the violation would be in response to

the systematic persecution of the people of the west side.

There is one other necessary part to make this

intervention justifiable. The intervention must be simply

to assist the 'followers of religion y to get out from

under their persecutors. The people from the mainland

can not push out the government of the east side and then

establish their own puppet government. They must be truly

helping the followers of religion y to establish their

independence. This of course is only determinable after the

intervention is over. It is nonetheless an important

criteria in establishing the justifiability of

intervention.

27

IV. Situation Three: National Liberation

People have the right to self-determination and from

this it can be said that the nation they form has a right

to self-determination. There are many nations throughout

the world . As discussed in Chapter One, nations should

be ruled by the people and in the manner that they see

fit, as judged by themselves. A people that form a nation

may wish to join with other nations when actually

establishing a government, or they may not. Every nation

has the right to self-determination because its people

have the right to self determination.

There are many instances where a nation is governed by

outsiders, usually as a result of an aggressive war. The

Soviet Union is made up of many nations that were annexed

under less than voluntary conditions. When a nation is

annexed under conditions that are not voluntary, it is a

violation of the people of that nations right to self-

determination. Is intervention then justifiable?

Assuming that the feasibility condition is met and

that the motives of the intervenor are strictly to help

a nation establish its independence, then I think that

intervention can be justified. People have a right to

self determination. When a nation is held under rule by

force, the people are not self-determining. But as in

interventions based on rescuing persecuted peoples,

justifiability also hinges here on the ability of the

people of the nation

28in question to free themselves if left alone. An

intervenor doesn't want to end up being a violator of the

target peoples right to self-determination. Any thought

of intervening must be tempered with the caution that

they should free themselves, if possible.

Let's turn our attention to the case of Lithuania. The

Sajudis' is the popular front movement within

Lithuania. It has been in existence for over

seventy years since Lithuania first gained its independence in 1918. When

..Lithuania was bargained for and invaded under the

1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, any rights of the

Lithuanian people to self-determination or free political

association were ignored. Nevertheless after forty years

of incessant human rights abuses and tyranny, the

Sajudis' maintains a stronghold within

Lithuania. The wish of the Lithuanian people to be

without Soviet rule has always been clear. But the

various attempts at obtaining freedom from the Soviets have

failed and resulted in disastrous retributions. 13

This is an example of a nation held captive. It has

been clear to outsiders, that is, the West, that

Lithuania was annexed into the Soviet Union in a

violent, illegal and immoral manner. Their wish to

maintain themselves as a Soviet Socialist Republic has

never existed. This is an example where intervention may in

fact have been justified.

The position of the Lithuanian nation was clear. It

was under the rule of outsiders through an illegal and

immoral manner. There was no doubt as

13 Martha Olcott, "The Lithuanian Crisis" ForeignAffairs, 69,(Summer, 1990), p. 30-47. See also DzintraBungs, "Baltic Leaders Walk Tight Rope TowardsIndependence", Latvian News Digest, 13, (November, 1989),p.3-5.

29

to what the Lithuanian people wanted. Would they have been

able to do it themselves? As it has turned out, eventually

they probably will. Even though along the way it

looked as though they never would be able to

free

themselves from their oppressors. But let's look at it in

1945. No one knew what the Soviets would do with their

occupied territories, although it is likely a person

familiar with Soviet history could have guessed what would

happen. If the other Allies had wanted to, they would

have most certainly had the right to intervene in order

to push the Soviets back out of Lithuania and help them

establish independence.

In general, a nation that seeks independence should

work to free itself. Quebec might seek independence from

Canada. But it can probably gain the freedom without outside

interference. Any outside interference would be

unjustifiable. It would only be in situations in which a

nation that clearly seeks independence is unable to free

itself from its oppressors that intervention would be

justifiable, assuming feasibility of course.

I'\IJ'

V.Situation Four: Revolutions

When a country is in revolution, there is a process

of transition going on. If the fighting is strictly

between a government and the people, there is also a

process of self-determination of the people as a whole going

on. In general, they should be left alone to solve these

problems without outside interference. For the most part,

it is when one side, either the government or

30

the rebels get help from outside that problems arise. In

order to maintain as much self-determination of a people as

possible, it is better for outsiders to stay outside.

This will not always suffice of course.

Let us suppose that in a small, third world state

there began a wave of discontent that resulted in people

performing acts of disobedience. For example, students

took over a town square and refused to move. And

it

wasn't just students, but a whole city of around50,000 people peacefully

revolting against the dominant government, through let us saysit-ins and

:

,w;:>

work stoppages. Further suppose that the government of thiscountry then "'

sends in troops and begins a day to day fight with the

civilians. Some civilians are killed to be sure, but it

is not a massacre.

The people are in revolt, or at least a large

percentage are. Let us further propose that once the

other people of this country hear about what has

happened to the peaceful demonstrators, they too begin

work stoppages and other means of peaceful revolt. In

return, the government begins systematic elimination of

leaders, both intellectual and spiritual. The revolutionary

movement grows stronger as does government resistance.

If the government goes to a foreign state and asks for intervention in

order to help control the rebels, and it is clear that the

rebels are not being fueled by outsiders , the government

must be made to fight its own battle. It is the

government with access to the military, to

intelligence, to communication, to supplies, and if

with all these advantages the government is still in

danger of being overthrown, intervention to aid the

government

31

would be nothing less than a violation of the right

to self-determination and perhaps the right to life of

the people of this state.

For it is clear that the people are in conflict with thegovernment. The

people are not being assisted by outsiders so the

government must defend itself. If the government goes

to another state that it is aligned with, either

communist or capitalist or whatever, and the third state

consents to aid the government with military assistance,

the third state has violated the right of the target

state's people to self-determination. This is

not acceptable.

•'

.

./'Itu

Intervention, then, to put down rebels will almost never be justifiable. "'

If, however, the rebels were receiving assistance from

a foreign government then the situation changes. Depending

on the degree of assistance, ranging from humanitarian

aid to direct military involvement, the government may be

permitted to also ask for outside assistance. This is one

of the problems with an outside state aiding rebels.

Assisting the rebels is an interference into the internal

affairs that should be handled by the state and the

people within that state. But it is also true that rebels

without outside assistance often have little or no chance of

success against a strong government. This raises a

dilemma.

We may want to help some rebels. They may be fighting

against a tyrannical government which is only maintaining

any support it has through terror. But providing military

assistance to the rebels would be an unjustifiable act

of intervention. There are other ways around this

problem.

32The compromise that has often been reached, that of

providing the rebels with training and advice, escapes

this dilemma. Although it could still be argued as

interference, it is not military crossing of borders, and

hence not

intervention here.

The government already has an advantage over the

rebels. As stated above, it is the government with access

to the military, the communications and the intelligence

communities. If a government has all these advantages

and the people are still a threat to the existence of the

government, it is obvious that the people strongly do

not want this government.

Any military assistance to either side from

outsiders is not justifiable. But if either side does

manage to draw in outside military assistance, then counter-

intervention may be justifiable. If the government manages

to get another state to send in military forces to help

quell the rebellion, then a fourth state could be

justified in aiding the re els, but only to the point of

repelling the attacks, not of establishing its own

regime.

VI.Situation

C

o

u

n

t

e

r

-

i

n

t

ervention occurs when a state militarily crosses borders

in order to repel a previous intervention into the target

state. The self- determination of the people of the target

state is threatened by the primary intervention. The

counter-intervention, if it is to be justifiable, must

be aimed at repelling the primary intervention, and

nothing more. It would not be

\·J'•

J..

33justifiable if, for example, the counter-intervention

was aimed at increasing a sphere of influence or

gaining access to oil fields.

As mentioned above there will be situations

in which a country is facing an internal rebellion and

a foreign state comes to the assistance of the

threatened government, in order to help quell the rebellion.Although we

have seen why this is not justifiable, if it does occur a

second foreign state

may be justified in providing military assistance to the rebels inorder to repel ,.

the primary interveners. Once the primary interveners are

driven back, the foreigners must leave the resolution of

the conflict to those primarily involved in the conflict,

that is, the rebels and the government. It is obvious

that things will not always be this clear cut though.

Let's look at some examples.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, part of its

defense of its actions was that there were already

intervening forces in Afghanistan of Western origin, hence

the Soviets were actually counter-intervening. The

forces in Afghanistan, however, were non-military. The

Soviet invasion was most definitely military and was, as

asserted before, an instance of aggression. The Soviet

action was not aimed at repelling an intervening

military force in Afghanistan, instead it was aimed at

becoming an intervening military force in Afghanistan.

Military counter-intervention is only justifiable if the

primary intervention was military.

If the primary intervention was military, but was

justifiable, for example, humanitarian intervention, then

counter-intervention becomes problematic. In 1971, India

intervened into Pakistan on behalf of the Bengalis

based on

34

.

.

:

humanitarian grounds (this will be discussed further

below). Could the state of Iran have legitimately

intervened on behalf of the Pakistanis? Iran would have

been helping the Pakistanis defend against the

Indian intervention.

Counter-intervention to aid a state whose primary interveners intervened on

\humanitarian grounds is not justifiable.

Counter-intervention must be against I'

an outside force that has come in to the target state and unfairly tipped the

internal balance for political reasons, not humanitarian ones.J

Suppose El Salvador got tired of Daniel Ortega and so intervenes into 5Nicaragua to oust Ortega.

Let's further assume that Ortega was riding high ..in popularity at the time and most Nicaraguans were very

pleased with their present living situation. Further

suppose that El Salvador knew this to be true. If

Panama could, would Panama be justified in counter-

intervening in order to provide defense for Ortega's

regime against the Salvadorian invaders?

Since the intention of El Salvador here would not have

been based on justifiable grounds, it seems that counter-

intervention on the part of Panama would be justifiable.

States can not intervene into neighboring state's

affairs no matter how much they personally dislike the

leader, or the government or the state or the nation. If

the people of a state want that government there, no

outsiders have a right to intervene, unless the right to

life of many people is at stake.

:

.

3435

VII. Situation Six: Humanitarian Intervention

St. Augustine reasoned that it was theChristian's duty, and, by

extension, the duty of any just state, to intervene on behalf of innocent

I ·neighbors who were the object ofaggression. 14

My claim is much more

I'

limited in scope. I am pursuing only the possibility that an intervention can

be justifiable, that is, outsiders can have a right to intervene.An intervention

,based on the protection of human life is termed humanitarian intervention.

Although it is true that the people of a nation have a right to self-

,.

determination, it is also true that humans have a right to

life. Along with this right may be a duty of bystanders to

intervene to save the life of someone, if they can. It

seems intuitively correct to assert that the right to

life of the people of the state takes at least some

precedence over the people's right to self-determination.

But I will not be looking here to show that there ever

exists a duty to intervene. My claim is simply that,

under certain situations in which human life is at stake

in a foreign state, other states may have a right to

intervene, if they can feasibly hope to stop the human

rights abuses.

In the Soviet Union during the Great Terror under

Stalin in the period from 1935-1939, hundreds of

thousands of people were killed. There was little

resistance. A case could be made that the people

were somewhat

14 Johnson, James Can Modern War Be Just?, Yale University Press, New Haven :1984. p.19.

36

,.

•

ignorant of the atrocities occurring, but that is not

very likely. The people were not in open revolt, or

very much in any revolt. There is one obviously good

reason why they were not in open revolt, namely fear of

death. But it may be there is more of a reason why they

did not revolt.

There is some reason to believe that there were a lot of people who

lived in that time who believed the purges either necessary or justified. Some

historians have gone so far to claim that the Great Terror

is merely an

.historical construct, and that there was no actual terror inthe hearts and }

jminds of most of the citizens of the Soviet Union. 15 ,.

)"...any Communist arrested...naturally believed that

he was a victim of misunderstanding which sooner or laterwould be cleared up. Most people still believed thatlabor camps' populations consisted overwhelmingly of classenemies and counter-revolutionaries." 16

The presence of enemies within the Soviet Union was

widely believed to be true. Most people believed those

arrested to be guilty of at least something. At any rate,

at least hundreds of thousands of people were killed

between 1935-1939. Yet there was no internal revolt.

Despite the lack of internal revolt, would intervention

have been justifiable?

The people of the nation at least somewhat supported

Stalin. Some even loved him, and still do. It can be

claimed that the Russian nation has always had a sense of

guilt and inferiority. This has affected their politics

for

15 Robert Thurstin, "Fear and Belief in the U.S.S.R.'s Great Terror: Response to Arrest, 1935-1939",Slavic Review, 45, (Fall, 1986), p. 213-234.

16 Ibid., p. 216.

3637

centuries. It is true that Stalin ordered the deaths

of hundreds of thousands of people all over the Soviet

Union, and later elsewhere. The presence and maintenance of

a man like Stalin was at least arguably, a result of

the political situation at the time .

If the nations within the Soviet Union had revolted as

a whole, Stalin could have been ousted. Let us play with

history a little and propose that some of Stalin's

generals that were allowed to live contacted Churchill

and asked for assistance in overthrowing Stalin. And the

Ukrainian National Committee had contacted India and asked

for assistance. If the nations within the U.S.S.R. had

gone to outsiders and pleaded for intervention, would

outsiders have been justified in providing intervention?

First of all, it would have to be feasible that any

intervention would succeed. If intervention has no chance of

success, the result would be disastrous and should not be

performed. Let us here suppose though that Hitler was

not doing his dirty deeds at the time and the world was

not focused on Germany. Had the British been able to

help, ought they to had?

Stalin was regarded as a madman by some. Others

though assert that had it not been Stalin it would have

been someone like him, some other tyrant , that the

internal situation within the Soviet state called forth a

tyrant. If it had not been Stalin, it would have been

someone very similar.17 This line

17 Hannes Adomeit, Soviet Risk Taking and Crisis Behavior, London: George Allan & Unwin, 1982.

38

of thought is difficult to support. If internal situations

within nations call forth tyrants, and this is a necessary

part of the development of the nation, as Mill believed,

then outsiders should not interfere. But to say this is to

stand aside and to allow great atrocities to occur.

It could very well be true that a nation needs to

follow its own path of development. And that at some points

this evolution may involve severe human rights abuses.

But if this is true, we may end up sacrificing

the

individual for the evolution of the nation. It is true, as stated above that

people, and through them, states, have a right to self-

determination, but this

. )should not be allowed to override people's right to life.

Perhaps some human

rights can be overridden by the larger right to self-determination of the

masses, as was discussed in the section on persecution.

But the right to life is different. The right to life

carries more weight than the right to self- determination.

If Britain and India were able to overthrow Stalin and

knew of the atrocities and wished to get involved, they

most certainly had the right to do so. The right of self-

determination of the people of the nations of the Soviet

Union is overridden by the right to life of these

people. Even if they supported Stalin, which some surely

did, it is likely that many supporters did not

understand the degree of the purges. Stalin may have looked

like he had the support of the people of the nation. But

bystanders could not rationally claim that they believed

the people of the Soviet Union wanted a leader who acted

in this manner.

38

39

Let's focus on an example that is widely regarded as

a justifiable intervention. In 1971, India invaded

Bangladesh. At the time, Bangladesh was the eastern-most

province of Pakistan. The Bengalis were moving towards

independence from Pakistan when the Pakistanis "literally

turned an army loose on its own people". 18

The resulting massacre was brutal and inhumane.

India began taking in refugees from Bengal. The incredible

stories they told of destruction and mass genocide were

grounds for India, and perhaps others who could do so,

to intervene on behalf of the Bengalis, against the

Pakistani state.

The Bengalis formed a nation by themselves and, as

nations do, they wanted independence. The Pakistani state

did not want to let them go. The Bengali nation was held

captive by the Pakistani state. This in itself was not

justifiable, but did not warrant intervention from

outside, just as it could be argued that the situation in

Israel and South Africa is not in itself justifiable

internally, but at this point does not warrant

intervention from outside. In the present case, it was up

to the Bengali political community to gain freedom for

itself, if it could. But when they attempted to do so

they were slaughtered.

The Pakistani army assassinated the political, cultural

and intellectual leaders of Bengal. This was an attack on

the Bengali nation by the Pakistani. This is an example of

a nation under siege wherein it fails to be able to

revolt. The community as a whole is in such a state of

disarray that the organization required for a revolt has

been killed off.

18 Walzer, JUW, p. 105.

40

The Pakistani-Bengali conflict was an instance of a

state with different nations in which one nation was in

control of the government and used its power to try to

eliminate an opposing nation. When a government turns the

army loose on a large section of its people, outsiders have

a right to be concerned with the people being attacked.

Above all else, the right to life of people is to be

protected. When the right to life of people is threatened

by its own government, that government cannot have the

right to self determination to hide behind. The right to

life outweighs the right to self determination of a

state, or a people.

One obvious problem with this assertion is that

states are known to take the lives of their citizens.

Every instance of a state taking the life of one of its

citizens is certainly not grounds for humanitarian

intervention. A criminal executed after a fair trial is

an example of the state taking the life of a citizens

that do not necessarily justify intervention. Once again,

it comes to balancing the right to self-determination of a

people and hence their state, with the right to life.

It is possible for a state to have a justifiable right

41to take the life of some of its citizens. This

justifiability is necessarily limited to actions that are

ultimately an extension of an individuals right to self-

defense. This right must be balanced. We can not pre-

emptively kill everyone in Bowling Green because we

believe one of them is trying to kill us. Our right to

self-defense does not entail this. In general, the right

to life outweighs the right to self-determination of a

people, but this is a matter of balancing concerns, and

not a strict maxim.

40

East Pakistan was invaded for humanitarian reasons,

not just political. It is necessary to justify

humanitarian intervention that the intentions before and

the effects after indicate that the intervening state was

acting primarily based on humanitarian concerns, as India

presumably was. It is important to note that India did not

set up a puppet state in Bengal after repelling the

Pakistanis, India left. Had India attempted to do so, it

would have called into doubts the justifiability of it's

intervention. Humanitarian intervention must be strictly to

stop the killings. If a state uses the situation to its

advantage and, after stopping the killings sets up their own

state, it has passed the limit of justifiability because it

has now ignored the rights of the people of the target

state, or nation in the above case, to self-

determination.

VIII. Situation Seven: Rescue Missions

A rescue mission occurs when a state militarily

intervenes into a foreign state in order to rescue some of

their own members. In order to be justifiable, the mission

41must be limited in scope and aimed primarily at

rescue, not revenge or domination. This is an extension of

the state's right to self-defense that stems from its

people. A state has a certain right to protect its

citizens wherever they may be. This right is limited by

concerns of feasibility .

In 1979, Americans were taken hostage at the

American Embassy in Teheran .President Carter ordered a

rescue mission to go into Iran and

42

rescue the hostages. The use of the weapon of the

American military to rescue hostages held within a

foreign country must be looked at seriously in a

prudential sense for the chance of success. This

rescue mission failed. But it was justifiable because the

American state has a right to protect its citizens,

wherever they may be. If they are under threat by a

foreign government, there certainly exists a right to self-

defense. The attack on the American Embassy is seen as an

attack on American soil, for this reason the intervention

was justifiable on grounds of self-defense.

But even if the incident had not taken place on American

soil, as the Embassy is regarded, the United States still

had the right to protect its citizens. The further

complication here is that the Iranian government was

behind the incident.

Let us suppose a similar incident takes place in

France. There is a house that is lived in by several

Americans. This house is taken over by Iranian extremists

who demand the release of convicted terrorists from French

prisons. It would be better to let the French government

handle the situation perhaps with the assistance of the

43American government. It would indeed be odd for the United

States to parachute into Nice and start killing people in

order to rescue the American hostages. It is very likely

that the French would not take this well. Even though

the incident concerns Americans, they are on French soil.

It will not then be justifiable for intervention in order

to rescue citizens in all situations.

42

The difference between the situation in Iran and

France, besides the matter of American territory, is that

the Iranian government was not going to release hostages and

the French government was trying to rescue the hostages.

This is of significance in deciding the justifiability of

intervention. Again, we are balancing here the right to

self-determination of some people (the Iranian people)

with the right to life of others (the Americans). The

right to life is stronger than the right to self-

determination, but still practical considerations must be

taken account of. In the Iranian example, the only

way those hostages were going to get rescued was by the

Americans actually resorting to forcible intervention (even

though it failed and the hostages were ultimately released).

In France, the French government was dealing with the

situation and had the United States decided to override

the French government, it would have been an unjustifiable

interference, even though those involved were American

citizens and the American government has a right to

protect its citizens, the protection was already being

extended by the French government. There was no reason

to interfere.

43

CONCLUSION

Although there is initially reason to believe that

intervention into the internal affairs of a foreign state

can not be justified, this thesis has shown that there

are at least a few situations that arise in which

intervention can be justifiable. Unlike war, intervention

is not only justifiable in self-defense.

We have seen that based on a few assumptions about

self determination and human rights, the right to non-

intervention can be overridden.

The prohibition against intervention is based on sound

reasoning. It is best to allow people to determine their

own paths, to determine their governors and government.

But we must also be aware that the foremost important right

that people possess is the right to life. The people

of the world can not be expected to allow the right to

life to be systematically violated by a state . People do

have a right to help others, and at times the assistance

can justifiably be in the form of military assistance .

44When a state is persecuting a people to a point where

self-defense is no longer possible, others have the

right to defend that person.

Even though there are cases in which intervention can

be justified, it is still best to try and maintain a

balance . A state coming to the rescue of citizens of

an oppressive , genocidal regime should not seek to

stretch out the

45boundaries of their state into the target state. The

intervening state has a right to intervene but not a

right to extend its boundaries.

In determining the justifiability of intervention, we

must balance the rights of the people and the state to

self-determination, with human rights. Every intervention

must be based on a justifiable cause. Intervention

must also have a reasonable chance of success, an

otherwise justifiable intervention loses its justifiability

if it stands no chance of success.

The prohibition against intervention is warranted, but

it is not the case that intervention can never be

justified.

46

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adomeit, Hannes. Soviet Risk Taking and Crisis Behavior. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982.

Beitz, Charles. Political Theory andInternational Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.

Bull, Hedley, ed. Intervention in World Order. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1984. Bungs, Dzintra. "Baltic Leaders

Walk Tight Rope Towards

Independence"Latvian News Digest 13 (November 1989).

Child, James. Nuclear War:The Moral Dimension. New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1986.

Hare, J.E. and Carey B. Joynt. Ethics and International Affairs.New York: St.

Martin's Press, 1982.

Johnson, James. Can Modern War Be Just?. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.

Levering, Ralph B. The Cold War:1945-1987 .lllinois: Harlan

Davidson, 1988. Macpherson, C.B.,ed. John Locke:Second

Treatise of Government. Indiana:Hackett Publishing Co., 1980.

Medvedev, Roi. On Soviet Dissent. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.

Mill, John Stuart. Dissertations and Discussions. Vol. Ill. Boston: Spencer, 1868.

Olcott, Martha "The Lithuanian Crisis" Foreign Affairs. 69(Summer, 1990): 30- 47.

Stoessinger,John G. Why Nations Go To Wa r . New York: St. Martin's Press, 1982.

Thurstin, Robert "Fear and Belief in the U.S.S.R.'s GreatTerror:Response to Arrest, 1935-1939" Slavic Review 45 (1986): 213-234 .

Walzer, Michael Just and Unjust Wars, Basic Books, Inc., New York:1977.