Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:06:45.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revisiting intervention: a survey of recent developments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Richard Little
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Whether the literature is new or old, two observations have repeatedly been made about intervention. The first is that intervention is a ubiquitous and endemic feature of the international arena. Guelke argues, for example, that intervention is ‘inherent in the nature of international society’ and, more recently, Bull sums up the views of a series of authors who all agree, he says, that intervention is a ‘built-in feature of our present international arrangements’. Not only do the great powers persistently intervene in the domestic affairs of small states such as Vietnam and Afghanistan, but there is also a tendency for small states to interfere inside each other's boundaries. Egypt, Syria, Cuba, Vietnam and a host of other small states have all conducted policies of intervention. It is also argued, moreover, that as the global economy becomes more interdependent, the potential for intervention is constantly on the increase. The decision to extend or refuse credit facilities, for example, can be seen as a very effective mechanism for intervening in the domestic affairs of the state.

Type
Research Note
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 49 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Guelke, A., ‘Force, Intervention and Internal Conflict’ in Northedge, F. S. (ed.), The Use of Force in International Relations (London, 1974), p. 122.Google Scholar

2. Bull, H., in Bull, (ed.), Intervention in World Politics (Oxford, 1984), p. 181.Google Scholar

3. Beloff, M., ‘Reflections on Intervention’, The Intellectual in Politics and Other Essays (London, 1970), p. 225.Google Scholar

4. Quitter, J. H. A., ‘Editor's Foreword’ to edition on Intervention, Journal of International Affairs, 22 (1968), pp. ix–x.Google Scholar

5. Wight, M., Power Politics (Leicester, 1978), p. 199.Google Scholar

6. Schwarz, U., Confrontation and Intervention in the Modern World (New York, 1970), p. 84.Google Scholar

7. S. Hoffmann, ‘The Problem of Intervention’ in Bull, op. cit.

8. Holsti, K. J., International Politics, 2nd edn. (Englewood Cliffs, 1972), p. 278.Google Scholar

9. Rosenau, J. N., ‘The Concept of Intervention’, Journal of International Affairs, 22 (1968), pp. 165–76, 173.Google Scholar See also Rosenau, J. N., ‘Intervention as a Scientific Concept’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23 (1969), pp. 149–71.Google Scholar

10. See, for example, Holsti, op. cit., pp. 278–9.

11. See, for example, Schwarz, op. cit., pp. 83–5.

12. Macfarlane, N., ‘Intervention and Regional Security’, Adelphi Paper, 196 (1985).Google Scholar

13. Wingen, J. Van and Tillema, H. K., ‘British Military Intervention’, Journal of Peace Research, 17 (1980), pp. 291–303.Google Scholar

14. Tillema, H. K. and Wingen, J. Van, ‘Law and Power in Military Intervention: Major States after World War’, International Studies Quarterly, 26 (1982), pp. 220–50;Google Scholar see also Wyllie, J. H., The Influence of British Arms: An Analysis of British Military Intervention Since 1956 (London, 1984).Google Scholar

15. Pearson, F. S., ‘Foreign Military Intervention and Domestic Disputes’, International Studies Quarterly, 18 (1974), pp. 259–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Small, M. and Singer, J. D., Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars 1816–1980 (Beverly Hills, 1982).Google Scholar

17. Pearson, F. S., ‘Geographic Proximity and Foreign Military Intervention’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 18 (1974), p. 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Duner, B., Military Intervention in Civil Wars: The 1970s (Aldershot, 1985).Google Scholar

19. Thomas, C., New States, Sovereignty and Intervention (Aldershot, 1985), p. 9.Google Scholar

20. Ibid., p. 20.

21. E. Luard, ‘Collective Intervention’ in Bull, op. cit., p. 157.

22. Vincent, R. J., Nonintervention and International Order (Princeton, 1974).Google Scholar

23. H. Bull, op. cit., p. 1.

24. Dyson, K. H. F., The State Tradition in Western Europe (Oxford, 1980).Google Scholar

25. Hoffmann, in Bull, op. cit.

26. Hefner, D. L., ‘Castlereagh, the Balance of Power, and Nonintervention’, The Australian Journal of Politics and History, 26 (1980), p. 75.Google Scholar

27. Ibid., p. 75.

28. Vagts, A. and Vagts, O. F., ‘The Balance of Power in International Law’, American Journal of International Law, 73 (1979), pp. 555–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Tillema and Van Wingen, op. cit., p. 235.

30. Luard, in Bull, op. cit., p. 165.

31. M. Akehurst, ‘Humanitarian Intervention’, in Bull, op. cit.

32. Donnelly, J., ‘Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention and American Foreign Policy’, Journal of International Affairs, 37 (1983–1984), pp. 311–28.Google Scholar

33. Elfstrom, G., ‘On Dilemmas of Intervention’, Ethics, 93 (1983), pp. 709–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Thomas, op. cit., p. 86.

35. Ibid., p. 122.

36. Tucker, R. W., The Inequality of Nations (New York, 1977).Google Scholar

37. Thomas, op. cit., p. 152.

38. Huntington, S. P., ‘American Ideals Versus American Institutions’, Political Science Quarterly, 97 (1982), pp. 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Kirkpatrick, J. J., Dictatorship and Double Standards (New York, 1982).Google Scholar

40. Gilmore, W. C., The Grenada Intervention: Analysis and Documentation (London, 1984).Google Scholar

41. See, for example, Stern, E. P. (ed.), The Limits of Military Intervention (Beverly Hills, 1977);Google Scholar and Betts, R. K., Surprise Attack: Lessons for Defense Planning (Washington, 1982).Google Scholar

42. Bull, op. cit., p. 135.

43. Vasquez, J. A., The Power of Power Politics: A Critique (London, 1983).Google Scholar

44. Small and Singer, op. cit.

45. But see, for example, Schwarz op. cit., and Little, R., Intervention: External Involvement in Civil Wars (London, 1975).Google Scholar

46. Higgins, in Bull, op. cit., p. 30.