The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force
by Martha Finnemore
Cornell University Press, 2004
Chapter 1. Purpose of Force
- There is a common understanding of the 'use of force (a.k.a military force or violence)': large-scale force is the prerogative of states. Violence by non-state actors is illegitimate. (국내통치는 정당, 국가 아닌 단체의 무력행사는 외침 또는 불법)
- This volume/book focuses on 1 particular use of force, military intervention. It is the most visible and consequential ways of enforcing standards of conduct, and most costly.
- 책의 목적: Generation of new hypotheses and a sketching of the changing normative landscape on which new rules of intervention are negotiated. 1) Discussion of intervention. intervention lies at the boundary of peace and war. It also defines the outer limits of sovereign control. 2) Empirical investigation on why intervention patterns change.
- At a behavioral level, this is about what action is permitted and where the boundaries of sovereignty lie.
At the cognitive(인지적) and normative levels(규범적, 기준, 표준적), it is the debates that establish the authority and legitimacy of those rules.
At the cognitive(인지적) and normative levels(규범적, 기준, 표준적), it is the debates that establish the authority and legitimacy of those rules.
- Military intervention의 목적 변화
Martha는 BOP나 defense-offense balance 때문에 intervention의 양상이 변한 것이 아니다. It's form, meaning, understanding of purpose가 변했기 때문이라고 주장.
She uses the term "strategic social construction," whereby actors consciously set out to change the perceptions and values of others. 전형적인 constructivist.
democratic states <> militaristic authoritarian states
industrialized <> developing
states more integrated into the global economy <> autarkic, insulated states
--All have different patterns of intervention.
Martha는 BOP나 defense-offense balance 때문에 intervention의 양상이 변한 것이 아니다. It's form, meaning, understanding of purpose가 변했기 때문이라고 주장.
She uses the term "strategic social construction," whereby actors consciously set out to change the perceptions and values of others. 전형적인 constructivist.
democratic states <> militaristic authoritarian states
industrialized <> developing
states more integrated into the global economy <> autarkic, insulated states
- Military intervention, by its nature, involves violation of 'sovereignty' and 'self-determination.' Sovereignty is a foundational principle of int'l law, and self determination is a central ethical component of int'l community.
- 3 cases of systemic change in intervention behavior
1) to collect debts
2) humanitarian military intervention
3) peace and order
--> Realist & me: but, humanitarian이라고 해도 intervene 안 하는 경우가 있다. 미국의 geographic, economic interest가 없는 경우엔! (예시 찾기)
Realistic/materialistic interest 가 없으면 big cost를 감수해가며 intervene 할 이유 없어. 이것은 명분과 실리의 싸움. (Iran sanction 참고)
Marthy 주장: international value가 변했다. 과거에는 전쟁을 통한 승리, 성공, 영광(success and glory)가 국가의 goal이었다면, 현재는 인권보호(claims about human rights) 등이 주된 가치가 되었다.
--> me: international value and claims are changing. I agree. but materialistic account의 뿌리는 바뀌지 않았을 것.
Strong states became more clever, seeing long-term benefits.
Interest를 short-term과 long-term으로 나눠서 생각해야.
앞서 말한 것과 같이 intervention은 전쟁과 평화의 경계에 있고, 본질상 반드시 주권을 침해하게 되어 있다. 그렇다면, intervention과 war의 차이는 무엇인가?
Realistic/materialistic interest 가 없으면 big cost를 감수해가며 intervene 할 이유 없어. 이것은 명분과 실리의 싸움. (Iran sanction 참고)
Marthy 주장: international value가 변했다. 과거에는 전쟁을 통한 승리, 성공, 영광(success and glory)가 국가의 goal이었다면, 현재는 인권보호(claims about human rights) 등이 주된 가치가 되었다.
--> me: international value and claims are changing. I agree. but materialistic account의 뿌리는 바뀌지 않았을 것.
Strong states became more clever, seeing long-term benefits.
Interest를 short-term과 long-term으로 나눠서 생각해야.
앞서 말한 것과 같이 intervention은 전쟁과 평화의 경계에 있고, 본질상 반드시 주권을 침해하게 되어 있다. 그렇다면, intervention과 war의 차이는 무엇인가?
