VALOrACIÓN DE LA TEmPErATUrA COrPOrAL (continuación)

The term “intervention” is elusive on many levels. A few distinctions should be made prior to any discussion of it. The first concerns the understanding that intervention can mean different things across different disciplines. As James Rosenau argued, the discussion of intervention is usually addressed by three distinct disciplines – moral, legal and strategic. He suggested that these be complemented by a scientific approach.1 One can also argue that a distinct historic approach to intervention exists also.

The moral or ethical approach seeks answers to the question regarding the circumstances in which it is morally right to intervene.2 The strategic approach, conversely, studies the question of where, how and when do interventions succeed, in light of values we aspire to achieve; and why do such interventions take place, in terms of the interests of various parties. It can be generally argued that these questions are the primary concern of scholars of political science.3 The scientific approach can be looked

1

See James N. Rosenau, Intervention as a Scientific Concept, 13 J.CONFLICT RESOLUTION 149(1969). 2

For such questions, see e.g. John Stuart Mill, A Few Words on Non-Intervention (1859), in DISSERTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS 238(1882), available at http://google.books.com/; MICHAEL WALZER,JUST AND UNJUST

WARS: A MORAL ARGUMENT WITH HISTORICAL ILLUSTRATIONS 86–109(4th ed., 2006). 3

See, e.g., THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS ON INTERNAL CONFLICT (Michael E. Brown, ed., 2001); PATRICK M.REGAN,CIVIL WARS AND FOREIGN POWERS:OUTSIDE INTERVENTION IN INTRASTATE CONFLICT;

upon as a branch – or method – of the strategic approach. It attempts to analyze cases of intervention in a manner which produces results “in such a way that findings derived from one case can be applied to and tested by other cases,” for the purpose of explaining “scientifically” the “dynamics of intervention.”4 The historic point of view concerning intervention seeks to investigate the details of a specific intervention or of interventions at large, in order to build a coherent and credible factual basis.5 The legal approach, however, is concerned with the attempt to outline the circumstances, if at all, where states or organizations have the legal power, responsibility, right or duty to intervene.6 It attempts to analyze the sources of international law to circumscribe a set of normative rules and principles.

Initially, these disciplines seem far apart; however, they are more intertwined than one would expect. Rosenau – albeit critically – addressed this interconnectivity, stating that

The moral dimension . . .is plagued by a double-standard problem; the legal dimension suffers from a definitional problem, and the strategic dimension is beset by the problem of operationalizing the national interest . . . To the extent that the three dimensions are interdependent, so are the problems, thus further compounding the confusion.7

PEACEMAKING AND PEACEKEEPING FOR THE NEW CENTURY (Olara A. Otunu & Michael W. Doyle, eds., 1998).

4

Rosenau, surpa note 1, at 150. 5

See, e.g., GARY JONATHAN BASS,FREEDOM’S BATTLE: THE ORIGINS OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

(2008). 6

See, e.g., SIMON CHESTERMAN, JUST WAR OR JUST PEACE? HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN

INTERNATIONAL LAW (2001). 7

Thus, the legal dimension of intervention interacts with other dimensions – which interact also with each other.8 For instance, to the extent that we accept that ethics can play a part in the interpretation of ambiguous legal norms,9 the legal interpretation of international law concerning intervention can indeed interact with the ethical approach to intervention. Furthermore, concepts such as necessity and proportionality, which are, to some extent, strategic questions –are also an integral part of the classic Just War assessment of intervention, which might be a part not only of the ethical discussion of intervention, but also of the considerations that must be taken in the executive discretion exercised by international functions.10

The fact that the different disciplines regarding the question of intervention are not mutually-excluding might create some confusion. Indeed, Rosenau’s assertion that the legal study of intervention suffers from a deficit of “definition,” might find its roots in the confusing differences in discourse between the different disciplines. For instance, when an international lawyer says intervention, she does not necessarily attribute to the term the same meaning that a political scientist would; the same applies to the terms “use of force,” “civil war” and others. Lack of sensitivity to these subtleties might result

8

For instance, when adopting a utilitarian standpoint, an intervention would only be moral where it is strategically effective. For instance, Mill, true to his utilitarian approach, outlines a moral framework to intervention in which such would be justified, inter alia, when it is likely to achieve the desired consequences. See MILL,supra note 2;see also MICHAEL W.DOYLE,WAYS OF WAR AND PEACE 395 (1997) (addressing Mill’s view in the wider context of the liberal approach towards intervention and non- intervention).

9

See WALZER,supra note 2, at xxii – xxii. On the distinction between legality and ethics in the context of intervention see, e.g., Michael W. Doyle, The Folly of Protection, FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mar. 20, 2011), available at http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67666/michael-w-doyle/the-folly-of- protection?page=show.

10

See, e.g., the suggestion regarding the validity of the concepts of proportionality and “reasonable prospects” in the context of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL

COMMISSION ON INTERVENTION AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY,THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT 29 (2001) [hereinafter ICISS Report].

in “incommensurability” in the study of intervention.11 For instance, if a strategic study defines intervention as only one which is only committed by a state’s regular forces, its findings might not be applicable to a legal study, which, as we shall see, potentially includes within the confines of the term also acts by non-state actors encouraged or tolerated by a state.