Week 7: Foreign Policy, Ethics & Norms

Lecture 1: The making of foreign policy

• Multilateralism= basic rules & practices that shape state cooperation & coordination
problems
• Foreign policy shaped by history, Identity, interpretation, leaders personal
experience, and institutional practices (increasingly blurred line between domestic
and external, media, diplomacy as instruments. E.g., Putin employs coercive tools like
military & energy resources to wield power and court friends (hard and soft power)
government efforts to constrain citizens

International Law
• International law as institution: norms, rules practices created by states & actors to
facilitate goals for order, coexistence, justice, development (prescribe behaviour,
constrain activity, shape expectations)
• States primary subjects and agents, move towards global governance with
individuals, groups, org’s becoming recognised as subjects e.g., human rights laws
with recent moves to hold individuals criminally responsible (non-state actors
shaping normative environment, encouraging redefinition of state interest.
• Increasingly concerned with global as regulate within domestic e.g., environmental
laws. Broadening to address global justice.
• Transformation to supranational law
• Law deemed legitimate to extent authored by those subject to it or their reps,
applied equally, mutual will of the nations concerned
• Pluralism: overlap of various actors and influences on FPA
• Behavouralism & rationalism: examining process of decision making not outcomes
• Domestic structure: material attributes of a country & nature of state shape its FPA
e.g., Democratic peace theory
• Constructivism: normative & ideational structures as nb as material as sustained
through human practice, how actors’ identities shape interests & behaviours nb.
Treat rules and norms as constitutive, importance of discourse, offer resources for
understanding actors’ behaviour.
• 
• If international law doesn’t matter, why do states & actors devote such effort to
negotiating, avoiding legal regimes/commitments? Why is compliance so high
despite fact that it often hinders?
• Those who break it claim they didn’t not that’s its illegitimate
• Principle site of rights such as sovereignty, source of legitimacy
• non-western countries played key role in arguing for and codifying these human
rights and norms
• The practice turn: nb knowledgeable social practices. Feelings of legal obligation
derive from engagement in legal practices, socially constructed. By participating in IL
practices, actors develop internal commitment when conditions of legality met.
• 
• IL does not keep pace with changes e.g., nature of warfare
• No central authority or enforcement so not legitimate.
• Only serves interests of powerful states (gets weaker states to comply)
 • Present IS has European roots (western biases, imperial institution? ’Standard of
civilisation’- only granted sovereignty if exhibited certain characteristics)
• Western powers accused of using privileged position on Security Council to brandish
human rights norms, intervene in domestic politics of developing countries
• Realists: power struggle, centres on organised violence/ war. Sceptic to IL & liberal
idealist notion of ‘peace through law’, is it real if no central authority to legislate &
adjudicate, few sanctions entered
• Neoliberal institutionalism: States rational egoists with law intervening in goals, a
regulatory institution which does not condition states identities and interests.
Develop IL to achieve their own objectives
• Critical legal studies: challenge liberalism of modern IL thought & practice, IL can’t
civilise the world of states. Logic incoherent (denies objective values of states but
attempts to resolve conflict with objective rules), operates within confined
intellectual structure, can twist IL to justify competing outcomes, authority of IL is
self-validating.

• 3 levels of institutions
1. Deep constitutional (principle of sovereignty) primary rules & norms, core of IS
2. Fundamental (international law, multilateralism) employed when common ends or
clashing interests to contain, basic norms & practices
3. Issue-specific institutions/regimes (e.g., UNFCCC, NPT) enact institutional
practices in realm of inter-state relations, decision-making procedures, constate
legitimate action & actors
• 4 Characteristics:
1. Multilateral form of legislation: use multilateral diplomacy as formal method to
legislate IL, reciprocally binding rules of conduct (tied to liberalism), cooperation
in/formally. Norms & rules constantly evolve
2.Consent-based form of legal obligation: observe law as consented expect
customary (considered binding), tacit consent?
3. Peculiar language of reasoning & argument: rhetorical (interpretation) &
analogical (establishes similarities/differences), structures arguments about bounds
of legitimate action
4. Strong discourse of institutional autonomy: political & legal realms different logics
& settings, legally reasoning & arguments are legitimate form of action. Liberal
separation of powers for structure and discipline

Humanitarian intervention
- Should humanitarian intervention be exempt from ban on use of force?
- Clash of humanitarian principles with principles of sovereignty and non-intervention
(states expected to act as guardians of citizens security) should tyrannical states be
recognised as legitimate members of international society
- What responsibilities to other states or institutions have to enforce human rights
norms?
- Attitudes shifted post-cold war
- Effect of domestic public opinion, pressuring policy-makers but capricious
- Attempts to build consensus around R2P (prevent, react, rebuild)
- Peacekeeping mandates by UNSC protect, force only if necessary
 - Use of sanctions, ICC in Libya
- 
- Human security reconceptualization, broaden, state as threat
- Legal argument: counter restrictionist based on UN charter commitment, customary
IL
- Moral duty: common humanity, globalised world so affects other parts
- Shift away from rights of interveners to need of protection for victims
- Look at long- and short-term consequences, need to facilitate conflict resolution &
construct viable polities. UN failed in Somalia when UN troops used to provision
law and order
- 3 pillars: primary responsibility of state to protect population, international
communities’ responsibility to help states fulfil this by preventing, addressing,
decisive action through peaceful means
- SC more likely now to respond to atrocity crimes for protection of civilians
- 
- Rhetorical device to justify forcible interference of strong in affairs of weak, justify
wars, open potential abuse, how bad does crisis have to be before intervention?
- Mixed motives, only willing to sacrifice is self, national interest (do states have right
to risk soldiers’ lives, R2P own citizens)
- intervention may worsen situation by causing violence
- Selectivity of response
- lack of international consensus can create proxy opp
- e.g., French gov. intervene Rwanda, restore waning French influence in Africa or
other concerns for European refugee crises or spreading conflict
- Can outsiders impose human rights when states established through citizens
informed consent or is this neo-colonialism
- Pluralist concern on lack of consensus, states may impose cultural values
- Restrictionists, realists & liberals, (international order where state is best guardian)
maintain ban unless UNSC authorised
- Lack consensus, differing ideologies e.g., China

Is an ethical foreign policy possible and should states have ethical foreign policy?
Foreign Policy: Strategy or approach chosen by a state/national government to achieve its
goals with external entities (state or non-state). (Links domestic and international, what
states do and how we understand that) Can be towards a state or a region.
Foreign Policy Analysis: Subfield of International Relations that aims to explain foreign
policy and foreign policy behaviour with a focus on human decision making.
• Key elements: - Below state level analysis (state as clear unitary actor)
-Actor-specific theory (roles of actors whereas IR tends to be more
structures) (what influences specific actors, psychological factors, pressure from
domestic publics and how this plays out in democracies vs non-democracies.)
-Multicausal explanations
-Interdisciplinary
-Focus on process and outcomes
“The study of the conduct and practice of relations between different actors, primarily
states, in the international system. Diplomacy, intelligence, trade negotiations and cultural
exchanges all form part of the substance of foreign policy between international actors. At
the heart of the field is an investigation into decision making, the individual decision makers,
processes and conditions that affect foreign policy and the outcomes of these decisions.”-
Chris Alden and Amon Aran, ‘Introduction’, Foreign Policy Analysis, pg 3.
Analysing Foreign Policy
Individuals: Impact of particular leaders on foreign policy, Studies in personality, Role of
neuroscience? (Do ideas, history and identity, experience, understanding matter as much as
material power or is it confined by how state is organised) e.g., Trump vs Obama with Iran
Group Decision Making: How are situations framed and represented? How does a group
learn or change established ways of thinking? Can it be driven by bureaucracies; can this be
an outcome of group processes/thinking.
Structures: What are the sources of change in shared perceptions? How does a changing
context impact on the attitudes of leaders? Systemic or cultural changes and their impact.
Are democracies more apt to gage in military intervention than authoritarian states e.g.,
humanitarian intervention tends to be more with democracies.
Actors and Structures
• IR tends to lean towards Structural confines of the international system
• FPA focuses on process of foreign policy formulation (processes behind foreign policy)
• Role of decision makers
• Nature of foreign policy choice
• Both lead stronger emphasis on agency (tensions between role of individuals and how
they interact with the structures around them)

General Theories of IR and Foreign Policy

Realism Liberalism Constructivism
Calculation of self- Ideas and ideals can Meaning and
interest is self- impact FP interpretation
evident in a world fundamental to
shaped by anarchy decision making
and material
conditions
Many schools of realism Primarily a domestic Identity shapes
theory of politics interpretation and
action
Has little to say Focuses on Shared knowledge
about the decision- establishment of shapes
making process of peace. States can interpretation
FP trust each other and
through international
institutions to
moderate their
 behaviour.
Neoclassical Liberal states have Role of norms moderates
focuses on decision been aggressive to state policy. Routine
unit level variables non-liberal states practice of adhering to
and systemic norms creates stability.
imperatives
Restrictions on what liberal Agency and
states can do. structure mutually
constituted

The Evolution of Foreign Policy Analysis

Behaviourism Bureaucratic Politics Domestic Structures
Role of the individual Executive decision making Material make up of a state
decision maker takes place within an
institutional context
Social and psychological Ministries, departments, Institutional features, how
Influences on foreign policy think tanks that state is organised
decision making

Criticised as narrow Draws on organisational Relationship between

theory and sociology society and state
institutions
Leaders act within How do process shape Relationship between
bureaucracy, institutions decision making? society and state
and sub-state institutions. institutions e.g. elections,
protest
How societal demands
translate into political
practice

Rational Decision Making

• Process people should use to choose something

• Presumption of logic and order
• Process new information
• Weigh up preferences, goals, capabilities, and limits
• Approximates common sense
• *Subjective Probability Estimates
• Choose options based on likelihood of greatest value

Rational, Psychological, Neurological Models

Rational Psychological Neurological
 Models are powerful as they Cognitive revolution and Decisions not the result of
can identify strategy leaders limits of rationality deliberative thought
should choose process
Reliance on end-means Humans prefer simplicity Preconscious neurological
calculations processes
Tend not be to be accurate Avoid ambiguity in favour of Decisions seem to be
consistency product of strong emotional
responses
Misunderstand e.g. Blair in Iraq
probability/estimation
more averse to loss than
gain seeking

Role Theory – ‘perceptions, values, and attitudes’

• How decision makers conceive of their state’s role in the world influences that state’s
foreign policy behaviour
• Closely connected to psychological approaches in FPA and constructivism in IR
• Roles can be debated/contested domestically
• Useful for thinking about how small states approach foreign policy (Saudi Arabia)
• Individuals and how they perceive the structures they operate within (As Uk is a great
power must behave like one) Attempt to bridge this divide, how leaders interpret
structures vary.

“Primarily from policymakers’ role conceptions, domestic needs and

demands, and critical events or trends in the external environment”
Holsti, K. J. (1970) ‘National role conceptions in the study of foreign
policy’.

Other Actors in Foreign Policy

Public Opinion Media Non/Sub/Trans State
Actors
Pluralist (media acts as Role of the media International Institutions
constraints in holding
leaders to account) V Elite
Models of power dispersion
(subservient to dominant
interests)
Do democratic states have Accountability? Corporations
to be more responsive than
non-democratic states to
their publics?
Narrative framing? Lobby groups
The CNN effect and public Think Tanks
pressure?
To support the Activists
government?
Is an Ethical Foreign Policy possible?
Do states have some kind of duty or moral responsibility to those beyond their borders?
• British Foreign Secretary in 1997, Robin Cook calls for an ethical foreign policy.
• 2014-2022 Sweden adopts a feminist foreign policy
Critical of Saudi Arabia
• 2017 Canada announced Feminist International Assistance foreign policy
• US foreign policy often positioned as being based on universal liberal values, but this is at
odds with its practice
• China’s 5 Principles of Peaceful Coexistence
Realist: ethics not main goal, liberal reach was always going to lead to abuses as not possible
to have foreign ethical policy
Liberal: commitment to other places
Constructivists: interconnectedness have impact on states identity

Britain’s Ethical Foreign Policy?

“We are instant witness in our sitting rooms through the medium of television to human
tragedy in distant lands and are therefore obliged to accept moral responsibility for our
response. Even our weather is changing as a result of changes to the rain forests in a
different hemisphere. We live in a world in which nation states are interdependent. In that
modern world foreign policy is not divorced from domestic policy but a central part of any
political programme. In order to achieve our goals for the people of Britain we need a
foreign strategy that supports the same goals.”
Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary 1997-01, 12 May 1997

“The Labour Government does not accept that political values can be left behind when we
check in our passports to travel on diplomatic business. Our foreign policy must have an
ethical dimension and must support the demands of other peoples for the democratic
rights on which we insist for ourselves. The Labour Government will put human rights at
the heart of our foreign policy and will publish an annual report on our work in promoting
human rights abroad. The next twelve months provide the greatest opportunities in a
generation for Britain to take a leading part on the world stage.”

War crimes by UK forces in Iraq

Iraq war: Abuse claims against soldiers close with no prosecutions
Laws regarding wars changed with social and technological changes. (Weaponry, treatment
of military combatants, non-combatants)
Use of drone attacks challenge capacity of international law to constrain contemporary
warfare
‘just cause’ now just self-defence & peace enforcement sanction by UNSC
Highlights shift to supranational

What can/should/does an ethical foreign policy look like?

• What should we focus on to explain a state’s foreign policy?

• Should foreign policy be guided by ethics? Or state interests?
• Is this a fair binary?
• Ethical according to whom or what?
• Who decides when something is or isn’t ethical?
• Can war ever be part of an ethical foreign policy?
• Is the UK/US/Others support for Ukraine an example of ethical foreign policy?
• Is Russia’s special military operation an example of ethical foreign policy to defend
ethnic Russians?
• Should stronger more capable states intervene in smaller states where
violence/war/genocide is breaking out?

Lecture 2 notes: Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect

The role of Norms (Role-players)

“Collective expectations (or understandings) for the proper behaviour of actors with a given
identity” -Peter Katzenstein, 1996, pg 5

“Interests are not just out there waiting to be discovered; they are constructed through
social interaction” -Martha Fennimore, 1996
Patterns of norms
Norm Emergence
Norm Cascade (how they spread)
Norm Internalization (norms emerge through social interactions with states)
Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998
Responsibility to protect started as norm for how states might relate to one another and
their own population but has become less of an international law but codified more strongly
than a norm.

What is the effect and impact of laws, when and why do states adhere to them and are
some states more likely to adhere than others. Adhere until costs? Norms restrict and
encourage certain types of behaviour.

The Making of Ethical Foreign Policy

• Leader/Elite politics?
• Institutional Values?
• Cultural/historical values?
• Shifting Internal norms?
• Media pressure?
• Public opinion?

How can states practice ethical foreign policy if it comes at the expense, or is perceived to,
of national interests?
Is it in national interest to have a foreign policy which may reflect a state’s culture and
history? Or are morality and ethics opposed to other state interests such as survival, security
and wellbeing of citizens with ethical foreign policy adjacent to that? Are states willing to
have ethical foreign policy if it compromises that? Is it good in its own right or only if it
doesn’t lead to costs in other areas.

1990s: A Decade of humanitarian intervention

“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 force is applied.”
Holzgrefe, J. L., & Keohane, R. O. (Eds.). (2003), Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal,
and Political Dilemmas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Examples:
• Iraq, 1991, Operation Provide Comfort
• Somalia, 1992, Operation Restore Hope Unified Task Force
• Haiti, 1994, Operation Uphold Democracy
• Rwanda, 1994, UNAMIR
• East Timor, 1999, UNTAET
• NATO bombing in Kosovo 1999
• British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War, 2000

The Rwandan Genocide 7 April – 15 July 1994

• Intermittent conflict since independence in 1962
• Civil war taking place since 1990 - ceasefire in 1993
• Hutu (85%) extremists blamed the Tutsis (14%) for Rwanda’s increasing social,
political, and economic problems
• 6 April: Rwandan Hutu President Habyarimana killed when plane shot down
• In 100 days, 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus are killed and unprepared Belgian
peacekeepers are forced out
• General Romeo Dalliere could not get UNSC to update mandate to seize weapon
caches.
• International hesitation to use the term ‘genocide’
• July 1994 - Rwandan Patriotic Front led by Paul Kagame take Kigali and the genocide ends
• 2 million Hutus flee to Zaire
• Rwanda has engaged in 2 wars in Zaire trying to kill refugee Hutu groups
"At the time of the planning of the genocide the French government had 47 senior officers
embedded into the Rwandan army, which subsequently played such a large role in the
genocide, and the best-informed government of all of what was going on in Rwanda was the
French’ Linda Melvern

Is this just another way for neo-colonialism.

Anthony Lake on Clinton Administration and Rwanda
… we never came to grips with what in retrospect should have been a central issue -- do we
do much more to insist that the international community intervene and go out and find the
troops that are necessary, or even contemplate an American intervention itself? That issue
just never arose.
We'll get into the specifics. But just in general, why did it not arise?
I think it didn't arise for us because it was almost literally inconceivable that American
troops would go to Rwanda. Our sin, I believe, was not the error of commission, or taking a
look at this issue and then saying no. It was an error of omission -- of never considering that
issue. I would think, especially in the wake of Somalia, that there was no chance that the
Congress would ever have authorized funds to send American troops into Rwanda. Indeed,
we were struggling to get the funds for our relief operations.

There was no appetite in the international community for such an effort. I might add, not
just among other governments -- and of course, some of the governments that had troops
there were extremely anxious to get out and stay out -- but in the whole international
community -- editorial writers, legislatures, other African governments, even NGOs. …

Difficult to implement foreign ethical policy if no national interest.

Does engaging in ethical foreign policy undermine security of the state? Does it weaken
state if they fail.
Practical elements of humanitarian intervention.

Yugoslavia History
• Post WWII, Yugoslavia was set up as a federation of 6 republics
• Borders drawn along ethnic and historical lines:
• Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia.
• Led by Josep Tito 1953-1980
• Defied Soviet hegemony with market socialism
• Ethnic tensions rise towards end of 1980s
• Slobadan Milosovic becomes Serbian leader and becomes increasingly nationalistic

Yugoslavia Disintegrates
• Croatia/Slovenia declare independence June 25th, 1991
• Bosnia moving towards independence
• Serbians throughout region are tense as new ethnic based states start to emerge
• UN failed to demilitarize Serbian forces in Bosnia
• Bosnian War 1995-1995
• NATO intervenes with bombing campaign
• Srebrenica Massacre 1995

Srebrenica Massacre July 1995

• 8000 Bosniak men and boys killed by Serbian forces led by Ratko Mladic
• UN had a declared a safe zone around in April 1993
• Dutch UN mission failed to protect the Srebrenica enclave

“People are not little stones, or keys in someone's pocket, that can be moved from one
place to another just like that... Therefore, we cannot precisely arrange for only Serbs to
stay in one part of the country while removing others painlessly. I do not know how Mr
Krajisnik and Mr Karadzic will explain that to the world. That is genocide”
General Ratko Mladic, Bosnian Serb Army
Kosovo Feb 1998 – June 1999
• Had been autonomous region in Yugoslavia.
• Ethnic Albanian Kosovo Liberation army launches guerrilla warfare against Serbian Rule
• Fears of imminent genocide as oppression of Albanians takes place.
• March 1999 - NATO bombing campaign begins under guise of humanitarian intervention
• Mass expulsion of Albanians
• June 1999 - NATO threatens full intervention and
Milosovic backs down and Serb forces withdraw
• No UN mandate but considered legitimate….

Tony Blair and the Doctrine of the International Community - April 22, 1999, Chicago
Economic Club

“No-one in the West who has seen what is happening in Kosovo can doubt that NATO's
military action is justified…. This is a just war, based not on any territorial ambitions but on
values. We cannot let the evil of ethnic cleansing stand. We must not rest until it is reversed.
We have learned twice before in this century that appeasement does not work. If we let an
evil dictator range unchallenged, we will have to spill infinitely more blood and treasure to
stop him later.But people want to know not only that we are right to take this action but
also that we have clear objectives and that we are going to succeed. We have five
objectives: a verifiable cessation of all combat activities and killings; the withdrawal of Serb
military police and paramilitary forces from Kosovo; the deployment of an international
military force; the return of all refugees and unimpeded access for humanitarian aid; and a
political framework for Kosovo building on the Rambouillet accords. We will not negotiate
on these aims. Milosevic must accept them.”

“Looking around the world there are many regimes that are undemocratic and engaged in
barbarous acts. If we wanted to right every wrong that we see in the modern world, then
we would do little else than intervene in the affairs of other countries. We would not be
able to cope. So how do we decide when and whether to intervene? I think we need to
bear in mind five major considerations.”

“First, are we sure of our case? War is an imperfect instrument for righting humanitarian
distress, but armed force is sometimes the only means of dealing with dictators. Second,
have we exhausted all diplomatic options? We should always give peace every chance, as
we have in the case of Kosovo. Third, on the basis of a practical assessment of the situation,
are there military operations we can sensibly and prudently undertake? Fourth, are we
prepared for the long term? In past we talked too much of exit strategies. But having made
a commitment we cannot simply walk away once the fight is over; better to stay with
moderate numbers of troops than return for repeat performances with large numbers. And
finally, do we have national interests involved? The mass expulsion of ethnic Albanians
from Kosovo demanded the notice of the rest of the world. But it does make a difference
that this is taking place in such a combustible part of Europe. I am not suggesting that these
are absolute tests. But they are the kind of issues we need to think about in deciding in the
future when and whether we will intervene.”

What are the criteria for intervention on a humanitarian basis? Trying to establish type of
norm for how states should treat their citizens.

The Responsibility to Protect

“Intervention for human protection purposes . . . is supportable when major harm to
civilians is occurring or imminently apprehended, and the state in question is unable or
unwilling to end the harm or is itself the perpetrator.”
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to
Protect (2001)

Attempts to reform how sovereignty is conceptualised, instead of it being an absolute,

foundational concept about how international politics is ordered it becomes conditional on
how you treat your citizens.
Reconfigure how sovereignty is thought of and eventually give legitimacy and legal right for
other states to intervene to protect civilians.

The Basis for Humanitarian Intervention Today

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide,
war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the
prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary
means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international
community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility
and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to
use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian, and other peaceful means, in accordance with
Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take
collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in
accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in
cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be
inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
UN as founded on attempt for ethical foreign policy but not set up to deal with domestic
issues.

The Bush Doctrine

“We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations...by defending the United States, the
American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the
threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist
the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary,
to exercise our right of self-defence by acting pre-emptively against such terrorists, to
prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country”

“Make freedom and the development of democratic institutions key themes in our bilateral
relations, seeking solidarity and cooperation from other democracies while we press
governments that deny human rights to move toward a better future”

Principle of pre-emptive war the US invokes in the aftermath of 9/11

Libya Intervention 2011

• As part of the ‘Arab spring’ protests in Libya expand into a rebellion against rule of
Muammar Gaddafi (authoritarian leaders in North Africa and Middle East)
• March 19th, 2011, a NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya
• Responsibility to Protect invoked
• Goal is to protect protestors but US goes on to pursue regime change
• Infuriates Putin
• October 20th, 2011, Gaddafi is captured and killed during battle of Sirte
• Political chaos ensues and essentially a second civil war begins in 2014

“We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi—a city nearly the size of Charlotte—
could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the
conscience of the world,” Barack Obama
Putin view that authoritarian leaders may be holding more
dangerous forces e.g., ISIS at bay
Responsibility to protect missing clauses for what to do after intervention. No western
appetite for occupying or engaging in state building because of chaos in Afghanistan and
Iraq

Syria 2011 – A rebellion? A civil war? A proxy war?

March 2011
• Pro-democracy demonstrations begin in the southern city of Deraa.
• Inspired by the "Arab Spring" in neighbouring countries.
• Bashar al –Assad responds with force
• West does not intervene

4 Overlapping Conflicts
• Forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and the rebels
who oppose him.
• Over time, both sides fractured into multiple militias,
including local and foreign fighters
• Syria’s ethnic Kurdish minority took up arms amid the chaos. The Kurds carved out
a de facto ministate and have gradually taken territory they see as Kurdish.
• Opposed by Turkey, sometimes backed by the US
• ISIL seized large parts of Syria and Iraq in 2014 declaring that territory its caliphate.
• No allies and at war with all other actors in the conflict.
• Foreign powers intervening
• Assad receives support from Iran and Russia, and the Lebanese militant group
Hezbollah.
• Rebels backed by the US and oil-rich Arab states like Saudi Arabia.
• All have different agendas/interests
• Tension between stability and western approved democratic order

Is Humanitarian Intervention ever justifiable?

• Who sends soldiers? Which countries should be responsible?
• How long do they stay for?
• What is the goal?
• How is peace made? And then maintained?
• Why are states reluctant to intervene in instances of ethnic cleansing and genocide?
• Is this type of violence inevitable? Is it a part of state building?
• Are former colonial power responsible where conflicts break out due to their legacies?

Concluding questions
• How would you best explain what contributes to a state’s foreign policy?
• Should foreign policy be guided by ethics and morality? Or state interests?
Who decides when a foreign policy is or isn’t ethical?
• Can war ever be an ethical foreign policy?
• Is UK/US/other states’ support for Ukraine an example of ethical foreign policy?
• Is Russia’s special military operation an example of ethical foreign policy to defend ethnic
Russians?
• Is the practice of humanitarian intervention ethically/morally justified?
• Can you think of some examples where it is? And some where it is not?
• What should ‘we’ do when crimes against humanity, oppression, or genocide are taking
place?