Abstract
The past decade has witnessed the emergence of numerous ‘cosmopolitan’ theories of humanitarian military intervention. These theories anticipate a more cosmopolitan future, where interventions will be authorized by new cosmopolitan institutions and carried out by reformed cosmopolitan militaries. The contention of my article is that despite the merits of these approaches, it is often difficult to discern whether and how cosmopolitan theories can inform assessments of interventions that take place in our non-cosmopolitan present. Through taking Jürgen Habermas's judgements of two recent interventions as a ‘case study’, I reflect on the considerations that might come into play when cosmopolitans attempt to translate their future-orientated theories into practical engagements with the world as it is.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
3 Habermas is a particularly suitable subject of this investigation because of: (i) his prominent status as a publicly engaged intellectual, (ii) his belief in the give and take of reasons in public deliberation, and (iii) his commitment to the cosmopolitan positions elaborated in the first section of this paper. There are, of course, serious difficulties in taking one theorist's judgements as the basis for reflecting on the practical application of an entire body of thought. It must be stressed at the outset, therefore, that this exercise is merely meant to be illustrative of certain ways in which cosmopolitan ideas can and have figured in judgements of Kosovo and Iraq, not to elaborate definitive cosmopolitan positions on these controversies.
4 Derrida's attitude to principles is, as one would expect, somewhat complex. According to one interpretation, Derrida argues that because judgements will inevitably take leave of our principles, the principles lose their justificatory force. This would differentiate Derrida from Habermas, who would still seek to justify his judgements through appeal to principles despite the extensive interaction between principles and circumstance involved in their formulation. Thanks to Maja Zehfuss for pressing this possible contrast between the two authors.
5 Thanks to Dan Bulley for pointing out this concern with cosmopolitan theorizing about military intervention.
6 A satisfactory discussion would have to carefully delineate proposals for greater legalization of military intervention and provide a more general discussion on the nature and limitations of judicial reasoning. For an interesting and original set of reflections on how law can act as both a vehicle for and check on cosmopolitan aspirations, see Hannah Arendt's discussion of the Eichmann trials (Arendt, 1994).
7 ‘International opinion’ can be expressed by political representatives in national and international bodies, associations in domestic, transnational and global civil society, and concerned individuals in public political debates.
8 For an account of the attitude of African states, including their often reasonable concerns about the practice of humanitarian intervention, see Byers and Chesterman (2003, 190–192)
9 It is, of course, possible and perhaps even likely that Habermas's judgements would have been the same even if he did not have this fixation on the West. However, it may have altered the perception of and response to his judgements. For instance, consider this criticism of Habermas's assessment of Kosovo: ‘Habermas's theoretical perspective…leads him to identify Western public opinion as the ‘international community’ and keeps him from perceiving, beyond the horizon of his noble Kantian utopia, the diversity, estrangement and increasing hostility of other cultures, civilizations and governments’ (Zolo, 2002, 80–81). Although this particular criticism is underpinned by an unattractive and ultimately implausible anti-cosmopolitanism, some acknowledgment of non-Western opinion on Habermas's part may have better insulated him against this kind of critique.
10 The formulation of this criterion is heavily indebted to discussions with Robert Spencer.
11 Allen Buchanan provides a more nuanced and detailed discussion of the ways in which an intervention like Kosovo might have been a pacemaker for desirable international reform, as well as a persuasive critique of the failure of the intervening powers to exploit this potential (Buchanan, 2003).
References
Appiah, K.A. (1997) ‘Cosmopolitan Patriots’, Critical Inquiry 23(3): 617–639.
Archibugi, D. (2003a) ‘Cosmopolitical Democracy’, in D. Archibugi (ed.) Debating Cosmopolitics, London: Verso.
Archibugi, D. (2003b) ‘Demos and Cosmopolis’, in D. Archibugi (ed.) Debating Cosmopolitics, London: Verso.
Archibugi, D. (2004) ‘Cosmopolitan Guidelines for Humanitarian Intervention’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 29(1): 1–22.
Arendt, H. (1994) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Revised and Enlarged Edition, London: Penguin.
Ash, T.G. (2004) Free World: Why a crisis of the West reveals the opportunity of our time, London: Allen Lane, Penguin.
Beiner, R. (1983) Political Judgment, London: Methuen.
Bohman, J. and Lutz-Bachmann, M. (eds.) (1997) Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant's Cosmopolitan Ideal, London: The MIT Press.
Brock, G. and Brighouse, H. (eds.) (2005) The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, C. (2003) ‘Selective Humanitarianism: In Defence of Inconsistency’, in D.K. Chatterjee and D.E. Scheid (eds.) Ethics and Foreign Intervention, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buchanan, A. (2004) Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buchanan, A. (2003) ‘Reforming the International Law of Humanitarian Intervention’, in J.L. Holzgrefe and R.O. Keohane (eds.) Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byers, M. and Chesterman, S. (2003) ‘Changing the Rules About Rules? Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention and the Future of International Law’, in J.L. Holzgrefe and R.O. Keohane (eds.) Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Caney, S. (2005) Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Derrida, J. (2003) ‘Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides: A Dialogue with Jacques Derrida’, in G. Borradori (ed.) Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Elliott, L. and Cheeseman, G. (2002) ‘Cosmopolitan Theory, Militaries and the Deployment of Force’, Working Paper, Canberra: Department of International Relations.
Falk, R. (1998) Law in an Emerging Global Village: A Post-Westphalian Perspective, New York: Transnational Publishers.
Ferrara, A. (1999) Justice and Judgment: The Rise and the Prospect of the Judgment Model in Contemporary Political Philosophy, London: Sage.
Habermas, J. (1998) ‘‘Kants’ Idea of Perpetual Peace: At Two Hundred Years Historical Remove’, in J. Habermas Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1999) ‘Bestiality and Humanity: A War on the Borders between Legality and Morality’, S. Meyer and W. Scheuerman (trans.) Constellations 6(3): 263–272.
Habermas, J. (2001) The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays, M. Pensky (trans.) Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (2003a) ‘Fundamentalism and Terror: A Dialogue with Jürgen Habermas’, in G. Borradori (ed.) Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Habermas, J. (2003b) ‘Interpreting the Fall of a Monument’, M. Pensky (trans.) Constellations 10(3): 364–370.
Habermas, J. (2004) ‘America and the World: A Conversation with Jürgen Habermas, with Eduardo Mendieta’, Logos 3(3): 101–122.
Held, D. (2004) Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Held (2005) ‘Principles of Cosmopolitan Order’, in G. Brock and H. Brighouse (eds.) The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holzgrefe, J.L. (2003) ‘The Humanitarian Intervention Debate’, in J.L. Holzgrefe and R.O. Keohane (eds.) Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaldor, M. (2001) New & Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era, With an Afterward, January 2001, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kaldor, M. (2003) Global Civil Society: An Answer to War, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kuper, A. (2004) Democracy Beyond Borders: Justice and Representation in Global Institutions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Linklater, A. (1998) The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Miller, R.W. (2003) ‘Respectable Oppressors, Hypocritical Liberators: Morality, Intervention, and Reality’, in D.K. Chatterjee and D.E. Scheid (eds.) Ethics and Foreign Intervention, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pogge, T. (2002) World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ricoeur, P. (2000) ‘The Act of Judging’, in P. Ricoeur (ed.) The Just, D. Pellauer (trans.) Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Roth, K. (2004) ‘War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention’, Human Rights Watch. http://hrw.org/wr2k4/download/3.pdf(last accessed 01August 2005).
Tan, K-C. (2004) Justice Without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism and Patriotism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vaughan-Williams, N. (2005) ‘Singularities Beyond Cosmopolitanism’, paper presentation, Ethics in Politics Workshop, Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, University of Warwick.
Vertovec, S. and Cohen, R. (eds.) (2002) Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context, and Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, T.G. (2003) ‘Principles, Politics, and Humanitarian Action’, in A.F. Lang Jr (ed.) Just Intervention, Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Wheeler, N.J. (2000) Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Zolo, D. (2002) Invoking Humanity: War, Law and, Global Order, London: New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Research for this paper was completed with the help of a grant from the Economic and Social Research Council's ‘New Security Challenges’ Programme. A version of this paper was presented at a symposium on ‘Ethics in Global Politics: Cosmopolitanism and Beyond’, held at the University of Warwick in May 2005. I would like to thank all the participants in that symposium for helpful comments. Special thanks are due to James Brassett, Dan Bulley, Robert Fine, Robert Spencer, Maja Zehfuss and an anonymous reviewer for comments on and criticisms of previous versions of this paper.
2 Those who deny that humanitarian military interventions can be acceptable in our non-cosmopolitan present are quick to point out that this does not justify inaction in the face of genocide and other such crimes (Archibugi, 2003b, 268). Instead, they recommend pursuing non-military responses. Though this is a reasonable position, it is not always clear what these non-military responses could consist in, whether they could be effective, and whether they would in fact always bring about less harm than military responses (Kaldor, 2003, 134; Caney, 2005, 249).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, W. Anticipating a Cosmopolitan Future: The Case of Humanitarian Military Intervention. Int Polit 44, 72–89 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800159
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800159