Just and Unjust Postwar Reconstruction: How Much External Interference Can Be Justified?

By Recchia, Stefano | Ethics & International Affairs, Summer 2009 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Just and Unjust Postwar Reconstruction: How Much External Interference Can Be Justified?

Recchia, Stefano, Ethics & International Affairs

The age of empire ought to have been succeeded by an age of independent, equal, and self-governing nation-states. In reality, it has been succeeded by an age of ethnic cleansing and state failure. This is the context in which the Empire has made its return.

Michael Ignatieff, Empire Lite

In recent years the world's wealthy and powerful nations have become increasingly involved in the reconstruction of failed states following violent conflict. This has led to the establishment of international peace operations in such diverse places as Cambodia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Liberia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, to mention just some of the better known examples. The many complex policy challenges resulting from these international involvements have been fruitfully discussed in the scholarly literature? However, there have been surprisingly few systematic analyses of the wide-ranging ethical dilemmas raised by such intrusive international reconstruction efforts. It is only following the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) that a debate on jus post bellum--justice after war--has slowly begun to emerge; yet to date, the focus of this normative scholarship has been mainly on the aftermath of traditional interstate wars, with little attention paid to societies torn apart by civil conflict. (2)

Most jus post bellum theorists adopt an explicitly cosmopolitan standpoint, and several of them suggest that the overarching goal of human rights vindication justifies considerable, protracted interference in the domestic affairs of vanquished states. (3) Meanwhile, influential writers and pundits provocatively claim that the world's powerful nations should establish quasi-permanent trusteeship arrangements over deeply divided, war-torn societies for the sake of enforcing political stability, fighting terrorism, and protecting human rights. Harvard historian Niall Ferguson, for instance, proposes that "for some countries some form of imperial governance ... might be better than full independence, not just for a few months or years but for decades." (4) Against such views, I suggest that protracted international trusteeship over fragile war-torn societies is not only dubious from a strategic point of view, given that it might result in a dangerous culture of dependency among the local population, but is highly problematic from a liberal ethical standpoint as well.

This article seeks to reconcile a fundamental normative tension that underlies most contemporary international reconstruction efforts in war-torn societies: on the one hand, substantial interference in the domestic affairs of war-torn societies may seem desirable to secure political stability, set up inclusive governance structures, and protect basic human rights; on the other hand, such interference is inherently paternalistic--and thus problematic--since it deliberately restricts the policy options and broader freedom of maneuver of domestic political actors.

In the first part of the article I briefly discuss classical liberal attitudes toward international paternalism and colonial rule. I show that nineteenth-century liberals, in particular, made some useful conceptual claims on the admissibility of international paternalism in the face of structural impediments to self-rule. Yet we ultimately ought to reject the substance of these classical liberal arguments on the grounds of their flawed anthropological assumptions concerning the "barbaric" nature of non-European peoples. Paternalistic interference in foreign countries is acceptable today only to overcome political (as opposed to racial or cultural) impediments to collective self-rule and basic rights protection; that is, to neutralize dangerous centrifugal forces at the domestic level and (re-)establish strong and inclusive local institutions. Moreover, I argue that for paternalistic interference to be justified, it needs to be strictly proportional to those domestic impediments.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Just and Unjust Postwar Reconstruction: How Much External Interference Can Be Justified?


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?