Does Foreign Military Intervention Help Human Rights?

By Peksen, Dursun | Political Research Quarterly, September 2012 | Go to article overview

Does Foreign Military Intervention Help Human Rights?


Peksen, Dursun, Political Research Quarterly


Abstract

This article examines the effect of foreign armed intervention on human rights conditions in target countries. It is argued that military intervention contributes to the rise of state repression by enhancing the state's coercive power and encouraging more repressive behavior, especially when it is supportive or neutral toward the target government. Results from bivariate probit models estimated on time-series cross-section data show that supportive and neutral interventions increase the likelihood of extrajudicial killing, disappearance, political imprisonment, and torture. Hostile interventions increase only the probability of political imprisonment. The involvement of an intergovernmental organization or a liberal democracy as an intervener is unlikely to make any major difference in the suggested negative impact of intervention.

Keywords

military intervention, human rights, repression, third-party intervention

Introduction

Foreign military intervention is a pervasive feature of international politics.1 States frequently resort to armed forces with various self-interested and humanitarian goals. With military intervention being a popular policy tool, and potentially more risky and costly than nonmilitary strategies, a large body of research has been devoted to the possible consequences of intervention for the target state. The extant literature has examined whether foreign armed operations promote democratization (e.g., Meernik 1996; Hermann and Kegley 1998; Pickering and Peceny 2006; Bueno de Mesquita and Downs 2006; Gleditsch, Christiansen, and Hegre 2007), cease internal armed conflicts (e.g., Regan 2000; Balch-Lindsay and Enterline 2000; Stedman, Rothchild, and Cousens 2002), sustain longer term peace and stability (e.g., Diehl 1993; Doyle and Sambanis 2000; Fortna 2004; Call and Wyeth 2008), and change socioeconomic circumstances in target countries (e.g., Pickering and Kisangani 2006; Peksen 2011).

While this line of research has been insightful in understanding the possible effects of intervention, scholars have yet to fully study the human rights impact of the external use of force. There are two notable studies that partially address the connection between intervention and human rights practices. Meernik, Poe, and Shaikh (2006) examine only the U.S. military intervention cases for the period 1977- 1996 and find no major effect of the U.S. interventions on human rights in target countries. Murdie and Davis (2010) show that peacekeeping interventions with a humanitarian purpose will likely improve human rights conditions. Yet they also find that humanitarian missions, at least in the short term, might adversely affect empowerment rights such as political freedom and workers' rights. Another major finding of the same study is that the peacekeeping interventions that attempt mediation between the belligerent groups might lead to greater level of respect for human rights.

A major limitation of these studies is their focus on a single country's use of force (U.S. military intervention) or a small subset (third-party intervention in civil wars) of intervention cases. Furthermore, these studies suffer from a serious methodological problem using one-stage econometric models where they only predict the impact of intervention on repression. By doing so, they overlook the issue of reciprocal causation (i.e., endogeneity) between the foreign interference and human rights abuses. Besides the possible human rights impact of intervention, poor human rights conditions in the target state resulting from ongoing complex humanitarian crises, violent conflicts, and other socioeconomic problems might trigger external intervention. It is therefore imperative to model the mutual interdependence between the use of force and repression to avoid biased statistical estimates and offer a more accurate analysis of the human rights effect of intervention.

Given the limited scope and methodological shortcomings of the studies, more research is needed to determine whether foreign armed interference has any major impact on human rights conditions. …

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
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • 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.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

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

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Does Foreign Military Intervention Help Human Rights?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
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?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

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

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    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.