Intervention in the Domestic Affairs: Questioning Definitions
The last decades have seen a proliferation of internationalized internal disputes and a steady growth in scholarly interest in interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. This bibliographic review summarizes the approaches of those scholars (predominantly from the Anglo-Saxon countries...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Moscow University Press
2020-11-01
|
| Series: | Вестник Московского Университета. Серия XXV: Международные отношения и мировая политика |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://fmp.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/77 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832572223068569600 |
|---|---|
| author | V. I. Bartenev |
| author_facet | V. I. Bartenev |
| author_sort | V. I. Bartenev |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The last decades have seen a proliferation of internationalized internal disputes and a steady growth in scholarly interest in interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. This bibliographic review summarizes the approaches of those scholars (predominantly from the Anglo-Saxon countries) — who focused on conceptual dimensions of the intervention problematique. The review consists of three sections. The first section examines the semantic nuances of the key terms in Russian and English languages describing interventionist behaviour and the particularities of their usage in international legal documents. The second and third sections reveal the essence of two ‘great debates’ in the literature on intervention. The first debate centers on desirability and possibility of working out a definition of intervention. The second debate focuses on delimiting semantic boundaries of the ‘intervention’ concept. The first debate is presented as a polemic between scholars who take intervention for granted, the proponents of treating it as a scientific concept and those who refuse to search for a common definition as such. The conclusion contains a critique of argumentation of those scholars — predominantly constructivists and poststructuralists — who question the possibility of obtaining a purely scientific knowledge about intervention and call for studying discourse instead, including the discourse of actors conducting interventionist actions. The author of the review justifies the need to formulate the working definition of intervention which would allow to get out of a trap conflicting perceptions in the times of an increasing interstate confrontation, revival of an ideological competition and widening divergences in conceptualisation of sovereignty, its boundaries and conditions of their violation. He also advocates for the utilization of the broadest interpretation of intervention which, on the one hand, would include both military and non-military tools (such as foreign aid, sanctions, information influence etc.), and, on the other hand, would be applicable to studying interventionist practices of different historical epochs, including the pre-Westphalian era. The review concludes with a reminder that the use of any extant definition or a development of a new one is only the first step towards a typology of interventionist actions which should be based on the study of empirical data and not on the a priori chosen parameters. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a61376cb56b54fb2a2187f373fadafee |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2076-7404 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2020-11-01 |
| publisher | Moscow University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Вестник Московского Университета. Серия XXV: Международные отношения и мировая политика |
| spelling | doaj-art-a61376cb56b54fb2a2187f373fadafee2025-02-02T11:10:31ZengMoscow University PressВестник Московского Университета. Серия XXV: Международные отношения и мировая политика2076-74042020-11-011047910876Intervention in the Domestic Affairs: Questioning DefinitionsV. I. Bartenev0Lomonosov Moscow State UniversityThe last decades have seen a proliferation of internationalized internal disputes and a steady growth in scholarly interest in interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. This bibliographic review summarizes the approaches of those scholars (predominantly from the Anglo-Saxon countries) — who focused on conceptual dimensions of the intervention problematique. The review consists of three sections. The first section examines the semantic nuances of the key terms in Russian and English languages describing interventionist behaviour and the particularities of their usage in international legal documents. The second and third sections reveal the essence of two ‘great debates’ in the literature on intervention. The first debate centers on desirability and possibility of working out a definition of intervention. The second debate focuses on delimiting semantic boundaries of the ‘intervention’ concept. The first debate is presented as a polemic between scholars who take intervention for granted, the proponents of treating it as a scientific concept and those who refuse to search for a common definition as such. The conclusion contains a critique of argumentation of those scholars — predominantly constructivists and poststructuralists — who question the possibility of obtaining a purely scientific knowledge about intervention and call for studying discourse instead, including the discourse of actors conducting interventionist actions. The author of the review justifies the need to formulate the working definition of intervention which would allow to get out of a trap conflicting perceptions in the times of an increasing interstate confrontation, revival of an ideological competition and widening divergences in conceptualisation of sovereignty, its boundaries and conditions of their violation. He also advocates for the utilization of the broadest interpretation of intervention which, on the one hand, would include both military and non-military tools (such as foreign aid, sanctions, information influence etc.), and, on the other hand, would be applicable to studying interventionist practices of different historical epochs, including the pre-Westphalian era. The review concludes with a reminder that the use of any extant definition or a development of a new one is only the first step towards a typology of interventionist actions which should be based on the study of empirical data and not on the a priori chosen parameters.https://fmp.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/77intervention in the domestic affairsinterferencenoninterferencesovereigntyinternationalized domestic conflictbehaviourismenglish school of international relationsconstructivismpost-structuralismdiscourseforeign aidsanctions |
| spellingShingle | V. I. Bartenev Intervention in the Domestic Affairs: Questioning Definitions Вестник Московского Университета. Серия XXV: Международные отношения и мировая политика intervention in the domestic affairs interference noninterference sovereignty internationalized domestic conflict behaviourism english school of international relations constructivism post-structuralism discourse foreign aid sanctions |
| title | Intervention in the Domestic Affairs: Questioning Definitions |
| title_full | Intervention in the Domestic Affairs: Questioning Definitions |
| title_fullStr | Intervention in the Domestic Affairs: Questioning Definitions |
| title_full_unstemmed | Intervention in the Domestic Affairs: Questioning Definitions |
| title_short | Intervention in the Domestic Affairs: Questioning Definitions |
| title_sort | intervention in the domestic affairs questioning definitions |
| topic | intervention in the domestic affairs interference noninterference sovereignty internationalized domestic conflict behaviourism english school of international relations constructivism post-structuralism discourse foreign aid sanctions |
| url | https://fmp.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/77 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT vibartenev interventioninthedomesticaffairsquestioningdefinitions |