INTA 2030 Final Exam With Verified
Solution
Foreign intervention (definition, examples) - ANSWER Use of power to influence the
affairs of others.
-direct/indirect
-covert/open
-individually/collectively
Examples:
-propaganda, economic sanctions, military intervention
Purposes:
-economic imperialism
-promoting political objectives
-protecting HR
-fostering nat'l security
Ethics of foreign intervention - ANSWER -Utilitarian: sov & non-int -> int'l order |
intervention is wrong because it fosters int'l chaos | ends-based morality: to maintain
global order, honor existing cartography
-Cosmopolitan: world justice can only exist when HR are full protected | int'l justice =/
domestic justice
Mandelbaum's perspective on intervention - ANSWER -Prevalence of intervention is due
to the *oligarchic distribution of power*: strong states intervene in the affairs of the
weak and still defend own territorial integrity
-Status quo argument is simplest & prevent disorder, but boundaries should be based
on some principle
Norms - ANSWER -State sovereignty: states have the right to determine their domestic
affairs
-Norm of nonint is a corollary of state sovereignty
Found in:
,UN Art 2.4 | Resolution 2131 | Resolution 2625 | OAS | UN Art 2.7
Assumptions on the society of nation-states - ANSWER The claim that the society of
nation states is ethically valid is based on several core assumptions:
1) the existing *anarchic sys* is morally legit
2) *people* have a moral right to self-determination
3) *states* have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity
4) *states* have an obligation to resolve conflicts peacefully
5) *force* is not a legit instrument for altering int'l boundaries
Challenges to Westphalian System - ANSWER -Globalization -> porous state boundaries
-Markets have replaced the state
-Ignatieff: nahh brah governments are the only ones who can provide stable political
communities dependent on services only a gov can provide
Strategic security - ANSWER Basis of intervention during the CW. American interests
were driven by rivalry with USSR.
e.g. USSR (Afghanistan) & US (Grenada)
Sovereignty vs. nonintervention - ANSWER 1. Political basis: int'l & domestic legitimacy
2. Moral justifications:
Int'l legitimacy - ANSWER States are entitled to:
-recognition and respect
-sov (corollary of nonint)
-right against intervention
Domestic legitimacy - ANSWER States are entitled to respect only when they meet their
core obligations to their ppl
-responsibility to honor self-determination
-protect basic rights of individuals
legitimate to the extent that: 1) people support the regime*
2) basic rights are protected
*more heavily relied on due to variations in HR
Walzer's perspective on legitimacy - ANSWER 1) *international viability* -> Self-help (no
, external aid)
2) *communal support/representative character* -> Self-determination (regime
represents the ppl, authentic)
McMahan's 2 criteria - ANSWER 1) state must be representative of the political
community
2) state must enjoy the support and approval of the majority
Code of Peace - ANSWER Dorothy Jones; int'l community's ethical framework, states
have accepted it as normative and legally binding in IR:
1) sov eq
4) Nonint
2) territorial integ
3) Self-det
5) peaceful settlements
6) force = no no
7) fulfil int'l obligations
8) cooperation among states
9) respect HR
ETHICAL SYS BECAUSE IT ESTABLISHED *BINDING MORAL OBLIGATIONS* THAT
HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CONTRIBUTE TO *PEACE IN THE INT'L SYS*
Walzer: Legalist paradigm - ANSWER 1. int'l society of states
2. states have rights
3. use of force is aggression
4. aggression justifies self-defense, war of law enforcement
5. nothing but aggression justifies war (imminent attack, secessionist movements,
rescue ppl from massacre)
6. aggressor can be punished
-Might foster int'l tranquility and deter aggression
-DOES NOT ENSURE JUSTICE FOR INDIVIDUALS
Just War Theory in Foreign intervention - ANSWER 1. Last resort
Solution
Foreign intervention (definition, examples) - ANSWER Use of power to influence the
affairs of others.
-direct/indirect
-covert/open
-individually/collectively
Examples:
-propaganda, economic sanctions, military intervention
Purposes:
-economic imperialism
-promoting political objectives
-protecting HR
-fostering nat'l security
Ethics of foreign intervention - ANSWER -Utilitarian: sov & non-int -> int'l order |
intervention is wrong because it fosters int'l chaos | ends-based morality: to maintain
global order, honor existing cartography
-Cosmopolitan: world justice can only exist when HR are full protected | int'l justice =/
domestic justice
Mandelbaum's perspective on intervention - ANSWER -Prevalence of intervention is due
to the *oligarchic distribution of power*: strong states intervene in the affairs of the
weak and still defend own territorial integrity
-Status quo argument is simplest & prevent disorder, but boundaries should be based
on some principle
Norms - ANSWER -State sovereignty: states have the right to determine their domestic
affairs
-Norm of nonint is a corollary of state sovereignty
Found in:
,UN Art 2.4 | Resolution 2131 | Resolution 2625 | OAS | UN Art 2.7
Assumptions on the society of nation-states - ANSWER The claim that the society of
nation states is ethically valid is based on several core assumptions:
1) the existing *anarchic sys* is morally legit
2) *people* have a moral right to self-determination
3) *states* have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity
4) *states* have an obligation to resolve conflicts peacefully
5) *force* is not a legit instrument for altering int'l boundaries
Challenges to Westphalian System - ANSWER -Globalization -> porous state boundaries
-Markets have replaced the state
-Ignatieff: nahh brah governments are the only ones who can provide stable political
communities dependent on services only a gov can provide
Strategic security - ANSWER Basis of intervention during the CW. American interests
were driven by rivalry with USSR.
e.g. USSR (Afghanistan) & US (Grenada)
Sovereignty vs. nonintervention - ANSWER 1. Political basis: int'l & domestic legitimacy
2. Moral justifications:
Int'l legitimacy - ANSWER States are entitled to:
-recognition and respect
-sov (corollary of nonint)
-right against intervention
Domestic legitimacy - ANSWER States are entitled to respect only when they meet their
core obligations to their ppl
-responsibility to honor self-determination
-protect basic rights of individuals
legitimate to the extent that: 1) people support the regime*
2) basic rights are protected
*more heavily relied on due to variations in HR
Walzer's perspective on legitimacy - ANSWER 1) *international viability* -> Self-help (no
, external aid)
2) *communal support/representative character* -> Self-determination (regime
represents the ppl, authentic)
McMahan's 2 criteria - ANSWER 1) state must be representative of the political
community
2) state must enjoy the support and approval of the majority
Code of Peace - ANSWER Dorothy Jones; int'l community's ethical framework, states
have accepted it as normative and legally binding in IR:
1) sov eq
4) Nonint
2) territorial integ
3) Self-det
5) peaceful settlements
6) force = no no
7) fulfil int'l obligations
8) cooperation among states
9) respect HR
ETHICAL SYS BECAUSE IT ESTABLISHED *BINDING MORAL OBLIGATIONS* THAT
HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CONTRIBUTE TO *PEACE IN THE INT'L SYS*
Walzer: Legalist paradigm - ANSWER 1. int'l society of states
2. states have rights
3. use of force is aggression
4. aggression justifies self-defense, war of law enforcement
5. nothing but aggression justifies war (imminent attack, secessionist movements,
rescue ppl from massacre)
6. aggressor can be punished
-Might foster int'l tranquility and deter aggression
-DOES NOT ENSURE JUSTICE FOR INDIVIDUALS
Just War Theory in Foreign intervention - ANSWER 1. Last resort
