BEYOND PEACEKEEPING: THE EVOLUTION OF LIBERAL INTERVENTIONISM AFTER THE COLD WAR

Year 2024, Volume: 8 Issue: 4, 242 - 255

Umut Yukaruç

Abstract

This article examines the evolution of liberal interventionism in the post-Cold War era, delineating its historical trajectory and its implications for contemporary international relations theory. During this period, interventionism manifested distinctive traits within the context of the bipolar international system. However, the advent of the unipolar system gave rise to a transformation in these characteristics, resulting in a distinct shift in their manifestation. This shift coincided with the ascendance of liberal democracy, which introduced several novel characteristics that have manifested in numerous global occurrences. As a consequence of a reduction in interstate conflicts and an increase in those occurring within states, frequently instigated by ethnic or religious strife, the United Nations has witnessed a substantial expansion in peace operations. Moreover, this article examines how peacekeeping operations and state-building processes have developed over time, offering insights into the ways in which these concepts have transformed. This analysis addresses the evolution from the traditional peacekeeping paradigm to a more comprehensive and multifaceted approach, namely multidimensional peace operations. Such multidimensional peacekeeping operations encompass a broader range of activities extending beyond the mere monitoring of ceasefires. These may include, for instance, the provision of humanitarian assistance, the supervision of elections, and the advancement of state-building efforts, among other possible actions. This article provides a detailed examination of the fundamental transformations and their implications for the future of liberal interventionism, particularly in light of the evolving landscape of global conflict and instability.

Keywords

Liberal Interventionism, State-building, Peacekeeping, International Security

BARIŞI KORUMANIN ÖTESİNDE: SOĞUK SAVAŞ SONRASI LİBERAL MÜDAHALECİLİĞİN EVRİMİ

Abstract

Bu makale Soğuk Savaş sonrası dönemde liberal müdahaleciliğin evrimini incelemektedir. İki kutuplu uluslararası sistem sırasında müdahalecilik belirgin özellikler göstermiştir. Ancak tek kutuplu sistemin oluşmasıyla birlikte bu özellikler daha farklı özellikler göstermeye başlamışlardır. Bu değişim, liberal demokrasinin yükselişiyle aynı döneme denk gelmiş ve beraberinde birçok uluslararası olayda kendini gösteren bir dizi yeni özellik getirmiştir. Devletlerarası çatışmaların azalması ve sıklıkla etnik veya dini çekişmeler tarafından kışkırtılan devlet içi çatışmaların paralel olarak artması sonucunda, Birleşmiş Milletler barış operasyonlarında önemli bir genişleme gözlemlemiştir. Ayrıca bu makale, barışı koruma operasyonlarının ve devlet inşası süreçlerinin evrimini, bu kavramların özelliklerinin nasıl değiştiğine dair bir açıklama getirmek amacıyla incelemektedir. Mevcut analiz, geleneksel barışı koruma paradigmasından daha kapsamlı ve çok yönlü bir yaklaşıma, yani çok boyutlu barış operasyonlarına doğru evrimi ele almaktadır. Bu çok boyutlu barışı koruma operasyonları, diğer olasılıkların yanı sıra, örneğin insani yardım sağlanması, seçimlerin denetlenmesi ve devlet inşası çabalarının ilerletilmesini de kapsayan, yalnızca ateşkeslerin izlenmesinin ötesine geçen daha geniş bir dizi faaliyetin gerçekleştirilmesini gerektirmektedir. Bu makale, özellikle küresel çatışmalar ve istikrarsızlığın değişen bağlamı ışığında, liberal müdahaleciliğin geleceği için temel dönüşümleri ve bunların sonuçlarını incelikli bir şekilde incelemektedir.

Keywords

Liberal Müdahalecilik, Devlet İnşası, Barışı Koruma, Uluslararası Güvenlik

References

• Badescu, C. G. (2010). Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Security and Human Rights. London and New York: Routledge.
• Balthasar, D. (2017). Peace-building as state-building? Rethinking liberal interventionism in contexts of emerging states. Conflict, Security & Development. 17(6), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2017.1406180.
• Beauchamp, Z. (2021, Sep 8). The war on terror and the long death of liberal interventionism. Vox, https://www.vox.com/22639548/911-anniversary-war-on-terror-liberal-interventionism.
• Belloni, R. (2001). Civil Society and Peacebuilding in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Journal of Peace Research. 38 (2), pp.163-180.
• Belloni, R. (2007). State Building and International Intervention in Bosnia. London: Routledge.
• Boutros-Ghali, B. (1992). An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking, and Peace-keeping: Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to the Statement Adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992, UN.
• Boutros-Ghali, B. (1995). Supplement to an Agenda for Peace: position paper of the Secretary-General on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, UN.
• Brahimi, L. (2000). The report of the Panel on UN Peace Operations (‘Brahimi report’), https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/a_55_305_e_brahimi_report.pdf.
• Chandler, D. (2004). The responsibility to protect? Imposing the ‘Liberal Peace, International Peacekeeping. 11 (1), pp.59-81.
• Chandler, D. (2006). Empire in Denial: the Politics of State-building. London; Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto.
• Cunliffe, P. (2007). Power without Responsibility. in Aidan Hehir and Neil Robinson (eds.) State Building: Theory and Practice (pp. 50-69). London; New York: Routledge.
• De Guevara, B. B. (2010). Introduction: The Limits of Statebuilding and the Analysis of State-Formation. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding. 4 (2), pp.111-128.
• Doyle, M. W. (2005). Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace. The American Political Science Review. 99 (3), pp. 463-466.
• Doyle, M. W. & Sambanis, N. (2006). Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations. Princeton, N.J.; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Fearon, J. D. & Laitin, D. D. (2004). Neotrusteeship and the Problem of Weak States. International Security. 28 (4), pp. 5-43.
• Gawerc, M. I. (2006). Peace-Building: Theoretical and Concrete Perspectives. Peace & Change. 31 (4), pp. 435-478.
• Heathershaw, J. (2008). Unpacking the Liberal Peace: The Dividing and Merging of Peacebuilding Discourses. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 36 (3), pp. 597-621.
• Hehir, A. (2007). The Myth of the Failed State and the War on Terror: A Challenge to the Conventional Wisdom. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding. 1 (3), pp. 307-332.
• McMahon, P. C. (2004). Rebuilding Bosnia: A Model to Emulate or to Avoid?. Political Science Quarterly. 119 (4), pp. 569-593.
• Moses, J. (2013). Sovereignty as Irresponsibility? A Realist Critique of the Responsibility to Protect. Review of International Studies. 39 (1), pp. 113-135.
• Paffenholz, T. & Spurk, C. (2006). Civil Society, Civic Engagement, and Peacebuilding. Social Development Paper. 36.
• Paris, R. (1997). Peacebuilding and the Limits of Liberal Internationalism. International Security. 22 (2), pp. 54-89.
• Paris, R. (2004). At War’s End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Paris, R. & Sisk, T. D. (2009). The Dilemmas of Statebuilding: Confronting the contradictions of postwar peace operations. London: Routledge.
• Paris, R. (2010). Saving Liberal Peacebuilding. Review of International Studies. 36 (2), pp. 337-365.
• Pattison, J. (2010). Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene?. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Peou, S. (2002). The UN, Peacekeeping, and Collective Human Security: From An Agenda for Peace to the Brahimi Report. International Peacekeeping, 9 (2), pp. 51-68.
• Richmond, O. P. (2004). UN Peace Operations and the Dilemmas of the Peacebuilding Consensus. International Peacekeeping. 11 (1), pp. 83-101.