Analysis of International Relations 101: Theoretical Perspectives on Humanitarian Interventions

Foreword  

In the realm of International Relations, where conflict, displacement, and natural disasters shape our ever-changing landscape, a nuanced understanding of humanitarian action is paramount. In the series "Analysis of International Relations 101," the reader will embark on a journey to unravel the multifaceted dimensions of humanitarianism. 

From delving into introductory notions and concepts to dissecting ethical considerations and legal frameworks, this series offers a nuanced understanding of humanitarian interventions. Each article examines key aspects such as the historical evolution of interventions, the role of anthropology in shaping humanitarian practices, and the diverse typologies of approaches to intervention, including sovereigntist, pacifist, and human rights-based perspectives. 

Furthermore, readers will grapple with the ethical dilemmas inherent in humanitarian interventions, exploring questions of impartiality, consent, and the unintended consequences of aid. The legal frameworks underpinning interventions, as well as the roles of international organizations like the United Nations and NATO, are scrutinized to evaluate their effectiveness and challenges in coordinating and implementing humanitarian efforts. 

Historical case studies, including pivotal moments in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo, provide valuable insights into the successes, failures, and lessons learned from past interventions, shedding light on their impact on international relations. Moreover, readers will confront present and future trends and challenges in humanitarian interventions, from the implications of new technologies to the complexities of climate change and the rise of non-state actors. 

Ultimately, this series aims to equip readers with the analytical skills necessary to navigate the complexities of humanitarian interventions within the broader context of international relations. As we explore the intricacies of global humanitarian action, may these insights inspire thoughtful reflection on the importance of compassion, solidarity, justice, and collective action in the face of adversity. 

This 101 series is divided into eight articles, including:  

1. Introduction to Humanitarian Interventions

2. Theoretical Perspectives on Humanitarian Interventions  

3. Approaches to Humanitarian Interventions  

4. Legal Frameworks for Humanitarian Interventions 

5. Ethical Considerations in Humanitarian Interventions  

6. Anthropology and Intercultural Aspects of Humanitarian Action  

7. Historical Case Studies of Humanitarian Interventions 

8. Present and Future Trends and Challenges in Humanitarian Interventions 

Analysis of International Relations 101: Theoretical Perspectives on Humanitarian Interventions 

In the realm of international relations, the question of when and how to intervene in humanitarian crises has long been a subject of intense debate. At the heart of this discourse lie various theoretical perspectives, each offering unique insights into the complexities of humanitarian interventions. From realism's emphasis on state interests and power dynamics to liberalism's focus on international norms and institutions, and from constructivism's exploration of identity and social dynamics to critical theories' examination of power structures and inequality, the landscape of international relations theories provides a rich framework for understanding the motivations, justifications, and consequences of humanitarian action on the global stage. This article delves into the diverse array of theoretical lenses through which scholars and policymakers approach humanitarian interventions in an attempt to shed light on the multifaceted nature of this crucial aspect of international politics.

1. Realism

Realism, as a prominent paradigm in international relations theory, offers a lens through which to understand the complexities of humanitarian intervention. Rooted in the notions of power politics, national interest, and the anarchical nature of the international system, realism provides a framework for analyzing state behavior in crises. At the core of realism lies the belief in the primacy of state interests and the pursuit of power within the anarchic international system (Almeida, 2002). Realists contend that states are driven by the imperative of self-preservation, necessitating proactive measures to safeguard their security and advance their national interests. Within this context, interventions in the affairs of other states may be deemed legitimate if they serve the purpose of protecting national security or preserving the balance of power (Almeida, 2002). The rationale for intervention, therefore, is often framed within the framework of self-help and strategic calculations aimed at maintaining state survival in a competitive environment.

Bellamy (2003) discusses Wight's assertion that realist worldviews and practices are rooted in "power politics." Realists, according to this perspective, highlight the inherent conflict between states, the anarchical nature of world politics, and the role of war as the ultimate determinant. They maintain that states are trapped in a perpetual security dilemma, unable to escape or mitigate it. The raison d'être of the state, they argue, is to provide security and welfare for its citizens, a goal achievable only through the survival of the state itself, which necessitates strict adherence to the logic of self-help and power maximization (Bellamy, 2003). On the other hand, Morgenthau's concept of the national interest as paramount underscores the realist perspective on state behavior (Morgenthau, 1978). For Morgenthau, the pursuit of power is central to international politics, with states compelled to maximize their interests within a hostile and uncertain environment. This emphasis on power as the main currency of international relations underscores realist skepticism towards interventions that may divert resources and attention away from core state interests (Morgenthau, 1978). Barkin (2003) further elucidates the key tenets of contemporary realism, highlighting the state as the central actor in international politics and emphasizing its rational pursuit of self-interest (Barkin, 2003). In the realist view, states prioritize material capabilities, particularly military power, to ensure their survival and achieve their objectives (Barkin, 2003). This focus on material power underscores realist skepticism towards interventions that may involve significant risks and costs without clear strategic benefits.

Figure 1. U.S. troops receive a rapturous welcome as they roll into the Kosovar town of Gjilan. (Ami Vitale/Getty, n.d.).

The tension between humanitarian imperatives and realpolitik considerations is evident in the discourse surrounding interventions such as those in Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia (Bellamy, 2003). While appeals to humanitarianism may have been invoked to justify intervention, underlying strategic calculations and national interests often shaped the decision-making process (Bellamy, 2003). Realist considerations, including the potential costs and risks to intervening states, influenced the timing and extent of intervention efforts, highlighting the pragmatic approach taken by policymakers in balancing moral imperatives with strategic interests. In democratic societies, public expectations regarding state actions are influenced by the enduring legacy of realism (Bellamy, 2003). While citizens may support humanitarian objectives in principle, they remain wary of interventions that may entail significant costs or risks to national security (Bellamy, 2003). The media and political discourse reflect this skepticism, often framing interventions in terms of their potential impact on domestic interests and security rather than purely humanitarian concerns (Bellamy, 2003). 

In conclusion, realism provides a nuanced understanding of humanitarian intervention's complexities, highlighting the tension between moral imperatives and strategic considerations. While realists acknowledge the legitimacy of interventions aimed at protecting national interests or preserving the balance of power, they remain skeptical of missions that deviate from traditional notions of state self-interest. As policymakers grapple with the challenges of responding to humanitarian crises, the principles of realism continue to shape debates and decisions surrounding intervention efforts in the international arena.  

Figure 2. A French helicopter delivers food to ethnic Albanian refugees forced out of Kosovo, April 1999. (Jerome Delay/Associated Press,1999).

2. Liberalism

Liberal international relations theory, as articulated by Miller (2010), posits that the primary motivation for humanitarian interventions should transcend narrow national interests and prioritize the prevention of egregious human rights violations. According to this perspective, global powers have a moral obligation to intervene in conflicts marked by genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, or humanitarian disasters. This stance challenges the realist assumption that interventions are primarily driven by national security concerns. Instead, liberals argue that maintaining a rule-based international order and upholding fundamental human rights should guide intervention decisions, irrespective of direct national benefits. Central to the liberal approach is the emphasis on state intentions as a determinant of international peace and security. Unlike realists, who focus on states' capabilities to address security threats, liberals contend that benign intentions lead to peaceful behavior and the avoidance of offensive capabilities (Miller, 2010). In this sense, Miller (2010) refers to Waltz's (1959) concept of the "second image," which suggests that domestic characteristics and intentions shape states' international behavior. This contrasts with the realist "third image," which emphasizes the influence of the anarchic international system and the distribution of capabilities.   

Furthermore, liberal theory, particularly the democratic/liberal peace theory, asserts that liberal democracies are less likely to engage in conflicts with one another (Miller, 2010). As such, liberals advocate for the promotion of democratization as a means to enhance peace and security globally. While offensive liberals may endorse the spread of democracy through intervention, defensive liberals prioritize the role of international institutions, such as those focused on collective security, as mechanisms for peacekeeping (Miller, 2010). Economic interdependence also features prominently in the liberal perspective on humanitarian interventions. Liberals argue that fostering economic ties among states not only promotes material benefits but also serves as a deterrent to unilateral military actions (Miller, 2010). Trading states are more inclined towards economic cooperation than invasion, and free-market economies prioritize economic prosperity over military endeavors. Consequently, economic interdependence is seen as a pacifying force in international relations, reducing the likelihood of conflicts (Miller, 2010).  

Figure 3. Klawerzeczy and Foreign Policy Illustrations (Getty Images, nd)

However, despite the emphasis on intentions and peaceful resolutions, liberals acknowledge the significance of capabilities in ensuring security, particularly in cases where other violence-avoidance measures fail (Miller, 2010). While democracies may strive for peace, they may face threats from illiberal states that possess offensive capabilities. In such scenarios, democracies may need to build comparable capabilities to deter potential aggression and safeguard their interests. Hoffman (1995) further complicates the liberal perspective on humanitarian interventions by highlighting the challenges and dilemmas associated with nationalist sentiments and the complexities of interventionist policies. While liberalism advocates for interventions to prevent atrocities, questions arise regarding the legitimacy of such actions and the potential consequences of military interventions on national sovereignty and stability. Moreover, Hoffman (1995) raises concerns about the potential misuse of nationalism, which could lead to authoritarianism and undermine liberal values. The tension between liberalism and democracy, particularly regarding the balance between individual rights and national interests, poses inherent challenges to humanitarian interventions. Additionally, the practical implementation of liberal ideals faces obstacles such as the reluctance of great powers to intervene and the limitations of international organizations in effectively addressing intrastate conflicts (Hoffman, 1995). 

In conclusion, while liberalism advocates for intervention in intrastate conflicts to prevent atrocities and maintain a rule-based international order, it also grapples with the complexities of balancing intentions with capabilities in pursuit of humanitarian goals.  

Figure 4. UN Vehicle (Michel van der Vegt, nd)

3. Cosmopolitanism

Cosmopolitanism, a philosophical viewpoint rooted in the idea of a global community, gained significant traction towards the end of the 20th century (Krieg, 2012).  At its core, cosmopolitanism asserts that the world is primarily composed of individuals and peoples rather than nation-states. It promotes the concept of shared humanity, envisioning a global society where individuals unite based on common moral values rather than factors like race, religion, or nationality (Krieg, 2012). Globalization, according to cosmopolitanism, has contributed to the formation of a moral community of mankind where individuals are directly interconnected regardless of geographical boundaries. This interconnectedness erodes the notions of 'Us' and 'Other', transcending divisions based on nationality or affiliation to specific groups (Krieg, 2012). Solidarism, as a specific strand within cosmopolitan thought, advocates for a cooperative international system grounded in the recognition of individual rights. It emphasizes the moral imperative of humanitarian intervention to uphold shared norms and values on a global scale (Krieg, 2012). In doing so, solidarism challenges the notion of state sovereignty as an absolute principle, arguing that the international community has a collective responsibility to intervene in cases of egregious human rights violations, even in the absence of consent from the sovereign state (Krieg, 2012).  

However, the practical implementation of cosmopolitan ideals faces significant challenges. One of the foremost challenges in implementing cosmopolitan ideals lies in the absence of universally accepted norms and principles governing humanitarian intervention, exacerbating the complexities of international cooperation (Archibugi, 2008). Divergent interpretations of sovereignty, human rights, and the permissible use of force often lead to discord and deadlock within the international community, hampering efforts to formulate cohesive strategies for intervention (Archibugi, 2008). This lack of consensus not only hinders timely responses to humanitarian crises but also undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of intervention efforts, as diverging perspectives on intervention criteria and objectives undermine the coherence of collective action (Archibugi, 2008). Moreover, the practical implementation of cosmopolitan ideals is impeded by the absence of robust multilateral institutions tasked with overseeing interventions and ensuring accountability (Archibugi, 2008). While cosmopolitanism advocates for the establishment of such institutions to provide legitimacy and coordination, the current international framework remains fragmented and insufficiently equipped to address the complexities of humanitarian crises (Archibugi, 2008). The lack of institutional mechanisms for intervention coordination and evaluation leaves interventions vulnerable to criticism and raises concerns about their long-term impact, highlighting the need for enhanced institutional capacity to navigate the challenges of humanitarian intervention within a cosmopolitan framework. 

In summary, cosmopolitanism presents a vision of a global community where individual rights transcend national boundaries, advocating for humanitarian intervention as a collective responsibility. However, realizing this vision requires navigating complex challenges, including determining responsible actors and establishing effective institutional frameworks. By challenging existing intervention paradigms and advocating for multilateral oversight, cosmopolitanism aims to ensure accountability and uphold fundamental human rights on a global scale.

Figure 5. Detail Emigrants (Eugène Laermans, n.d.).

4. Social Constructivism

Social constructivism offers a compelling lens through which to examine the dynamics of humanitarian interventions within the realm of international relations. At its core, constructivism emphasizes the significance of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping state behavior and international outcomes. In the context of humanitarian interventions, constructivist perspectives underscore the role of shared values and moral imperatives in driving state actions, alongside considerations of self-interest and legitimacy (Finnemore & Sikkink, 2001). Constructivist theorists argue that states' responses to humanitarian crises are not solely dictated by material interests or power dynamics but are also influenced by normative frameworks and collective identities. According to Barnett (2018), constructivism emphasizes human consciousness and its role in shaping international relations. This perspective suggests a departure from traditional realist approaches, which prioritize material factors such as military capabilities and strategic interests. Instead, constructivism highlights the importance of ideas and norms in shaping state behavior.  

Matha Finnemore (1996) elaborates on this point by emphasizing the socially constructed nature of interests and power. Constructivism, she argues, asks fundamental questions about the nature of interests and examines how power is wielded and justified within international politics. Norms, as Finnemore (1996) notes, play a crucial role in shaping behavior by establishing shared expectations and values among actors. By adhering to these norms, states coordinate their actions and contribute to the maintenance of international order.  

Within the constructivist framework, the international order itself is seen as a product of social construction over time. Concepts such as sovereignty, statehood, and the international community are not inherent but are instead constructed through interactions between states and other actors (Ruggie, 1998). This understanding challenges the notion of a natural or preordained international system and highlights the role of human agency in shaping global affairs.  

Figure 6. The looting of Wommelgem (1625-1630) (Sebastien Vrancx, n.d.)

An important aspect of constructivist analysis is the notion of mutual constitution, which refers to the reciprocal relationship between agents and structures in shaping social outcomes (Wendt, 1999). In the context of humanitarian interventions, this perspective suggests that state actions and international norms are mutually reinforcing. States both shape and are shaped by the normative frameworks within which they operate, leading to the emergence of collective identities and shared understandings of appropriate behavior. Furthermore, constructivism highlights the potential for change and adaptation within the international system. As identities and norms evolve, so too do state behaviors and responses to humanitarian crises. The shift in perceptions of statehood and sovereignty over the centuries illustrates the dynamic nature of international norms and institutions (Ruggie, 1998). 

In summary, social constructivism offers valuable insights into the complex interplay of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping humanitarian interventions. By emphasizing the socially constructed nature of international relations, constructivist perspectives highlight the importance of shared values and moral imperatives alongside considerations of power and self-interest. 

Figure 7. Listening to news. (Ratna Sagar Shrestha/THT, n.d.)

5. Feminism

The term "feminism" has its roots in the 1830s, initially coined by Charles Fourier and later popularized by Hubertine Auclert in her critique of male dominance during the French Revolution. Since then, feminism has evolved into a multifaceted movement with diverse interpretations and applications (Ali, 2023). In the realm of international relations, feminist scholars have challenged traditional paradigms like realism and liberal institutionalism, advocating for a more inclusive and gender-aware approach to understanding global politics (Ali, 2023).

Feminist international relations theory aims to draw attention to women's experiences, ideas, and activities, including concepts such as gender and gender identities, and evaluates social structures related to gender at all levels (Ali, 2023). One of the key contributions of feminist international relations theory lies in its emphasis on women's experiences and the gendered dynamics inherent in international relations. Cynthia Enloe's work, for instance, underscores the importance of integrating women's perspectives to gain a more comprehensive understanding of global politics (Ali, 2023). By centering gender as a fundamental category of analysis, feminist scholars have highlighted the marginalization of women in international politics and called for a reevaluation of traditional power structures (Ali, 2023).

In the context of humanitarian interventions, feminist scholars have directed attention towards the gendered implications of policies such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework. While some feminist interventions have focused on advocating for the inclusion of women's voices and experiences within R2P discussions, others have delved deeper into the gendered logic that underpins humanitarian interventions (Vernon, 2022). One prominent critique revolves around the absence of gender considerations in the formulation and implementation of R2P. Scholars have questioned why women are often overlooked in decision-making processes related to intervention, highlighting the need for gender-sensitive approaches to peacekeeping and conflict resolution (Vernon, 2022). Additionally, the disconnect between R2P and the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) framework underscores the fragmented nature of gender mainstreaming in international interventions (Vernon, 2022). 

Figure 8. SOS Iran (Sarah Jarrett, n.d.)

Furthermore, feminist analyses have unpacked the gendered assumptions that shape perceptions of vulnerability and protection in conflict zones. The dichotomy of male protectors and vulnerable women and children illustrates how gender norms influence humanitarian responses. Despite men and boys being at risk of violence and conscription, interventions often prioritize the protection of stereotypically vulnerable populations, perpetuating structural inequalities (Vernon, 2022). Moreover, the discourse around preventing sexual violence in conflict, while crucial, has been critiqued for perpetuating neo-colonial narratives and overlooking broader issues of gender-based violence (Vernon, 2022). Nevertheless, feminist analyses of humanitarian interventions must also confront the inherent gendered violence embedded within the international system itself (Vernon, 2022). 

In conclusion, feminist perspectives on humanitarian interventions provide a vital lens through which to analyze the intricate interplay between gender norms and international politics. It is imperative to continue engaging with feminist theories and incorporating gender-sensitive approaches into humanitarian interventions. By recognizing the diverse experiences and perspectives of women, men, and gender-nonconforming individuals, we can work towards more inclusive and effective strategies for addressing global crises. Ultimately, feminist perspectives offer not only a critique of existing systems, highlighting how interventions can perpetuate hegemonic gender norms and reinforce power imbalances on a global scale, but also a pathway toward transformative change in international relations. 

Figure 9. Drawing of women detainees during the Second World War (Melita Lovrencic, 1942).

6. Postcolonialism

Postcolonialism, as an academic approach, originally centered on examining the social, cultural, political, and economic impacts of European colonization. Since the 1970s, postcolonialism has evolved into a diverse array of ideas and concepts shaping academic discourse and social activism, with a focus on (post-)colonial practices and conditions in various contexts (Wilkens, 2017). A central tenet of postcolonial scholarship is its bifocal approach, which seeks to empirically analyze (post-)colonial power relations and develop normative strategies to resist or decolonize dominant historiographies, as well as challenge epistemological and ontological assumptions rooted in Eurocentric experiences. While still emerging, postcolonial approaches to international relations (IR) are gaining ground within the discipline. These approaches deconstruct the organization of violence in world politics and argue that contemporary Western epistemologies and foreign policies perpetuate historic patterns, legacies, and identities of colonial domination of the Global South (Vernon, 2022). A central theme within this growing body of literature is the examination of humanitarian intervention as a modern expression of age-old colonial violence. 

In contrast to mainstream approaches, recent discussions of humanitarian intervention in IR have shifted focus to the evolution of norms, particularly the development and contestation of the R2P framework (Vernon, 2022). While constructivist thought has been instrumental in understanding the evolving criteria for deploying violence deemed legitimate, these approaches often lack explicit historicization within the gendered, sexualized, or racialized worldviews generated by colonialism. Moreover, the idea that security and the wider IR discipline serve as epistemic frameworks that uphold Western dominance and white supremacy is gaining prominence (Vernon, 2022). Critics argue that the norm of Western interventionism is often accompanied by social engineering programs aimed at fostering democracy, civil society, and market economies. Darby (2009) advocates for self-organizing strategies rooted in collective identity, challenging the normative assumptions underlying Western interventionism (Vernon, 2022).  

Figure 10. Brick by Falling Brick (Serge Gay Jr, n.d.).

In a similar vein, Whyte (2017) observes that the responsibility to protect (R2P) framework's understanding of sovereignty as responsibility relies on international standards of democracy and human rights, perpetuating colonial standards of civilization historically used by Western powers to judge societies deemed incapable of self-government (Vernon, 2022). Pourmokhtari (2013) critiques the understandings of sovereignty that enable humanitarian intervention, arguing that sovereignty is a distinctly Western concept and challenging Orientalist East-West dichotomies, such as civilized-uncivilized, which condition sovereignty for countries in the Global South (Vernon, 2022). Additionally, Gozzi and Valente (2021) contend that R2P/humanitarian interventions are hegemonic techniques employing purportedly universal concepts to advance unilateral interests (Vernon, 2022). 

Ultimately, a significant focus of postcolonial IR scholarship lies in critiquing humanitarian intervention, revealing it as a continuation of colonial violence under new guises. Moving forward, it becomes imperative to continue interrogating and deconstructing the underlying assumptions of Western-centric IR frameworks, while amplifying voices and perspectives from marginalized communities to foster more inclusive and equitable approaches to global politics. This necessitates a deeper engagement with postcolonial thought and its implications for reimagining international relations in a decolonial framework.  

Figure 11. Porgy's Lament (Stefanie Jackson, n.d.)

The examination of various theoretical perspectives on humanitarian interventions within the domain of international relations reveals the intricate layers and multifaceted dimensions that characterize responses to global crises. Through lenses such as realism, liberalism, cosmopolitanism, social constructivism, feminism, and postcolonialism, scholars and practitioners delve into the motivations, justifications, and ramifications of humanitarian action. Realism, with its focus on state interests and power dynamics, highlights the pragmatic considerations and strategic calculations that underpin intervention decisions. It underscores the tension between moral imperatives and national self-interest, reflecting the complexities of navigating humanitarian crises within a competitive global landscape. In contrast, liberalism advocates for a rule-based international order where the prevention of human rights violations takes precedence over narrow national interests. It challenges traditional realist assumptions by emphasizing the importance of upholding fundamental human rights and promoting democratic values in guiding intervention efforts. Cosmopolitanism presents a vision of a global community where individual rights transcend national boundaries. It posits humanitarian intervention as a collective responsibility aimed at addressing egregious violations of human rights and promoting solidarity among nations. Social constructivism sheds light on the role of shared values and norms in shaping state behavior and international outcomes. By emphasizing the socially constructed nature of international relations, constructivist perspectives highlight the significance of moral imperatives and collective identities in influencing intervention strategies. Feminist perspectives bring attention to the gendered dynamics inherent in international politics and humanitarian interventions. By centering gender as a fundamental category of analysis, feminists challenge traditional power structures and advocate for more inclusive and gender-sensitive approaches to addressing global crises. Postcolonialism critically examines the historical legacies of colonialism and challenges Western-centric frameworks within international relations. It reveals humanitarian intervention as a continuation of colonial violence under new guises, emphasizing the importance of amplifying marginalized perspectives to foster more equitable approaches to global politics. By considering these diverse perspectives, scholars and policymakers gain a more comprehensive understanding of the tensions, challenges, and ethical dilemmas inherent in responding to humanitarian crises. Ultimately, this multifaceted approach underscores the importance of interdisciplinary engagement and critical reflection in navigating the complexities of international relations and advancing more effective, inclusive, and just humanitarian interventions.

The next installment in the "Analysis of International Relations 101" series will delve into the multifaceted realm of Approaches to Humanitarian Interventions. The article will explore the spectrum of approaches, ranging from traditional state-centric interventions to more contemporary community-based initiatives and multi-stakeholder collaborations. Readers can expect an analysis of the principles, objectives, and effectiveness of different intervention models, including sovereignty-based, pacifist, and human rights-centered approaches. Furthermore, readers will gain an understanding of the evolving concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and its impact on international discourse and action regarding humanitarian crises. Through this exploration, the article aims to provide readers with the knowledge necessary to navigate the complexities and challenges inherent in humanitarian interventions on the global stage.

Bibliographic References

Abdulsada Ali, I. (2023). Feminist Theorizing in the International Relations Discipline. Journal of International Women's Studies, 25(2), 13. Available at: https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol25/iss2/13

Almeida, J. M. D. (2002). International political theory and the issue of legitimate intervention. Nação e defesa.

Archibugi, D. (2008). Cosmopolitanism and Humanitarian Intervention. In The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy (pp. 184–205). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7rwnz.12

Barnett, M. (2008). Duties beyond borders. Foreign policy: Theories, actors, cases, 189-203.

Barkin, J. (2003, September). Realist Constructivism. International Studies Review, 5(3), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1079-1760.2003.00503002.x

Bellamy, A. J. (2003). Humanitarian Intervention and the Three Traditions. Global Society, 17(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953732032000053971

Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: the constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual review of political science, 4(1), 391-416. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.391

Hoffmann, S. (1995). The crisis of liberal internationalism. Foreign Policy, 159. https://ezp.sub.su.se/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/crisis-liberal-internationalism/docview/224054147/se-2

Krieg, A. (2012, September 3). Motivations for Humanitarian intervention. Springer Science & Business Media. http://books.google.ie/books?id=LisdXIziOE8C&pg=PP4&dq=10.1007/978-94-007-5374-7&hl=&cd=1&source=gbs_api

Miller, B. (2010). Contrasting Explanations for Peace: Realism vs. Liberalism in Europe and the Middle East. Contemporary Security Policy, 31(1), 134–164. https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1080/13523261003640967

Morgenthau, H. J. (1978, January 1). Politics Among Nations. Alfred A. Knopf. http://books.google.ie/books?id=m2okAQAAIAAJ&q=Politics+Among+Nations&dq=Politics+Among+Nations&hl=&cd=4&source=gbs_api

Ruggie, J. G. (2002). Constructing the World Polity: essays on international institutionalisation. Routledge. http://books.google.ie/books?id=iByIAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Constructing+the+World+Polity:+essays+on+international+institutionalisation.&hl=&cd=1&source=gbs_api

Vernon, P. (2022). Sexuality, Gender, and the Colonial Violence of Humanitarian Intervention. International Studies Review, 24(3), viac035. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac035

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International organization, 46(2), 391-425. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858

Wilkens, J. (2017). Postcolonialism in international relations. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.101

Visual References