Civil Wars and the Role of Foreign Intervention

This article provides a succinct overview of the history of foreign intervention in civil wars, as well as introduces the ongoing discourse within the international community regarding both the legitimacy, but also the effectiveness of third-party intervention.

Our current international system is based on the Westphalian agreements of 1648, which established the concept of territorial sovereignty and granted exclusive jurisdiction within recognized borders. While these principles contributed to a decline in interstate wars, intrastate conflicts have persisted, particularly in post-colonial nations. More specifically, as Gleditsch et al. (2002) note, among the 225 conflicts in the world from 1946 to 2001, 163 of these can be identified as internal conflicts (Spruyt, 17). The involvement of foreign actors has been cited as a contributing factor to this increase in civil conflicts. Notably, of the 140 civil wars that occurred between World War II and 1994, 90 involved at least one instance of third-party intervention (Woo, 2017).

It is widely believed that foreign intervention became increasingly prevalent since the end of the Cold War and the rise of the United States as a dominant global power. During this "unipolar moment," America was able to manage civil wars to its advantage (Posen, 2017). Nowadays, however, we are transitioning back into a multipolar system which seems to intensify disagreements on the stabilization and intervention in foreign civil wars. Something that could make external intervention more complex and lead to more destructive wars. (Posen, 2017)

Although foreign intervention has been utilized in various civil wars, its legitimacy remains in question. In December 1965, the United Nations General Assembly passed the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty which states that "no state has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason, in the internal or external affairs of any other state" and that no state should aid any activities directed towards the violent overthrow of another state, or interfere in civil strife in another state. This principle of non-intervention aimed to safeguard the new nation-states from any foreign interference of the major powers. Nevertheless, nowadays we observe many of the world powers violating this rule (Morgenthau, 2023). This is primarily because, in 2005, the principle of Responsibility to Protect was drafted during the UN World Summit, providing the fundamental reasoning for intervening in a state when the state apparatus is unwilling or unable to protect its citizens and participates in crimes against humanity (United Nations, 2005).Therefore, following this principle, many states use the excuse of human rights as a justification to intervene in foreign conflicts (Spruyt, 17). However, even humanitarian reasons are not always justified and do not always lead to positive outcomes.

The impact and implication of foreign intervention has been a matter of scholarly debate for several years. Some scholars argue that foreign intervention can lead to a quick end to a conflict with minimal harm, like in the case of Kosovo in the 1990s, where NATO intervention was instrumental in preventing further human rights abuses. Others assert that it can actually prolong the duration of a civil war, as evidenced by the situation in Libya (Roy, 2013). However, there are also those who believe that non-intervention can exacerbate the domestic situation of a country, leading to greater loss of civilian life due to the moral hazard created, as seen in the conflicts in Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s (Posen, 2017). However, scholars have not unanimously concluded, as the effects of foreign intervention depend on the type and circumstances of each intervention.

Looking ahead, the future of foreign intervention in civil wars is poised to confront the complexities of a shifting global landscape toward a multipolar structure. Hence, disagreements over stabilization and intervention strategies are likely to intensify, potentially leading to more intricate and destructive conflicts. Amidst the ongoing debate over the effectiveness and legitimacy of foreign intervention, oscillating between non-intervention principles and humanitarian arguments, it is my hope that international institutions, such as the UN, will be able to rise and take charge to preserve human rights above any other interests.

Bibliography

Posen, B. R. (2020, November 18). Civil Wars & the structure of world Power. American Academy of Arts & Sciences. https://www.amacad.org/publication/civil-wars-structure-world-power. Accessed 28 Nov. 2023.

Morgenthau, H. J. (2023, October 2). To intervene or not to intervene. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1967-04-01/intervene-or-not-intervene. Accessed 28 Nov. 2023.

Allison, R. (2013). Military intervention, norms, and the case of Russia. In Oxford University Press eBooks (pp. 1–23). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199590636.003.0001. Accessed 28 Nov. 2023.

Spruyt, H. (2017). Civil wars as challenges to the modern international system. Daedalus. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00463. Accessed 28 Nov. 2023.

United Nations. (n.d.). United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml#:~:text=Each%20individual%20State%20has%20the,through%20appropriate%20and%20necessary%20means.Accessed 28 Nov. 2023.

Woo, J.-Y. (2017). Foreign Intervention in Civil Wars. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Accessed 28 Nov. 2023.