Walzer on Intervention: When Is Military Action Justified?

Just War Theory: Historical Foundations

Walzer's influential book Just and Unjust Wars, published in 1977, has attracted critical commentary for its strong position in defense of non-intervention with only narrow exceptions. It is worth mentioning that this work contains modern discussions of Just War theory, a set of moral principles that guide what constitutes a just war and what constitutes an unjust war. Furthermore, Just War theory deals with justification regarding how and why wars are fought. The debates about the Just War tradition and its foundation "were laid by Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle and Cicero, who discussed the just causes for war and the necessary authority to declare it." It was further developed by Ambrose and Augustine, who argued that wars should be conducted with right intentions and can be morally justified when an appropriate authority declares them based on a just cause—for example, fighting to bring about a condition of peace and avoid evil by promoting the good.

The conditions of Just War theory that are much debated today were formalized by the Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius. Grotius "incorporated just war theory into international law" and argued that states can enter into war when defending their rights and have the right to "prosecute war in order to punish states that have violated their rights." It is worth noting that Walzer's contribution to the Just War tradition was formed with the work of the early writers mentioned above. He justifies war under certain conditions, such as acts of self-defense against an aggressor. For Walzer, other wars—for economic conquest, territorial expansion, religious crusade, and ethnic hatred—are unjust and should be avoided.

Introduction

Intervention in the domestic affairs of another state has become a highly contentious issue in international politics. Scholars have attempted to address the problems of international morality that arise from the tension between the principle of non-intervention and a concern for human rights. The principle of non-intervention sustains a state's political sovereignty, self-determination, and rights of self-defense against aggression. It has long been recognized that one state should not intervene in the domestic affairs of another state except for individual or collective defense against aggression. In other words, aggression justifies intervention and war. However, recently intervention in the domestic affairs of another state has been warranted under some more exceptional circumstances.

Michael Walzer, with his contribution to the Just War tradition, offers a powerful account of what constitutes the sovereignty of a state and when it is permissible to intervene in the domestic affairs of another state. Notably, Walzer has been criticized for his view of non-intervention and the rare exceptional cases in which he justifies humanitarian intervention. For many, Walzer is too generous to states, underestimating the power of repressive governments and emphasizing the capacity of the people within the community. Furthermore, Walzer's theory—a strong defense of the non-intervention principle with narrow exceptions in justification of humanitarian intervention—has overstated the importance of community rights at the expense of individual rights.

This essay has five parts. The first briefly discusses the Just War tradition and names a few classical thinkers of Just War theory. The second part explains Walzer's strong position in defense of the non-intervention principle. The third describes the circumstances under which intervention becomes permissible. The fourth examines Walzer's communitarian interpretation of these exceptions. The final part discusses critics of Walzer's theory in defense of the non-intervention principle and addresses the narrow exceptions in which intervention becomes permissible.