President Obama acknowledged in the final State of the Union Address of his presidency last January 2016, "we should have learnt by now the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq". The country that flags itself as the land of freedom and democracy, justifies their militarily interventions abroad by reasons of US security and placement of democracy. At this point one would wonder, could democracy really be implemented through foreign military intervention?
This paper will analyse: In the first place, the legal basis established by the United Nations to consider a military intervention lawful, and the democratic mechanisms of adoption within domestic law systems to decide whether to initiate a military intervention. Secondly, the moral basis to impose democracy abroad and the criteria to choose the country that will be object of change. And finally, how successful was the implementation of democracy in countries which were dictatorial regimes such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
This paper finds that the imposition of democracy by force is not justified under international law and that imposition by force is not democratic. Meanwhile, promoting democracy is democratic and much safer. Iraq and Afghanistan are the living proof of catastrophic implementation. Besides, the justification of invading a country in order to establish democracy loses its credibility when we notice that undemocratic countries are still good allies. Domestically, it is generally the executive power that decides to wage war. This shows that there is little popular participation in such important choices.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Part 1: Legal Grounds to Justify Military Intervention
A. International mechanisms within the United Nations Charter for the deployment of armed forces abroad
B. Mechanisms within the domestic systems for the deployment of armed forces abroad
- Commonwealth
- United States of America
Part 2: Motives to Impose Democracy and Results
A. Moral Basis and Criteria to impose democracy abroad
B. Results of the democratization process through military intervention
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper examines the legitimacy and effectiveness of military interventions conducted in the name of establishing democracy. It investigates whether the imposition of democratic systems through force is legally justified under international law, analyzes the domestic political mechanisms that enable such interventions, and evaluates the socio-political outcomes in target nations like Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Legal frameworks for military intervention under the United Nations Charter.
- Domestic executive power versus parliamentary oversight in deploying armed forces.
- Moral justifications and selection criteria for interventionist policies.
- The role of public perception and "social identity" in legitimizing foreign wars.
- Empirical assessment of democratization processes and their humanitarian consequences.
Excerpt from the Publication
A. Moral Basis and Criteria to impose democracy abroad
There are several arguments in favour of the policy of military intervention for democracy. One of them is based on world stability and security, in the words of Francis Fukuyama “the chief threats to us and to world order come today from weak, collapsed, or failed states. Weak or absent government institutions in developing countries form the thread linking terrorism, refugees, AIDS, and global poverty.” Another argument is based on humanitarian reasons. The goal is to liberate the population from an oppressor who denies their human rights and so to prevent a “humanitarian catastrophe” from happening, such as the Rwandese genocide, the Cambodian Pol Pot’s regime, the Serbian massacre of Bosnians, Darfur, and more recently the Syrian situation.
Public opinion is relevant and influences government’s decisions to be engaged in military intervention. Therefore, in most of the cases, political leaders will seek for the support of the people. In that sense, one would wonder, what makes the population of a western country agree on military intervention abroad?
As demonstrated by Prof. Falomir-Pichastor, the value of democracy has a preponderant role in the perception of the individuals. Democracy actually embodies the values of freedom, liberty, equality, and tolerance, and so is perceived as the best system in which individuals can coexist. Following this reasoning, people might think that it is good to transport those values into other countries where people do not enjoy them, and in this way, military intervention for the sake of democracy would be justified and supported by the population of the democratic countries, when assessing the appropriateness of such an intervention.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This chapter introduces the core problem, highlighting the historical failures of nation-building in Iraq and Vietnam and questioning the viability of exporting democracy through military force.
Part 1: Legal Grounds to Justify Military Intervention: This section analyzes international legal frameworks under the UN Charter and explores how domestic executive powers in the Commonwealth and the US manage the decision to deploy military force.
Part 2: Motives to Impose Democracy and Results: This chapter evaluates the moral arguments for intervention, the role of public opinion, and the often catastrophic empirical results of forced democratization attempts.
Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes the findings, noting that forced democratization often lacks legal basis and produces negative outcomes, suggesting that peaceful alternatives should be prioritized.
Keywords
Democracy, Executive, Illegitimate, Military Intervention, Non-democratic, War, Humanitarian, Nation-building, Sovereignty, International Law, Security, Public Opinion, Social Identity, Human Rights.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper investigates the legitimacy, legality, and effectiveness of using military force to impose democracy in foreign nations, specifically analyzing the disconnect between stated democratic goals and the resulting humanitarian impacts.
What are the key thematic areas explored?
The research covers international law (UN Charter), domestic political decision-making processes, the moral and sociological justification of interventions, and the empirical results of nation-building exercises.
What is the central research question?
The work seeks to answer whether democracy can truly be implemented through foreign military intervention and whether such actions are justifiable under established legal and moral frameworks.
Which scientific or analytical methods are applied?
The author employs an interdisciplinary approach, integrating concepts from international law, political science, and social psychology to evaluate state behaviors and public support for war.
What content is covered in the main body?
The main body details the legal limitations of force under the UN Charter, compares domestic legislative involvement in the UK and US, and critiques the "Democratic War" paradigm through historical case studies.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Key terms include Democracy, Military Intervention, International Law, Humanitarian, Nation-building, and Executive Power.
How does the paper differentiate between "legal" and "moral" justifications?
It distinguishes between UN-authorized self-defense and the broader, often ex-post-facto moral justifications used by governments to justify regime changes based on humanitarian concerns or regional stability.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding successful nation-building?
The author concludes that forced nation-building has a poor track record and that successful democratization requires existing democratic traditions, superior economic investment, and indigenous support rather than external coercion.
How does the concept of "social identity" influence public support for war?
The research suggests that societies are more likely to support interventions against nations perceived as culturally, religiously, or geographically distant, as these victims are often excluded from the "social identity" of the intervening country.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Marina Fernandez Arroyo (Autor:in), 2016, Military Intervention in the name of Democracy?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/354416
