Military and Geopolitical Intervention

This lesson examines the different types of intervention — diplomatic, economic and military — that the international community uses to respond to human rights violations, conflict and humanitarian crises. It addresses the Edexcel Enquiry Question: "What is the role of global governance in promoting development and human rights?" This is one of the most politically charged and academically debated areas of the specification, requiring careful analysis of competing principles: state sovereignty versus the responsibility to protect.

---

What Is Intervention?

Intervention refers to actions taken by external actors (states, coalitions, international organisations) to influence the internal affairs of another state. The spectrum of intervention ranges from gentle diplomatic persuasion to full-scale military invasion. The key tension is between two fundamental principles of the international system:

1. State sovereignty: The principle that each state has supreme authority within its own borders and that no external actor has the right to interfere in its internal affairs. This is enshrined in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter: "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."
2. Human rights: The principle that all individuals have inalienable rights and that the international community has a responsibility to protect them — even when the state in question is the perpetrator of violations.

These two principles frequently conflict: when a government commits atrocities against its own people, does the international community have the right — or even the duty — to intervene, or does sovereignty make this impermissible? This tension has produced some of the most significant and controversial events in modern history.

---

Types of Intervention

1. Diplomatic Intervention

Diplomatic intervention involves using negotiation, mediation, condemnation and persuasion to influence state behaviour without using force or economic coercion:

• UN resolutions: The UN General Assembly and Security Council can pass resolutions condemning violations, demanding action or authorising further measures. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding but carry moral weight; Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII are legally binding.
• Mediation: Third parties facilitate negotiations between conflicting parties. Norway mediated the Oslo Accords (1993) between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. South Africa mediated several African peace processes. The UN Secretary-General has a mandate to use "good offices" to prevent and resolve conflicts.
• Diplomatic isolation: Withdrawing ambassadors, suspending diplomatic relations or expelling a country from international organisations. Russia was suspended from the Council of Europe in 2022 and subsequently withdrew. South Africa was expelled from the UN General Assembly (1974–1994) during apartheid.
• Public condemnation: "Naming and shaming" through UN reports, Human Rights Council reviews (the Universal Periodic Review process), statements by world leaders, or reports by international commissions of inquiry.
• International Criminal Court (ICC): The threat of prosecution can deter atrocities and provide a measure of accountability. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for individuals including Omar al-Bashir (Sudan), Muammar Gaddafi (Libya), and Vladimir Putin (Russia).

Strengths: Non-violent, respects sovereignty, can build consensus, low cost. Weaknesses: Easily ignored by determined violators, slow, often ineffective without the threat of further action, depends on international unity.

2. Economic Sanctions

Sanctions restrict economic activity with a target country to pressure its government into changing behaviour:

• Comprehensive sanctions: Broad trade embargoes affecting an entire country — e.g. the US embargo on Cuba (in place since 1962, the longest-running sanctions regime in modern history).
• Targeted/smart sanctions: Aimed at specific individuals, companies or sectors — e.g. asset freezes and travel bans on Russian oligarchs and officials, arms embargoes, restrictions on specific commodities (oil, diamonds, timber). These were developed specifically to reduce the humanitarian impact on civilian populations.
• Financial sanctions: Exclusion from international financial systems — e.g. Russian banks were excluded from SWIFT (the global interbank messaging system) in 2022, severely limiting Russia's ability to conduct international trade and financial transactions.
• Trade restrictions: Bans on specific imports or exports — e.g. the EU's ban on Russian oil imports, restrictions on technology exports to China's semiconductor industry.

Sanctions Case	Target	Duration	Outcome
South Africa (anti-apartheid)	Apartheid regime	1960s–1994	Contributed to end of apartheid (alongside domestic resistance and economic pressure)
Iran (nuclear programme)	Iran's government	2006–ongoing	Led to 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA), but reimposed by USA in 2018; Iran's economy severely damaged
Russia (Ukraine invasion)	Russian economy, oligarchs	2014–ongoing (intensified 2022)	Significant economic impact (GDP contracted 2.1% in 2022; rouble crashed; capital flight) but war continues
North Korea (nuclear weapons)	North Korean regime	2006–ongoing	Have not prevented nuclear development; devastating impact on civilian population; regime survives
Cuba (US embargo)	Cuban government	1962–ongoing	Longest-running sanctions regime; significant humanitarian impact but communist regime persists
Myanmar (post-2021 coup)	Military junta	2021–ongoing	Limited impact; junta retains power; civilian suffering increased

The humanitarian cost of sanctions: Comprehensive sanctions often harm civilian populations more than the targeted regimes. The Iraq sanctions (1990–2003) are estimated to have contributed to 500,000 excess child deaths (a contested figure based on varying methodologies, but the humanitarian impact was undeniable). UNICEF reported that the under-five mortality rate in Iraq roughly doubled during the sanctions period. This experience led to a decisive shift towards targeted ("smart") sanctions that aim to hurt elites while minimising civilian impact — though even targeted sanctions have significant economic ripple effects.

Exam Tip: When evaluating sanctions, always discuss both effectiveness and humanitarian impact. The best answers acknowledge that sanctions can be a useful tool of pressure but often have unintended consequences for civilian populations, and that their effectiveness depends on international unity and the nature of the target regime.

3. Military Intervention

Military intervention involves the use of armed force by one or more states (or an international organisation) within the territory of another state:

• Peacekeeping: Deployment of troops (usually under UN mandate) to maintain ceasefires and protect civilians — e.g. MONUSCO in the DRC (the world's largest peacekeeping mission, with approximately 12,400 troops). Peacekeeping traditionally operates on three principles: consent of the parties, impartiality and non-use of force except in self-defence.
• Peace enforcement: More robust military action to impose peace, with authorisation to use force — e.g. NATO's intervention in Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo (1999). Peace enforcement does not require the consent of all parties and may involve offensive military operations.
• Humanitarian intervention: Military action justified primarily on humanitarian grounds — e.g. the UK in Sierra Leone (2000), NATO in Libya (2011).
• Regime change: Military action aimed at removing a government — e.g. the US-led invasion of Iraq (2003), NATO action in Libya (2011).
• Counter-terrorism: Military action targeting terrorist organisations — e.g. the US-led intervention in Afghanistan (2001), French intervention in Mali (Operation Serval, 2013).

---

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

The Responsibility to Protect is a political commitment adopted unanimously by all UN member states at the 2005 World Summit. It emerged directly from the failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide (1994) and the Srebrenica massacre (1995). It established three pillars: