WORLD ORDER: THEORETICAL INVESTIGATIONS

RESEARCH ESSAY From sovereignty to intervention and the Rwandan genocide a constructivist explanation

DANIEL HOOKINS

The principle of sovereignty continues to dominate the organising principles of the current international system. However, during the 1990s the world saw many

atrocities leading to UN authorised interventions; most notably in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Kosovo. As a result, more and more voices are calling for humanitarian interventions in the extreme cases of genocides, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing. This transformation from sovereignty to intervention is best explained using concepts and theories within the parameters of the constructivist family of international relations.

This essay will first examine the concept of humanitarian intervention and how it is traditionally in opposition to the principle of sovereignty. It will examine the consequences of the lack of intervention in the Rwandan genocide. And finally, it will examine the concepts and theories within the constructivist family of international relations (IR) and demonstrate how constructivist theories can explain the resulting challenge to state sovereignty, famously offered by Kofi Annan before the UN and responded to by international leaders and citizens around the world. Throughout the essay there will be comparisons to other theories of international relations in order to demonstrate the greater applicability of social constructivism in IR theory in understanding the changing nature of our international system.

The international system is comprised of many states. These states are territorybased social organizations that exist primarily to establish, maintain and defend basic social conditions and values. They are important for our survival as human beings, as life without them would be nasty, brutish and short. They are also important as states give us a sense of identity. Everyone is identified as being a citizen of at least one country (state) and this becomes a defining feature of who we are. With this citizenship comes the responsibility to uphold the social values of our country. In response for upholding these social values the state provides us with, security, freedom, order, justice and welfare in various forms depending on the state. One example, for Australians, would be the provision of security through organisations such as the Australian Defence Force, the police force, and Border Security. Living in developed countries often results in an increasing standard of living and greater opportunity as more developed countries are better able to look after its citizens. (Jackson and Srensen 2007, p.7) States exist within the international system, as we know it today, under the principle of state sovereignty. Sovereignty is the legal basis of the interstate system it presumes that the international system exists in an environment of anarchy meaning (according to the variants of realist and liberal theorists) that there is no central authority who governs all states and therefore states are the supreme authorities within their [own] boundaries and are legal equals of one another. (Mansbach and Rafferty, pp.54) It is this idea that allows states to participate equally in international relations and it is also the basis upon which the United Nations (UN) operates. (Griffiths and OCallaghan 2002, p.296) The UN is an international organisation who proclaims to be committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights. (United Nations Website 2009) The power of the United Nations, however, is only a representation of the social consensus of the international community. If all the leaders of the worlds nations decided not to recognise the UN as a global authority it would no longer be so. Ultimately, whatever power it has depends on its moral authority as a reflection of global opinion.(Griffiths and OCallaghan 2002, p.317) Nonetheless, in recent times, the United Nations has become synonymous with the proliferation of human rights all around the world. John Vincent (1986) writes that [h]uman rights are the rights that everyone has, and everyone equally, by virtue of

their very humanity. (Vincent 1986, p.13) Sometimes, when these human rights are systematically violated by the very state that exists to protect citizens then humanitarian intervention is required.

One area where human rights and sovereign statehood comes into conflict is in regards to humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention can be defined as (forcible) action by one state or a group of states in the territory of another state without the consent of the latter, undertaken on humanitarian grounds or in order to restore constitutional governance. (Griffiths and OCallaghan 2002, p.145) This intervention is on behalf of the foreign citizens and is often carried out to protect them from the oppression or systematic abuse. It is a highly contended action and raises both moral and legal questions. If sovereignty means that no state has the right to intervene in the domestic affairs of another state then who is going to protect the citizens of abusive governments? From an international law perspective, [u]p to 1990, it was nearly universally agreed that humanitarian intervention is unlawful. It is expressly forbidden in the United Nations Charter (Article 2 (4)(7)) precisely because it undermines state sovereignty.(Griffiths and OCallaghan 2002, p.145) However, as we will see, the 1990s were subject to a number of atrocities including the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Events such as this have resulted in more and more voices calling for intervention in the extreme cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. This means that there is a greater support of humanitarian intervention despite the principle of sovereignty.

The 1994 genocide in Rwanda In 1994 a brutal civil war erupted in Rwanda, between two dominant ethnic groups, Hutus and Tutsis. An estimated 800,000 people were killed. (Mansbach and Rafferty 2008, p.292) While the horrific images of the genocide have been replicated in film, television and history books the factors that led to the mass killings are complicated and little understood. Helen Hintjens (1999) investigation into the Rwandan genocide reveals there is no single, simple explanation as to why it occurred. She writes that possible factors include the colonial ideology of racial division; the economic and political crises of the 1980s and early 1990s; the previously very highly organized nature of Rwandan society; and the fragile regional and class base of a political faction determined to hold on to state power at any cost. Also, the use of

sophisticated propaganda techniques and the escalatory cycle of violence all contributed to the resulting atrocities. (Hintjens 1994, pp.280-81) The effects of the genocide, on the other hand are better known. Rwanda was one of a few incidents during the 1990s that led to United Nations authorised interventions. However, the interventions of the 1990s were inconsistent, lacking any coherent theory with which to justify the infringement of sovereignty in each case. (Hamilton 2006) In fact, Rwanda was arguably the worst case scenario where in a cowardly act the UN abandoned Rwanda and withdrew all but 270 troops. (Barnett 2002, p.2) Calls for humanitarian intervention conflicted with the international principle of sovereignty. And thus, in 1999, Kofi Annan issued a challenge in his Millennium Report before the UN: he asked if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an

unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity? (Annan 1999) This challenge was answered by the self-proclaimed, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) an independent commission, established by the government of Canada. Their research led to the publication of the Responsibility to Protect Document later to be accepted by the International Community. The document introduces a new perspective on principle of sovereignty. It explains that: Rather than accept the view that all states are legitimatestates should only qualify as legitimate if they meet certain basic standards of common humanity The implication is plain. If by its actions and, indeed, crimes, a state destroys the lives and rights of its citizens, it forfeits temporarily its moral claim to be treated as legitimate [T]his approach [has been called] sovereignty as responsibility. In brief, the three traditional characteristics of a state (territory, authority, and population) have been supplemented by a fourth, respect for human rights. (ICISS 2001, p.128)

Social constructivism and interpreting the Rwandan genocide The shift of perspective from the right to intervene to the responsibility to protect has profound consequences for international relations theorists. This new perspective is a demonstration that ideas can influence the actions of states. Therefore, the realist assumption of a purely material state system is turned on its head. It is true that the world consists of material things such as people, land, gold and weapons however,

it is also true that these material things can hold very different meanings in different contexts. For example, weapons held by a known terrorist organization may have a very different meaning to international security than weapons held by a democratic government. To the international community, nuclear weapons are far more tolerable in the hands of the United States, than they would be in the hands of Al Qaeda. Thus, we observe that it is not the material objects (weapons) themselves that hold the meaning, but their social or ideational context (Wendt 1995, p.73). The responsibility to protect and the calls for humanitarian intervention (despite sovereignty) are motivated by the social idea of upholding human rights in the international system, and are not motivated by material gains (or the fear of material loss). For this reason, the transformation from sovereignty to intervention is best explained using concepts and theories within the parameters of the constructivist family of international relations.

The various theories of international relations have different perspectives on the changing nature of states and thus perceive the transformation from sovereignty to intervention in different ways. Realists and neorealists have been slow to grasp the changing role of nation-states in global politics. (Mansbach and Rafferty, pp.54) They disregard the impact of humanitarian intervention and its impact on sovereignty. They claim that there have always been non-state actors, and it has not disrupted sovereignty. Thus, Stephen Krasner (1999) refers to sovereignty as organized hypocrisy. Many liberal theorists see the state as an obstacle to peace and they would prefer global governance, or even global government. (Mansbach and Rafferty 2008, pp.54) They claim that cooperation between states is possible, through institutions and shared values. Similarly, constructivists look for evolutionary change in the organization of global politics based on gradual shifts in peoples norms away from the narrow nationalism of the past toward greater concern with transnational issues that threaten human well-being everywhere. (Mansbach and Rafferty 2008, p.54) Therefore, of these three examples, it is obvious that the

constructivist theorists are better able to explain the effects of Rwanda and humanitarian intervention. Peoples shared values of contempt for genocide, and moral ideas of human rights essentially transcend the state. Sovereignty is not relevant when it does not uphold peoples shared values across borders.

One of the concepts within constructivism is that Institutions themselves are constantly reproduced and, potentially, changed by the activities of states and other actors. (Griffiths and OCallaghan 2002, p.50-51) As stated earlier the nature of an anarchic international system means that there is no world government who has the authority over sovereign states. Therefore, the power of the United Nations is only a representation of the social consensus of the international community. If all the leaders of the worlds nations decided not to recognise the UN as a global authority it would no longer be so. Ultimately, whatever power it has depends on its moral authority as a reflection of global opinion.(p.317) alternatively, the fact that the international community looked to the United Nations to act in Rwanda (and again in Sierra Leone, and Kosovo) further reinforces (and reproduces) the authority of the United Nations in the international system. This may be considered as the process of acceptance of the United Nations as a higher authority than the principle of sovereignty in regards to humanitarian intervention. This is a possible constructivist explanation of why the responsibility to protect doctrine was accepted by the international community despite the principle of sovereignty. Conclusion Social constructivism places a greater emphasis on the role of human consciousness in international affairs and thus, is an effective theory for interpreting the effects of the Rwandan genocide on the international system. This is an event that had a profound impact on the international social consciousness in reaction to the horrific news of genocide more and more voices were calling for humanitarian interventions in future acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. This transformation from sovereignty to intervention is best explained using concepts and theories within the parameters of the constructivist family of international relations. It is the only theory that effectively explains the impact of shared social values in international relations and allows for humanitarian intervention despite the principle of sovereignty. It is my hope that some good will come of the Rwandan genocide and humanity can transcend old boundaries to create more peace in this world. But of course, in a variation of the often repeated Alexander Wendt quote; the world is what we make of it. It is up to us to make this a better world.

REFERENCES
Amanpour, C 2004 Amanpour: Looking Back at Rwanda Genocide, CNN.com, April 6, 2004, <http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/a frica/04/06/rwanda.amanpour/> Annan, K 1999, Address of the Secretary-General to the UN General Assembly, 20 September 1999, GA/9596 Barnett, MN 2002, Eyewitness to a genocide: the United Nations and Rwanda. Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Biersteker, TJ and Weber C (eds) 1992, State Sovereignty as Social Construct, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Evans, G and Sahnoun, M 2002, The Responsibility to Protect: Revisiting Humanitarian Intervention, Foreign Affairs, Nov / Dec, pp.99-110 Griffiths, M and OCallaghan, T 2002, International relations the key concepts, Routledge, London Hamilton, R, J 2006, The Responsibility to Protect: From document to doctrine but what of implementation?, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 19:289-297 Hintjens, H M 1999, Explaining the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 37(2), 241-286 Hopf, Ted (1998) The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations International Security. Vol.23, No, 1. p189

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) 2001, The Responsibility to Protect, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa Jackson, R & Srensen, G 2007, Introduction to International Relations, Theories andApproaches, 3rd Edn, Oxford University Press Jackson, R 1990, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Krasner 1999, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press Lyons G and Mastanduno M (eds) 1995, Beyond Westphalia? State Sovereignty and International Intervention, Baltimore, John Hopkins Univesity Press Mansbach, R W and Rafferty, K L 2008, Introduction to Global Politics, Routledge, London Reus-Smit C 2001, Human rights and the social construction of sovereignty. Review of International Studies, 27 , pp 519-538 Wendt, A 1995, `Constructing International Politics'. International Security 20(1):71-81 Vincent, J 1986, Human Rights and International Relations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press