Beyond Preemption: Force and Legitimacy in a Changing World

Chapter Five: What the World Thinks

chapter five What the World Thinks Anne E. Kramer The crucial threats to international peace and security— terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and gross violations of human rights—as described in detail in the preceding chapters, all challenge the rules currently governing the use of force enshrined in the 1945 United Nations Charter. In order to address these challenges, new cooperative strategies must be developed that will meet the twin tests of legitimacy and efficacy. To pass these tests, any set of proposals must not only satisfy U.S. security and foreign policy concerns but also be seen as legitimate and acceptable by the broader international community. Therefore, the Brookings Institution launched a global dialogue to analyze other nations’ perspectives on the legitimate use of military force. Regional discussions over the course of three years focused on when the use of force might be considered—and internationally recognized—as a legitimate response to terrorist threats, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and humanitarian emergencies. A core group of Americans met with representatives from the major regions, including their counterparts in Europe (France, Germany, the United Kingdom), China, the Middle East (Egypt, Israel, and Iran), Russia, South Asia (India and Pakistan), sub-Saharan Africa (South Africa, Senegal, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, and Kenya), and Latin America (Mexico 96 WHAT THE WORLD THINKS 97 and Brazil). The participants included a mix of foreign policy scholars, international lawyers, former military officers, and government officials. The interlocutors were only representatives, but their perspectives provide insight into the likely views of their countries on the use of military force to counter international security threats. This chapter aims to highlight the major areas of agreement on using force to address the primary security challenges of terrorism, WMD proliferation , and humanitarian emergencies. While it is a report of the past three years of dialogues, the views expressed are the author’s own interpretations and conclusions. Examination of these perspectives yielded four principal factors as the most important determinates of a state’s views on the use of force: threat perception, normative constraints, the efficacy of military action, and legitimacy. The nature and depth of the threat influences how resolute countries are on the use of military force. The greater and more immediate the perception of the threat, the more willing nations are to act forcefully and the more likely they are to sanction this force at early stages in the deliberations. Normative considerations shape the context surrounding decisions to use force. As Martha Finnemore argues, norms “shape the rights and duties states believe they have toward one another” along with the goals they value.1 These norms are primarily behavioral precepts that guide states’ actions within the international system. Some norms are strengthened through codification in international law or treaties while others are reinforced through states’ continual observance of them. Oftentimes, however, norms are in conflict with one another. The norm of state sovereignty and nonintervention in the internal affairs of other states, harking back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, is one of the more trenchant norms that is slowly beginning to be superseded by the desire to protect innocent citizens from their own governments. States’ desire to solve issues peacefully must be balanced against a will to act before greater harm is inflicted. In regard to weapons of mass destruction, some states are more concerned that every country—whether it is Iran, the United States, or Brazil—uphold the near universal nonproliferation norm. Other nations, however, care more if particular countries are complying with the stipulations in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. When norms come in conflict with one another, how a country balances them—the weight it attributes to one above the other—influences its perspective on when military action is a justified response. Efficacy relates to whether military action will actually achieve the desired ends. As Richard Haass explains, “The question of whether to use force can never be divorced from the question of how to use it effectively .”2 The efficacy of military action factored prominently in the regional dialogues, with many participants doubting whether force would resolve the fundamental issues at stake. Legitimacy addresses whether force is viewed as justifiable in a particular instance and who makes this decision. At one end of the legitimacy continuum is a situation in which force is executed in self-defense after an armed attack...