AuthorFobanjong, John M.
Intervention (International law)
Angola -- History -- Civil War, 1975-
Chad -- History -- Civil War, 1965-
AdvisorGreen, Jerrold D.
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
AbstractThis study argues that foreign intervention is not a concept that could lend itself to any theoretical inquiry. It is a norm that is applicable mainly in juridical inquiries and in systems theory. It is a norm in systems theory in that the system is made up of two important elements: (1) the distribution of resources; and (2) the norms of conduct that accompany the resources. As a systemic norm, the norm of nonintervention seeks to guarantee stability and predictability in the international system. It is a juridical norm in that it calls either for the indictment or vindication for the violation of sovereign sanctity. It produces a dichotomous debate (such as legal/illegal; right/wrong; etc.) that has none of the operational ingredients of a theory. If foreign intervention is a norm and not a theoretical concept, it means therefore that social scientists have yet to come up with a theory for the study of the pervasive phenomenon of foreign involvement in civil conflicts. Conceptual tools such as 'power theory,' and the psychoanalysis of perceptions/misperceptions have been used by social scientists to study the Vietnam, Nicaragua and other wars simply for lack of more specific conceptual tools. While these concepts have been successful in describing and in explaining these conflicts, they still in a sense remain broad conceptual tools. Explaining the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan in terms of the power theory rationale of national security interest, or the U.S. involvement there in terms of the psychoanalysis of perceived Soviet expansionism only recreate a dichotomous, non-dialectic evaluation of "who's wrong/who's right" elements of the conflict. Crucial factors such as factionalization, escalation, and stalemate, remain unexplained and unaccounted for when these broad concepts are used to analyze such conflicts. It is for this reason that the present study tailors the concept of "Interventionary Alliance" in a manner that addresses both systemic as well as subsystemic properties, internal as well as external (f)actors; and provides explanations that account for the escalations and stalemates that are characteristic of the civil conflicts that proliferate our present international system.
Degree ProgramPolitical Science