Values vs interests? : western intervention policy after the Cold War

Abstract

This study targets humanitarian interventions. In this study I investigate whether human rights play a role in the decision to intervene. I use three empirical cases; Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya. In order to examine the empirical cases I use two theoretical frameworks; neo-realism and an instrumental framework based on constructivism and media theory. Based on the two theories I developed two hypotheses, one arguing that states intervene when national or regional security are under threat, and a second arguing that states intervene when they are rhetorical entrapped by the media, NGOs and IOs. In order to test the hypotheses, I examined whether the armed conflicts constituted a threat to NATO s national or regional security and whether NATO was rhetorical entrapped by the media, NGOs and the IOs. In the latter hypothesis, the shaming capabilities of the media, the NGOs and the IOs were examined.

The result of the study implied that both theories provided explanatory power in the Balkan cases. In Bosnia and Kosovo, both regional security as well as a rhetorical entrapment from the media, NGOs and IOs were present. In the Chechnya case, both hypotheses were indirectly supported. Chechnya does not constitute a threat to NATO s national or regional security and I was not able to establish a rhetorical entrapment on behalf of the media, the NGOs or the IOs. The two theories were thus indirectly supported by the Chechnya case in the sense that a security interest and rhetorical entrapment seem necessary in order for an intervention to occur.

I concluded that human rights do play a role in the decision to intervene, yet not alone. Human rights need to be accompanied by another factor and this factor seems to be security interests.