The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force
The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force
复制标题
干预的目的：改变对使用武力的看法
DOI：
10.2307/40203941
复制
发表时间：
2004
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Randall L. Schweller
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Finnemore;Randall L. Schweller
Martha Finnemore伊萨卡，纽约：康奈尔大学出版社，2003.x，173页，26.00美元布（ISBN 0-8014-3845-4）所有社团都规范成员之间的武力使用。在国际社会中，那些拥有对他国使用武力手段的国家通过军事干预强化对正确和允许行为的理解，并惩罚被贴上“非法”标签的行为。玛莎·芬尼莫尔认为，军事干预背后的原因和意义，以及实施干预的方式，在国家体系的历史上发生了巨大的变化。她进一步认为，军事干预模式的这些变化不能仅仅用物质因素的变化来解释，例如力量平衡或军事技术。相反，改变的是各国对其可以和应该使用武力的目的的理解。这些变化在范围内是全球性的。芬尼莫尔研究了干预行为系统性变化的三个案例：1）军事干预以追收其他国家欠国民的债务（主权违约）——这种做法在二十世纪初期就停止了； 2）人道主义军事干预——这种做法已经持续了两个世纪，但在国家保护对象和干预方式方面发生了变化； 3）通过军事干预来执行国际秩序——这种做法随着强国对其地缘战略利益和安全需求的定义而改变。本书提出了针对不同读者的几个论点。芬尼莫尔的人道主义案例以现实主义者为目标，表明各国一直出于纯粹地缘战略和经济利益之外的原因进行干预。她声称，事实上，国家利益是不确定的，这就是决策者争论是否以及何时进行干预的原因。芬尼莫尔认识到政治进程的主要功能是确定国家利益，因此研究了这些政治辩论，以解释国家之间利益观念的协调变化，以及它们如何理解干预作为一种治国手段的效用。芬尼莫尔考虑到建构主义者和法律学者，提出了一种“战略社会建构”理论，据此，强国有意识地着手改变其他国家关于使用武力的价值观和看法。问题在于一套规范军事干预的规则如何被另一套同样自利的规则所取代。芬尼莫尔在这里提出了这样的论点：强大行为者的有目的的代理以及历史背景和偶然性解释了合法使用武力的变化。 ……
Martha FinnemoreIthaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003. x, 173pp, US$26.00 cloth (ISBN 0-8014-3845-4)All societies regulate the use of force among members. In international society, those states with the means to use force against others have enforced understandings of right and permissible conduct and punished actions branded as "illegitimate" through military intervention. Martha Finnemore argues that the reasons and meanings behind military intervention, as well as the ways in which it is carried out, have changed dramatically over the history of the states system. These changes in the patterns of military intervention, she further contends, cannot be explained merely by alterations in material factors, such as the balance of power or military technology. Instead, what has changed are states' understandings about the purposes to which they can and should use force. These changes have been global in scope.Finnemore examines three cases of systemic change in intervention behavior: 1) military intervention to collect debts owed to nationals by other states (sovereign default)--a practice which stopped in the early twentieth century; 2) humanitarian military intervention--a practice which has continued for two centuries but has changed in terms of whom states protect and how they intervene; and 3) military intervention to enforce international order--a practice which has changed with the definition by powerful states of their geostrategic interests and security needs.The book advances several arguments that target different audiences. Targetting realists, Finnemore's humanitarian cases show that states have consistently intervened for reasons other than purely geostrategic and economic interests. Indeed, state interests, she claims, are indeterminate, and that is why decision makers debate over whether and when to intervene. Recognizing that the primary function of the political process is to determine the national interest, Finnemore examines these political debates to explain the coordinated shifts in perceptions of interests among states and how they understand the utility of intervention as a form of statecraft. With constructivists and legal scholars in mind, Finnemore offers a theory of "strategic social construction," whereby powerful states consciously set out to change the values and perceptions of others regarding the use of force. The issue is how one set of rules that regulate military intervention are replaced by a different set of equally self-interested rules. Here Finnemore advances the argument that purposive agency by powerful actors, as well as historical context and contingency, explain changes in the legitimate use of force. …