1. What methodologies did authors use in the book?
The book utilized three distinct methodologies. Dino Kritsiotis provided historical and conceptual analysis to trace the origins and links of the doctrine of consensual military intervention. Olivier Corten conducted in-depth case studies of recent state practice, examining how legal concepts operate in practice. Gregory H. Fox performed a large-N case analysis of instances from state practice, referencing the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) to test prominent legal concepts. Each author's methodology contributed a unique perspective to the book's overall analysis of consensual military intervention.
read more
2. How does politicisation affect consensual military intervention?
Politicisation increases the complexity of consensual military intervention. It creates a multilateralised framework for unilateral concepts, making interventions subject to legal qualification once the Security Council approves a government's call for assistance. However, challenges arise when the Security Council cannot oppose an intervention by a permanent member, leading to unilateral and interest-guided interpretations of the law. The context and case-specific approach, along with political and legal considerations, contribute to the complexity and fragility of consent. This complexity affects the predictability of the law and the dynamics of the ius ad bellum.
read more
3. What are the limitations of Security Council's role in multilateralisation?
The Security Council's role in multilateralisation has significant limitations. Instead of creating mandates for interventions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Council's current practice is to give its blessing to unilateral interventions. This approach has been interpreted as expressing approval for self-defence measures, as seen in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the rise of the Islamic State. The Security Council fails to establish a framework for interventions, leaving strategic and operational goals and limitations to the intervening states. This blurring of measures within the UN's collective security framework and unilateral measures precludes legal certainty and allows states to provide multiple justifications for their interventions, making the law on consensual military interventions a contested field.
read more