Kateira Aryaeinejad
|

International Organizations, Intrastate Conflict, and Humanitarian Intervention: Determinants of Success

Abstract

Humanitarian interventions represent the utilization of force by international actors and organizations in protecting innocent lives within increasingly violent, dangerous intrastate conflicts. However, as history has shown, not all organizations are similarly capable of successfully intervening. Increasingly, an emerging pattern of interventional failure, specked with the occasional success, has characterized the practice. In a globalized environment in which small, localized skirmishes are capable of rapidly evolving into large-scale crises and security threats, it is imperative to determine which types of international organizations are most able to combat the continuance of genocide and brutal civil conflict.

The objective of this research project is to determine which specific organizational structures and characteristics increase the likelihood that a humanitarian intervention will result in success. In doing so, it is hoped that the conclusions reached will effectively contribute to the creation of a new, efficacious model for the future development of international organizations. With that goal in mind, I develop two main hypotheses which I then test against carefully chosen, controlled case studies representative of previous interventional efforts carried out by the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, and the African Union.

My first hypothesis suggests that international institutions with smaller memberships composed of like-minded states are more likely to be able to carry out prompt, successful interventions. This supposition is made assuming that smaller, less diverse international organizations are less likely to experience difficulties in reaching agreements regarding proposed actions than are their larger, more diverse, multilateral counterparts. In testing this hypothesis, I utilize process tracing methodologies in order to examine the specific influence factors such as shared ideals and membership size have upon interventional success. Second, I hypothesize that among international intervening institutions, the presence of a global military superpower will increase the capacity of such organizations to intervene successfully in humanitarian crises. This supposition is made assuming that increased military capabilities, resources, and the overall influence of global military superpowers will enhance institutional abilities to effectively carry out interventions. In testing this hypothesis, I again utilize process tracing methodologies to ascertain the effects of these specific factors.

Although it has been suggested that multilateral institutions, i.e. the UN, represent the only legitimate means by which to carry out humanitarian interventions, conclusions reached in this study suggest that smaller “minilateral” institutions are more effective in successfully resolving humanitarian crises. Additionally, I find that international institutions in which global military superpowers are present are more likely to be able to resolve brutal humanitarian crises, even in cases where non-military methods are preferred and utilized.