‘Les Français ne sont point atteints de la manie de rendre aucune nation heureuse et libre malgré elle.’
RobespierreOUTLINE
The ‘Arab spring’, as many faces as it may have had across Northern Africa and the Middle East, has one common element: the right of the governed to democratically control the political destiny of their own nation. The opponents, on the other side, in each case rule (oppressive) regimes. This chapter addresses the question of how this dichotomy relates to international law and the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine as a ‘transformative concept’ as well as, more broadly, international relations theory.
Within the relevant literature, the question of military intervention in the cases of Libya and Syria has been discussed primarily against the background of R2P. However, much of the rhetoric and foreign policy objectives in both cases point towards shaping the political destiny of these states rather than the mere protection of civilians. This raises the question whether the discourse has been correctly framed in the first place: what stands at the forefront of foreign policy and action by the international community in these instances: the protection of citizens or the ideal of democratic governance?
We argue that R2P has transformed the discourse on Libya and Syria by clothing a democratic agenda with humanitarian wording. What is referred to as R2P plays out in practice as what could be called a ‘responsibility to democratise’. Regime change is the underlying tenor. Thereby, these cases should be viewed as not only standing within the tradition of humanitarian intervention but also as part of ‘pro-democratic’ intervention discourse. However, rather than synthesising the two in common perception, the concept of R2P has somewhat claimed both cases for itself and cloaked the idea of democratisation, a notion that might be perceived as ‘Western’ imperialism.
The chapter begins by giving an overview of the foundations of the democratic idea in international relations and international law, in particular with regard to the use of force, which looms over every question raised in relation to the military intervention aspect of the R2P concept.