The concept of humanitarian intervention after the Cold War in the development of the English school

The notion of humanitarian intervention emphasizes prioritizing justice over the main principle of country sovereignty and this view legitimizes humanitarian interventions if severe human rights violations occur by authoritarian regimes, and it thus leads to external interference in domestic matters. Therefore, the pluralist and solidarist approaches emerge from different interpretations of the international community and the solidarist approach emerged as more influential after the end of the Cold War and the shift from a bipolar to a unipolar order but its focal point was after the September 11 attacks, which moved the global focus away from state-centric security to a human-centered framework, highlighting human rights, humanitarian intervention, and their increased importance in international relations. Therefore, this study aims to answer the question “How has the English school evolved with respect to humanitarian intervention after the end of the Cold War
Introduction

The English School emerged as a synthesis of idealist and realist traditions in international relations with the aim to link these perspectives and achieve a middle path in international relations. Its "tripartite" pillars (the international system, international society, and world society) provide a foundation for understanding global political structures. Therefore, two primary approaches- pluralist and solidarist- reflect how states interact within the international community. During the Cold War and then the bipolar order challenges, the pluralist approach dominated, emphasizing state sovereignty and providing security. Therefore, many theorists have paid special attention to the non-intervention in the internal affairs of states by citing Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter. The starting point of the solidarist approach can be identified with the end of the Cold War and the transition from a bipolar world order. However, the international shifts, especially the events of September 11 moved security away from the traditional state-focused framework, paving the way for prioritizing human-centered security and the rising importance of human rights, humanitarian intervention, and principles in global practice.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study is rooted in the English School, which seeks to explain the behavior of states regarding humanitarian intervention. The key question is whether these interventions can be justified and understood within the solidarist framework.

Methodology

This research uses a descriptive-analytical approach to answer the research question. The authors sought to utilize primary sources to explain the concept. Data are analyzed using desk studies and Internet sources in addition to various tools, including books, articles, online reports, and dissertations.

Results and Discussion

The authors analyze and compare various and contradict theories of the English School. Before the Cold War, realism dominated international relations, with a strong focus on state power, security, and survival. However, other theories, such as the English school, were marginalized or were making efforts to adapt themselves to the existing conditions. In this regard, the pluralists emphasized state sovereignty and non-intervention in international affairs based on Article 2(7) of the UN Charter. However, what is particularly important for the authors of this study is the focus on a narrower approach to state-to-state relations in the international sphere. Some solidaristic theorists argue that intervention in other countries becomes necessary when severe, fundamental, and systemic violations of human rights, peace, and international security pose significant threats. In such situations, states and international organizations must take action, guided by their respective mandates, to carry out humanitarian interventions aimed at preserving peace and international security. This research examines examples such as Libya, Kosovo, Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nevertheless, differing and conflicting perspectives on state actions remain, reflecting the evolving nature of the English school

Conclusion and Suggestions

In this article, the authors seek to address an existing gap in the global context through a clear and accessible analysis, offering a distinct perspective on international relations that diverges from traditional views. The research aims to highlight specific aspects of international developments and demonstrate how certain theorists’ perspectives have evolved in response to shifting global circumstances. By emphasizing the concept of the international community and recognizing diverse viewpoints, efforts are made to clarify this evolving trajectory. Following the end of the Cold War, the English School underwent a major transformation in response to emerging international challenges, such as human rights violations. A key shift within the English School after the Cold War was the dominance of solidarist theory over pluralist approaches, leading to increased emphasis on humanitarian intervention within the solidarist framework in the global context. Ultimately, the English School continues to develop its theories by addressing these new global challenges and crises..