INTERVENTION AND THE PUBLICIPRIVATE DISTINCTION IN WORLD POLITICS: A NORMATIVE NQmY Catherine Yen-Ping Lu A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Political Science University of Toronto O Copyright by Catherine Yen-Ping Lu (2000) National Library Bibliothèque nationale m*I ofCanada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services senrices bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1AON4 OttawaON K1AON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive Licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seIl reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfom, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be p~tedor otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Catherine Yen-Ping Lu. Intervention and the PublicPrivate Distinction in World Politics: A Normative Inquiry. Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Political Science. University of Toronto. 2000. Abstract. How ought one to conceive of state pnvacy in international society, specifically understood as the fkeedom of states Eom external intervention in their domestic affairs? This question lies at the hem of contemporary normative debates about 'humanitarian intervention' in world politics. The formulation ofstate sovereignty as pnvacy reveals the significance of the publiclprivate distinction in disciplining these debates. This work seeks to examine realist, cornrnunitarian, and cosmopolitan conceptions of the pubIic/private constmct in international relations, with a view to constructing a morally defensible interpretation of the public and private Iives of states in international society. My examination reveals the inconsistency, inadequacy and incompleteness of realist and cornmunitarian accounts of state privacy in international society. The atomistic realist conception of privacy as the absence of extemal intervention is misleading as it obscures the social foundations of state pnvacy in international society. At the same the, organic cornmunitarian justifications of privacy are morally problematic to the extent that they rely on idealizations of intrastate politics, placing individual members in positions of vulnerabiiity within states. Both realists and cornmunitarians rely on a false dichotomy between international and domestic normative and political structures that renders the suffering of victims of intrastate violence to be pnvate national tragedies rather than public international injustices. A cosmopolitan perspective, by recognizing the mutual hterco~ectednessof public and pnvate spheres, acknowledges that cases of intrastate violence are not isolated expressions of parhia.national deviance. ii Cosmopolitanism as an ethical perspective entails recognition of common human vulnerabilities derived fkom our mortal coil, and of common human potentialities derived fiom our capacity for reasoned agency. The public interest, in serving the one and many faces of humanity, translates into domestic and international moral obligations to protect individual personal privacy claims to bodily integrity and decisional agency. States' rights to sovcrcignîy as privacf have moral validity only whcn their cxcrcisc is consistcnt with sovereign humanitaian obligations to citizens and non-citizens. A cosmopolitan ethical perspective thus obliges public and pnvate, domestic and international, actors to confront the tragedy of intrastate violence with moral imagination and innovation rather than with moral indifference or despair. Acknowledgernents. God keep me fiom mer completing anything. This whole book is but a dratighr - nay, but the draught of a draught. Oh, Time, Strength. Cash, and Patience! Herman Melville, bfobo-~ickl In the years that I have taken to complete this degree, I have incurred many debts, personal, intellectual and institutional, which 1 would like now to acknowledge. David Welch has been a steadfast supporter since the beginning of my doctoral experience in 1994. One could not have asked For a more caring, encouraging and diligent supe~sorwho is also an exemplary scholar and teacher. 1 would also like to thank Joseph Carens, CO-supervisorwith David, who persevered through drafts of drafts, and expressed his confidence in my work by playing the bad cop well. Much of this work has been improved by their sympathetic and critical cornrnents. This project was inspired by a comment that Melissa Williams noted on one of my dissertation proposals, in which 1compared the family and the state as private spheres. I have also benefited from her presence on my doctoral committee, and am thankful for her careful comments on my work, as well as her help on the feminist literature on privacy. Frances Harbour gave me a needed nudge in the direction of looking at intervention when she suggested that I submit a proposa1 on 'humanitarian intervention' for an International Ethics panel at the International Studies Association meeting in Toronto in 1997. 1 am gratefid to both Melissa and Fran for their professional contributions, as well as their persona1 support. For rny intellectual education and introduction to political philosophy, 1 was fortunate to have had such senous, engaging and encouraging teachea as Ian Slater and Samuel LaSelva. In my doctoral experience, Edward Andrew contributed informally and positively to my education and work; 1thank him especially for introducing me to Aeschylus' Enmenides, and for his engaging comments made in his capacity as a reader for the doctoral defence. 1 am also thankful to Susan Solomon, whose course on "leaving home" stimulated my thinking on the problematic nature of home and belonging, and directed me specifically to the contemporary Russian case. As well, I am gratefûl to Ronnie Beiner for his contributions as a reader for the doctoral defence, Robert Goodin for his professional support of my work, and Robert Jackson at the University of British Columbia for introducing me to questions of justice in international relations. 1would also like to thank Linda B. Miller for her helpful comments on this work, made in her capacity as extemal examiner for the doctoral defence. The University of Toronto Department of Political Science provided a stimulating intellectual environment, and I thank Robert Matthews, Robert Vipond, Janice Stein as well as the administrative staff for their institutional support. 1 would also like to acknowledge the financial support of the Department, the School of Graduate Studies, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship Fund, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. My doctoral experience benefited greatly fkom fellow students pursuing similar stmggles. 1especially want to thank Simon Kow for illiirninating conversations on political philosophy and literature, especially on Hobbes and Shakespeare, which worked in various -- - -- ' Herman Melville, Moby-Dick (Toronto: Bantam, 198 1), p. 139. iv ways to stimulate my work and intellectual development. In addition, I would like to thank Steven Bernstein, Joshua Goldstein, Maureen Hiebert, Jonathan Krueger, Laurel Weldon, and Lhda White for their enduring support. I am also indebted to Don Munton, who made informal contributions to my research and sustained me personally through most of this challenging effort and, without whom, I may never have senously contemplated graduate work or an academic career. As well1 would like to thank Clare Bouey, Lisa Evanoff, Malina Kordic, Michael Liu, Shelley MacLarty, Jean Marr, Jess Munton, Sarah Munton, Honghua Yao, Elizabeth Whelan, and the late Peter Whelan for their invaluable personal support. 1 would like to acknowledge that Chapter 4 of this work is a slightly revised version of an article, 'nie Oce and MqFaces of Cosmopolitanism," published in Ihs Journal of Political PhiZosophy (June 2000), for which Blackwell Publishers Ltd. holds the copyright. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my enormous debt to my parents and my brother; the lessons I have learned fiom their personal exarnples have enriched my work, and they continue to provide an endless source of inspiration and provocation for a student of the moral life. Table of contents. Introduction. Bridging the divides Moral vision in international reIations intervention and the publidprivate distinction The plan of the dissertation Chapter 1. Public and private: towards conceptual clarüication 'Public' and 'primte' in international relations The 'public' in international society The private lives of states Caveats Distinction and dichotomization Description and prescription intrinsic and instrumental value Conclusion Chapter 2. Realisrn and the tyranny of the private Introduction Private states, atomistic world The social construction of necessity National interest and the public interest Conclusion Chapter 3. Sovereignty as privacy Introduction The state as a private home Communal membership and belonging The dark side of family and state privacy Michael Walzer's