Unsolicited Humanitarianism: The Right of Intervention

In Taryn’s blog it is interesting how she relates the self-reflexivity of Facebook as a symptom of modernity. Her discussion of Facebook supports the theory of modernity and its repercussions in the present moment.

Sophie brings up a significant point about the confusion and difficulty with the discourses of 'just war' and activisim. Also her mention of moral and militant initiatives is a good segue into my discussion of the "Right of Intervention".

The development of a ‘new world order’ as a result of Empire means a unification and homogenization of nations dictated by one “world and universal state”(Negri&Hardt 5). By imposing one notion of ‘right’, according to “a universal community superior to the particular states”, the Empire enforces an organization of humans based on one “supreme ethic idea” (Negri&Hardt 5). The question is what defines the supreme and superior states, and what particular states will be ‘enveloped’ within one juridical system. Negri and Hardt in their “Political Constitution of the Present” chapter bring up one point in that leads me to a current issue or example of the problematic nature of one ‘supreme ethic idea’. The discussion of the “Right of intervention” constitutes the reconfiguration of the nation-states domestic law by a supranational law. In other words, dominant forces of the Empire’s ‘world order’ have the right to “intervene in the territories of other subject in the interest of preventing or resolving humanitarian problems” (18).

This right reminds me of America’s entry into third world countries. This intervention is reminiscent of imperialism, as superior nations enter uncivilized countries to teach them how to take care of themselves. With this humanitarianism, there is an assumption that one way of living is superior to another. This is a real life example of the problematic nature of the Negri and Hardt’s Empire. In this case America is the superior nation who intends to impose Western Ethics on a country that has been heavily rooted in religious and historical tradition. A world order is already in place, suggesting that America and the Western Nations are the supreme/superior universal state and the third world countries are the particular states enveloped within Western supreme ethics.

According to Negri and Hardt this ‘right’ to intervene is legitimized by a set of Universal Values; however, coming to a universal value would mean one of two things. One; the superior states and all other states must come to a consensus or two; the superior states must impose the dominant ideologies of their society onto the other states. The very fact that there is a superior state negates the possibility of equal consensus, therefore the “right to intervene” is not legitimized because it is impossible to come to an fair universal value. As articulated in “The Political Constitution of the Present” the right of intervention is no longer just for maintaining peace, but by consensus, supranational forces can intervene more freely with “superior ethical principles” (18).Under the theories of Empire according to Negri and Hardt, America enters third world countries with humanitarian intention, but were ultimately imposing the superior ethics of Western Culture.