Abstract

Starting with a brief discussion of the legal problems of the NATO and U.S. interventions in Kosovo (1999) and Iraq (2003), this paper gives an overview of the central aspects of the current debate concerning the legitimacy of the “democratic interventionism”. Four main approaches are identified: (1) legitimacy due to the existing power realtions in the international system, following the tradition of international law according to Carl Schmitt; (2) the neoconservative position of a global democratic mission, which follows the tradition of U.S. foreign policy; (3) the idea of a “just war”, enrooted in theological tradition and adapted by liberal political philosophy following Immanuel Kant; and (4) the skeptical view of foreign policy pragmatists with a more or less neorealist view of international relations. My conclusion is that there are well-established arguments defending the legitimacy of democracies intervening in non-democratic countries by force in order to stop human rights violations and to change the political regime causing them. On the other hand, the fundamental characteristics of democratic interventions, i.e. their “mixed motives” and their need to provide clearcut benefits for the interventionist's own citizens in the first place, makes the democratic interventionism an unlikely “doctrine” for the West's foreign policy in the 21st century.