Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/184749
Title:
Interventionary alliances in civil conflicts.
Author:
Fobanjong, John M.
Issue Date:
1989
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
This study argues that foreign intervention is not a concept that could lend itself to any theoretical inquiry. It is a norm that is applicable mainly in juridical inquiries and in systems theory. It is a norm in systems theory in that the system is made up of two important elements: (1) the distribution of resources; and (2) the norms of conduct that accompany the resources. As a systemic norm, the norm of nonintervention seeks to guarantee stability and predictability in the international system. It is a juridical norm in that it calls either for the indictment or vindication for the violation of sovereign sanctity. It produces a dichotomous debate (such as legal/illegal; right/wrong; etc.) that has none of the operational ingredients of a theory. If foreign intervention is a norm and not a theoretical concept, it means therefore that social scientists have yet to come up with a theory for the study of the pervasive phenomenon of foreign involvement in civil conflicts. Conceptual tools such as 'power theory,' and the psychoanalysis of perceptions/misperceptions have been used by social scientists to study the Vietnam, Nicaragua and other wars simply for lack of more specific conceptual tools. While these concepts have been successful in describing and in explaining these conflicts, they still in a sense remain broad conceptual tools. Explaining the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan in terms of the power theory rationale of national security interest, or the U.S. involvement there in terms of the psychoanalysis of perceived Soviet expansionism only recreate a dichotomous, non-dialectic evaluation of "who's wrong/who's right" elements of the conflict. Crucial factors such as factionalization, escalation, and stalemate, remain unexplained and unaccounted for when these broad concepts are used to analyze such conflicts. It is for this reason that the present study tailors the concept of "Interventionary Alliance" in a manner that addresses both systemic as well as subsystemic properties, internal as well as external (f)actors; and provides explanations that account for the escalations and stalemates that are characteristic of the civil conflicts that proliferate our present international system.
Type:
text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Keywords:
Civil war.; Intervention (International law); Angola -- History -- Civil War, 1975-; Chad -- History -- Civil War, 1965-
Degree Name:
Ph.D.
Degree Level:
doctoral
Degree Program:
Political Science; Graduate College
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
Green, Jerrold D.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.titleInterventionary alliances in civil conflicts.en_US
dc.creatorFobanjong, John M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFobanjong, John M.en_US
dc.date.issued1989en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractThis study argues that foreign intervention is not a concept that could lend itself to any theoretical inquiry. It is a norm that is applicable mainly in juridical inquiries and in systems theory. It is a norm in systems theory in that the system is made up of two important elements: (1) the distribution of resources; and (2) the norms of conduct that accompany the resources. As a systemic norm, the norm of nonintervention seeks to guarantee stability and predictability in the international system. It is a juridical norm in that it calls either for the indictment or vindication for the violation of sovereign sanctity. It produces a dichotomous debate (such as legal/illegal; right/wrong; etc.) that has none of the operational ingredients of a theory. If foreign intervention is a norm and not a theoretical concept, it means therefore that social scientists have yet to come up with a theory for the study of the pervasive phenomenon of foreign involvement in civil conflicts. Conceptual tools such as 'power theory,' and the psychoanalysis of perceptions/misperceptions have been used by social scientists to study the Vietnam, Nicaragua and other wars simply for lack of more specific conceptual tools. While these concepts have been successful in describing and in explaining these conflicts, they still in a sense remain broad conceptual tools. Explaining the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan in terms of the power theory rationale of national security interest, or the U.S. involvement there in terms of the psychoanalysis of perceived Soviet expansionism only recreate a dichotomous, non-dialectic evaluation of "who's wrong/who's right" elements of the conflict. Crucial factors such as factionalization, escalation, and stalemate, remain unexplained and unaccounted for when these broad concepts are used to analyze such conflicts. It is for this reason that the present study tailors the concept of "Interventionary Alliance" in a manner that addresses both systemic as well as subsystemic properties, internal as well as external (f)actors; and provides explanations that account for the escalations and stalemates that are characteristic of the civil conflicts that proliferate our present international system.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.subjectCivil war.en_US
dc.subjectIntervention (International law)en_US
dc.subjectAngola -- History -- Civil War, 1975-en_US
dc.subjectChad -- History -- Civil War, 1965-en_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.disciplinePolitical Scienceen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.advisorGreen, Jerrold D.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberVolgy, Thomas J.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberWilson, Clifton E.en_US
dc.identifier.proquest9000128en_US
dc.identifier.oclc702669742en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.