fmpВестник Московского Университета. Серия XXV. Международные отношения и мировая политикаLomonosov World Politics Journal2076-7404Московский государственный университет имени М.В.Ломоносоваfmp-77Research ArticleТЕОРИЯ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ОТНОШЕНИЙTHEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSВмешательство во внутренние дела: спор о дефиницииIntervention in the Domestic Affairs: Questioning DefinitionsБартеневВ. И.BartenevV. I.

Бартенев Владимир Игоревич — кандидат исторических наук, доцент кафедры международных организаций и мировых политических процессов, директор Центра проблем безопасности и развития факультета мировой политики  

119991, Москва, Ленинские горы, 1

Vladimir I. Bartenev — PhD (History), Associate Professor at the Chair for International Organizations and World Political Processes, Director of the Center for Security and Development Studies at the School of World Politics

1 Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991

vladimir.bartenev@fmp.msu.ruФедеральное государственное бюджетное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Московский государственный университет имени М.В. Ломоносова»Lomonosov Moscow State University20182611202010479108Copyright © Бартенев В.И., 20202020Бартенев В.И.Bartenev V.I.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://fmp.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/77

На фоне увеличения числа интернационализированных внутренних конфликтов в последнее время в научной литературе наблюдается устойчивый рост интереса к тематике внешнего вмешательства в дела суверенных государств. Цель библиографического обзора — обобщить подходы тех ученых, главным образом зарубежных, которые фокусировались на исследовании концептуально-теоретических аспектов данной проблематики. В структурном плане обзор разделен на три части. В первой раскрыты смысловые нюансы ключевых русскоязычных и англоязычных терминов и особенности их употребления в международно-правовых документах. Вторая и третья части посвящены двум «большим спорам» в литературе о вмешательстве. Один из них касается вопроса о целесообразности и возможности разработки дефиниции вмешательства как таковой, другой — определения содержательных границ понятия «вмешательство». Первый спор представлен в виде столкновения позиций ученых, воспринимавших вмешательство как данность, убежденных сторонников разработки научно обоснованного определения вмешательства и, наконец, исследователей, наотрез отказывавшихся заниматься поисками такой дефиниции. Аргументы критиков получения «чистого» знания о феномене вмешательства, которые в большинстве своем являются приверженцами конструктивизма или постструктурализма и призывают отталкиваться от изучения дискурса, в том числе субъектов, осуществляющих интервенционистские действия, оспорены в заключении. Обоснована необходимость формулирования рабочего определения вмешательства, которое позволило бы в условиях обострения межгосударственного противоборства, возрождения идеологического соперничества и усиления различий в представлениях о границах государственного суверенитета и допустимости их нарушения вырваться из ловушки конфликта восприятий. Приведены аргументы в пользу максимально широкой трактовки вмешательства, которая, с одной стороны, в отличие от узкой, легалистской интерпретации, давала бы возможность включить как силовые, так и несиловые инструменты (оказание помощи, применение санкций, информационное воздействие), а с другой — была бы применима к различным историческим эпохам. Подчеркнуто, что принятие на вооружение какого-то отдельного определения или разработка собственной дефиниции — лишь первый шаг на пути к классификации видов вмешательства, в построении которой в то же время имеет смысл отталкиваться от изучения конкретно-эмпирического материала, а не от априорно заданных параметров.

The last decades have seen a proliferation of internationalized internal disputes and a steady growth in scholarly interest in interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. This bibliographic review summarizes the approaches of those scholars (predominantly from the Anglo-Saxon countries) — who focused on conceptual dimensions of the intervention problematique. The review consists of three sections. The first section examines the semantic nuances of the key terms in Russian and English languages describing interventionist behaviour and the particularities of their usage in international legal documents. The second and third sections reveal the essence of two ‘great debates’ in the literature on intervention. The first debate centers on desirability and possibility of working out a definition of intervention. The second debate focuses on delimiting semantic boundaries of the ‘intervention’ concept. The first debate is presented as a polemic between scholars who take intervention for granted, the proponents of treating it as a scientific concept and those who refuse to search for a common definition as such. The conclusion contains a critique of argumentation of those scholars — predominantly constructivists and poststructuralists — who question the possibility of obtaining a purely scientific knowledge about intervention and call for studying discourse instead, including the discourse of actors conducting interventionist actions. The author of the review justifies the need to formulate the working definition of intervention which would allow to get out of a trap conflicting perceptions in the times of an increasing interstate confrontation, revival of an ideological competition and widening divergences in conceptualisation of sovereignty, its boundaries and conditions of their violation. He also advocates for the utilization of the broadest interpretation of intervention which, on the one hand, would include both military and non-military tools (such as foreign aid, sanctions, information influence etc.), and, on the other hand, would be applicable to studying interventionist practices of different historical epochs, including the pre-Westphalian era. The review concludes with a reminder that the use of any extant definition or a development of a new one is only the first step towards a typology of interventionist actions which should be based on the study of empirical data and not on the a priori chosen parameters.

вмешательство во внутренние делаинтервенцияневмешательствосуверенитетинтернационализированный внутренний конфликтбихевиоризманглийская школа международных отношенийконструктивизмпостструктурализмдискурсвнешняя помощьсанкцииintervention in the domestic affairsinterferencenoninterferencesovereigntyinternationalized domestic conflictbehaviourismEnglish School of international relationsconstructivismpost-structuralismdiscourseforeign aidsanctionsСтатья подготовлена по результатам исследований, проводившихся на базе Центра проблем безопасности и развития ФМП МГУ при финансовой поддержке Российского гуманитарного научного фонда и Российского фонда фундаментальных исследований в 2015–2017 гг. в рамках научного проекта № 15-01-00363.This paper represents a revised version of the literature review conducted within the research project which was implemented under the aegis of the Center for Security and Development Studies at the School of World Politics, Lomonosov Moscow State University in 2015–2017 with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for Humanities and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project № 15-01-00363).ReferencesБордачев Т.В. Миротворческая и гуманитарная интервенция и ее место в поддержании глобальной и региональной безопасности: современные теории и практический опыт: Дисс. ... канд. полит. наук. СПб., 1998.Bordachev T.V. 1998. Mirotvorcheskaya i gumanitarnaya interventsiya i ee mesto v podderzhanii global’noi i regional’noi bezopasnosti: sovremennye teorii i prakticheskii opyt [Peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention and its role in maintaining global and regional security: Contemporary theories and practice]. PhD Thesis. Saint-Petersburg. (In Russ.)Голубев Д.С. К проблеме концептуализации феномена интернационализированного внутригосударственного конфликта: о недостаточности изучения роли внешних государственных акторов // Общество: политика, экономика, право. 2018. № 12. Доступ: https://doi.org/10.24158/pep.2018.12.1 (дата обращения: 01.03.2019).Golubev D.S. 2018. K probleme kontseptualizatsii fenomena internatsionalizirovannogo vnutrigosudarstvennogo konflikta: o nedostatochnosti izucheniya roli vneshnikh gosudarstvennykh aktorov [Conceptualization of internationalized intrastate conflict: Moving beyond the role of external state-based actors]. Society: Politics, economics, law, vol. 12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.24158/pep.2018.12.1 (accessed: 01.03.2019). (In Russ.)Дидманидзе У.Т. Наука международного права об ограничении и запрещении применения вооруженной силы в международных отношениях: Дисс. ... канд. юрид. наук. М., 2017.Didmanidze U.T. 2017. Nauka mezhdunarodnogo prava ob ogranichenii i zapreshchenii primeneniya vooruzhennoi sily v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh [Science of international law on restrictions and prohibitions on the use of force in international relations]. PhD Thesis. Moscow. (In Russ.)Камаровский Л.А. Начало невмешательства: вопрос об интервенциях в литературе / 2-е изд., воспр. по изд.: М.: Университетская тип. (Катков и Ко), 1874. М.: URSS, 2016.Kamarovskii L.A. 2016. Nachalo nevmeshatel’stva [The origins of nonintervention]. 2nd ed., cop. 1874. Moscow, URSS Publ. (In Russ.)Никитин А.И. Международное вмешательство в современные конфликты: миротворческая политика ООН, ОБСЕ, ЕС, НАТО и ОДКБ: Доклад международного дискуссионного клуба «Валдай». М., 2017.Nikitin A.I. 2017. Mezhdunarodnoe vmeshatel’stvo v sovremennye konflikty: mirotvorcheskaya politika OON, OBSE, ES, NATO i ODKB [International intervention in conflicts. UN, OSCE, EU, NATO, CSTO peacekeeping policies]. Moscow, Valdai Discussion Club Publ. (In Russ.)Худайкулова А.В. Теория и практика «гуманитарного вмешательства» в современной миротворческой деятельности: на примере Югославии: Дисс. ... канд. полит. наук. М., 2003.Khudaikulova A.V. 2003. Teoriya i praktika ‘gumanitarnogo vmeshatel’stva’ v sovremennoi mirotvorcheskoi deyatel’nosti: na primere Yugoslavii [Theory and practice of ‘humanitarian intervention’ in contemporary peacekeeping: Case of Yugoslavia]. PhD Thesis. Moscow. (In Russ.)Ashley R.K. Living on border lines: Man, poststructuralism, and war // International/intertextual relations: Postmodern readings of world politics / Ed. by J. Der Derian, M.J. Shapiro. New York: Lexington Books, 1989. P. 259–321.Ashley R.K. 1989. Living on border lines: Man, poststructuralism, and war. In Der Derian J., Shapiro M.J. (eds.). International/intertextual relations: Postmodern readings of world politics. New York, Lexington Books, pp. 259–321.Ashley R.K., Walker R.B.J. Conclusion: Reading dissidence/writing the discipline: Crisis and the question of sovereignty in international studies // International Studies Quarterly. 1990. Vol. 34. No. 3. P. 367–416.Ashley R.K., Walker R.B.J. 1990. Conclusion: Reading dissidence/writing the discipline: Crisis and the question of sovereignty in international studies. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 367–416.Baldwin D. Foreign aid, intervention, and influence // World Politics. 1969. Vol. 21. No. 3. P. 425–447.Baldwin D. 1969. Foreign aid, intervention, and influence. World Politics, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 425–447.Beloff M. Reflections on intervention // Journal of International Affairs. 1968. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 198–207.Beloff M. 1968. Reflections on intervention. Journal of International Affairs, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 198–207.Carr E. The twenty years’ crisis, 1919–1939. An introduction to the study of international relations. London: Macmillan and Co., 1939.Carr E. 1939. The twenty years’ crisis, 1919–1939. An introduction to the study of international relations. London, Macmillan and Co.Castel J.-G. International law chiefly as applied and interpreted in Canada. 3rd ed. Toronto: Butterworths, 19Castel J-G. 1976. International law chiefly as applied and interpreted in Canada. 3rd ed. Toronto, Butterworths.Dunér B. Military intervention in civil wars: The 1970s. Aldershot: Gower, 1985.Dunér B. 1985. Military intervention in civil wars: The 1970s. Aldershot, Gower.Evans G., Newnham R. The dictionary of world politics: A reference guide to concepts, ideas, and institutions. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992.Evans G., Newnham R. 1992. The dictionary of world politics: A reference guide to concepts, ideas, and institutions. New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf.Finnemore M. The purpose of intervention: Changing beliefs about the use of force. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003.Finnemore M. 2003. The purpose of intervention: Changing beliefs about the use of force. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press.Friedmann W. Intervention and international law // Intervention in international politics / Ed. by L.G.M. Jaquet. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Affairs and Martinus Nijhoff, 1971. P. 40–68.Friedmann W. 1971. Intervention and international law. In Jaquet L.G.M. (ed.). Intervention in international politics. The Hague, Netherlands Institute of International Affairs and Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 40–68.Geldenhuys D. Foreign political engagement. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1998.Geldenhuys D. 1998. Foreign political engagement. London, Palgrave Macmillan UK.Graber D.A. Crisis diplomacy: A history of U.S. intervention politics and practices. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1959.Graber D.A. 1959. Crisis diplomacy: A history of U.S. intervention politics and practices. Washington, D.C., Public Affairs Press.Intervention in world politics / Ed. by H. Bull. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984.Bull H. (ed.). 1984. Intervention in world politics. Oxford, Clarendon.Jones G.J. The United Nations and the domestic jurisdiction of states: Interpretations and applications of the non-intervention principle. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1979.Jones G.J. 1979. The United Nations and the domestic jurisdiction of states: Interpretations and applications of the non-intervention principle. Cardiff, University of Wales Press.Kratochwil F. Sovereignty as dominium: Is there a right of humanitarian intervention? // State sovereignty and international intervention / Ed. by G. Lyons, M. Mastanduno. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995. P. 21–42.Kratochwil F. 1995. Sovereignty as dominium: Is there a right of humanitarian intervention? In Lyons G., Mastanduno M. (eds.). State sovereignty and international intervention. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. P. 21–42.Law on the use of force and armed conflict / Ed. by R. Cryer, Ch. Henderson. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017.Cryer R., Henderson Ch. (eds.). 2017. Law on the use of force and armed conflict. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing.Lieblich E. Intervention and consent: Consensual forcible interventions in internal armed conflicts as international agreements // Boston University International Law Journal. 2011. Vol. 29. P. 337–382.Lieblich E. 2011. Intervention and consent: Consensual forcible interventions in internal armed conflicts as international agreements. Boston University International Law Journal, vol. 29, pp. 337–382.Little R. Intervention: External involvement in civil wars. London: M. Robertson, 1975.Little R. 1975. Intervention: External involvement in civil wars. London, M. Robertson.Little R. Revisiting intervention: A survey of recent developments // Review of International Studies. 1987. Vol. 13. P. 49–60.Little R. 1987. Revisiting intervention: A survey of recent developments. Review of International Studies, vol. 13, pp. 49–60.Macmillan J. Intervention and the ordering of the modern world // Review of International Studies. 2013. Vol. 39. No. 5. P. 1039–1056.Macmillan J. 2013. Intervention and the ordering of the modern world. Review of International Studies, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1039–1056.Malmvig H. State sovereignty and intervention: A discourse analysis of interventionary and non-interventionary practices in Kosovo and Algeria. London: Routledge, 2006.Malmvig H. 2006. State sovereignty and intervention: A discourse analysis of interventionary and non-interventionary practices in Kosovo and Algeria. London, Routledge.Morgenthau H.J. To intervene or not to intervene // Foreign Affairs. 1967. Vol. 45. No. 3. P. 425–436.Morgenthau H.J. 1967. To intervene or not to intervene. Foreign Affairs, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 425–436.Nowak C. The changing law of non-intervention in civil wars — assessing the production of legality in state practice after 2011 // Journal on the Use of Force and International Law. 2018. Vol. 5. No.1. P. 40–77.Nowak C. 2018. The changing law of non-intervention in civil wars — assessing the production of legality in state practice after 2011. Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 40–77.Oppenheim L.F.L. International law: A treatise. Vol. 1: Peace. New York; Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1905.Oppenheim L.F.L. 1905. International law: A treatise. Vol. 1: Peace. New York, Bombay, Longmans, Green, and Co.Owens P. Theorizing military intervention // International Affairs. 2004. Vol. 80. No. 2. P. 355–365.Owens P. 2004. Theorizing military intervention. International Affairs, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 355–365.The Oxford handbook of the use of force in international law, 2017 / Ed. by M. Weller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.Weller M. (ed.). 2017. The Oxford handbook of the use of force in international law, 2017. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Pearson F.S. Geographic proximity and foreign military intervention // The Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1974. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 432–460.Pearson F.S. 1974. Geographic Proximity and Foreign Military Intervention. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 432–460.Pearson F.S., Baumann R.A. International military interventions: Identification and classification // International Interactions. 1988. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 173–180.Pearson F.S., Baumann R.A. 1988. International military interventions: Identification and classification. International Interactions, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 173–180.Regan P.M. Choosing to intervene: Outside interventions in internal conflicts // Journal of Politics. 1998. Vol. 60. No. 3. P. 754–779.Regan P.M. 1998. Choosing to intervene: Outside interventions in internal conflicts. Journal of Politics, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 754–779.Rethinking humanitarian intervention in the 21st century / Ed. by A. Warren, D. Grenfell. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018.Warren A., Grenfell D. (eds.). 2018. Rethinking humanitarian intervention in the 21st century. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.Reus-Smit C. The concept of intervention // Review of International Studies. 2013. Vol. 39. No. 5. P. 1057–1076.Reus-Smit C. 2013. The concept of intervention. Review of International Studies, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1057–1076.Rosenau J.N. The concept of intervention // Journal of International Affairs. 1968. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 165–176.Rosenau J.N. 1968. The concept of intervention. Journal of International Affairs, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 165–176.Rosenau J. Intervention as a scientific concept // Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1969. Vol. 13. P. 149–171.Rosenau J. 1969. Intervention as a scientific concept. Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 13, pp.149–171.Saunders E.N. Transformative choices: Leaders and the origins of intervention strategy // International Security. 2009. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 119–161.Saunders E.N. 2009. Transformative choices: Leaders and the origins of intervention strategy. International Security, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 119–161.Sullivan P.L., Koch M.T. Military intervention by powerful states, 1945– 2003 // Journal of Peace Research. 2009. Vol. 46. No. 5. P. 707–718.Sullivan P.L., Koch M.T. 2009. Military intervention by powerful states, 1945–2003. Journal of Peace Research, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 707–718.Talentino A.K. Military intervention after the Cold war: The evolution of theory and practice. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2005.Talentino A.K. 2005. Military intervention after the Cold war: The evolution of theory and practice. Athens, Ohio University Press.Tillema H.K. Appeal to force: American military intervention in the era of containment. New York: T.Y. Crowell, 1973.Tillema H.K. 1973. Appeal to force: American military intervention in the era of containment. New York, T.Y. Crowell.Tillema H.K. Foreign overt military intervention in the nuclear age // Journal of Peace Research. 1989. Vol. 26. No. 2. P. 179–196.Tillema H.K. 1989. Foreign overt military intervention in the nuclear age. Journal of Peace Research, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 179–196.Tillema H.K., van Wingen J.R. Law and power in military intervention: Major states after World War II // International Studies Quarterly. 1982. Vol. 26. No. 2. P. 220–250.Tillema H.K., van Wingen J.R. 1982. Law and power in military intervention: Major states after World War II. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 220–250.The use of force in international law: A case-based approach / Ed. by T. Ruys, O. Corten. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.Ruys T., Corten O. (eds.). 2018. The use of force in international law: A casebased approach. New York, Oxford University Press.Vincent R.J. Non-intervention and international order. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974.Vincent R.J. 1974. Non-intervention and international order. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Weber C. Reconsidering statehood: Examining the sovereignty/intervention boundary // Review of International Studies. 1992. Vol. 18. P. 199–216.Weber C. 1992. Reconsidering statehood: Examining the sovereignty/intervention boundary. Review of International Studies, vol. 18, pp. 199–216.Weber C. Simulating sovereignty: Intervention, the state, and symbolic exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.Weber C. 1995. Simulating sovereignty: Intervention, the state, and symbolic exchange. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Young O.R. Intervention and international systems // Journal of International Affairs. 1968. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 177–187.Young O.R. 1968. Intervention and international systems. Journal of International Affairs, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 177–187.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.