Affairs of other sovereign states. Particularly over the past decade the u. N. Institutionalization of the concept of the responsibility to protect has established that a sovereign states fail to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and the International Community has a responsibility to intervene. Commodities funds and recurring costs for the u. S. To intervene abroad, the United States is better standards to determine when to intervene and when not to intervene abroad. That is the Michael Doyle has taught us to do in his book, the question of intervention. Building on mills essay, a few words of nonintervention, bill has presented a sophisticated nuance and mouth is what the circumstances in which humanitarian considerations supersede state sovereignty and justify foreign intervention. As well as the responsibility among interveners. We are delighted to welcome professor doyle to present the analysis at cato. To give you some background, Michael Doyleis director of the columbia Global Initiative and University Professor. Hes affiliated with the school of Political Science and law school. Hes the recipient of two cabrera words from the american Political Science association and hes been elected to the American Academy of arts and science is, American Philosophical Society and the American Academy of political and social science. In addition to his academic work, he served as the assistant secretarygenerals special advisor to the United Nations kofi annan and from 2006 to 2013 served as an individual member and chair of the u. N. Democracy fund. Please join me in welcoming her face or doyle. Professor doyle. [applause] thank you very much for those kind remarks and the very sweet introduction. I really want to thank the Cato Institute or inviting me here to speak. Perhaps its no surprise that someone who is rich book on John Stuart Mill would be invited to the Cato Institute, but i will know how much work is involved in putting together an event like this and i truly appreciate it. I would also think annemarie slaughter and Christopher Preble for commenting on the boat. They very busy schedules. Deliberating the look and the fact that they also take the time to come here and comment is a real treat. What a start on the question of nonintervention and when to override nonintervention or disregard intervention, which is the theme of this book, the question of intervention. I want to start by imagining the that we all share three concerns. The first concern is that humanitarian commitment to try to save the lives of people around the world if human dignity. The second is an appreciation of the value of National Communal selfdetermination and collectively people should have the right and opportunity to shape their own lives. Thirdly is the principle of National Security. Be living a dangerous world. Governments its like our own have a duty to their citizens to provide for their safety to the extent possible. You cant rely upon and International Organizations to do it. Those are the three principles i would like to start with. Humanitarian protection, selfdetermination and National Security. I suspect this is not wildly imagined principles for anyone here in this room. I think many of us share that. My question is given those principles, what should we make of intervention and nonintervention. Thats what im starting from. A strategy in the book was to go back to the basics. The most famous though not the first attempt to reconcile them by the great 19th century british liberal philosopher, John Stuart Mills in his landmark essay, a few words on nonintervention which he published in 1859 in frasers magazine in a conveniently republished in the back of the book to help every sunday. I comment on this argument. I dissent them, criticize them, try to find others. He died in 1873. I have found that despite the fact that these are called pages im talking to rereading them time and time again lets me do something new each time i do something. I do four things from this, this afternoon. One is to offer a new interpretation of as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. The second is representative government. For those decisions that have to be made collectively because they cant be made individually, the interest in voice of the majority is better than the voice of the minority is a way to submit those decisions. The breadandbutter principles of democracy. Maxx on the equal liberty and representative government. This leads me as i mentioned to my first puzzle. One night give the very strong commitment to the value of liberty and the principles of democracy that one might adopt with the u. S. Constitution also adopt switches in article iv something called the guarantee clause. All states in the United States are guaranteed to have comment that is must have a republican form of government. With our 14th amendment, all states have to provide equal protection of the laws for all persons who are in the u. S. Why not do that globally a few really believe in those principles the way that it genuinely does. This is not what mill argues for internationally. It is a general rule, civilized countries. He says it is two very important reasons. The first is that imposing liberty, as good as it is in democracy as good as it is is radically and affection. Unless People Choose it or themselves, what does it mean to say that they are acting democratically, that they are determining collectively. They are a form of government in life. Moreover, theres no universal form of free government. Authentic freedom is the freedom to make up your own version of it. Think of the u. S. And the u. K. Two cardcarrying liberal democracies if you ever had to find two. One of them is a hereditary head of state and have an established religion and the others so far does not. So it is a very different world is equally legitimate. Both of them equivalently strong claims liberty and democratic government. It would be an authentic to attend to oppose liberty and hypocrisy around the world. It is a good thing. He also wants us at trying to so would have bad consequences and that is where it creeps back in. If they are pulled out of the knapsack of an invading army one established by the three likely outcomes that come from that act of imposition. The local liberals, called on knapsack liberals because they lack effective Political Support from below will collapse the same as the interveners leave. The only way you can establish a government is through what he calls arduous struggle. Building support across the communities so they are prepared to participate, risk their lives if necessary in an army or police floors without the government can survive. If you can pull individuals from the knapsack, run up if i can call themselves a Free Independent government, the most likely outcome if they will collapse. The second day he hypothesizes is okay come he brought them liberals who claim to be good liberals. They discovered that support and they discovered the only way to stay in power or keep themselves alive is to act forcibly. So rather than having brought a free government, it brought another atop perceive and experienced all the costs of war or invasion. Thirdly, the interveners who pull out the knapsack liberals and put them into power realize they are so weak they are likely to collapse and say to themselves we cant allow our allies to follow parts of the interveners never leave. It is created no circumstance is an empire. So those are the new civil war, a new hypocrisy and empire are the three likely consequences of trying to an pose a free government on a country thats not been able to limit for itself. I have a political scientist and so i did my Political Science they want the help of a good graduate student named camille strauss kahn. When a professor says he is the hope of a graduate student, and he student, and he fears he is really doing most of the works. Every intervention from 1815 until today we cut 334 of them. They were lifted in the of this book. Only 221 of those intervention or militarily successful. The others were repulsed. Of those 221, 56 led to a new civil war next of the intervention. They are based on the previous regime. 146 represent the 19th century and early 20th century led to a new empire. Only 26 of the once of the ones that look that produced a free and independent rights respect and state. The historians in the room will know that the world is much more complicated. But all of this are motivated searching for freedom interventions just looking for the crossborder use of military forces. You have to pull back somewhat and say these figures are rough and ready. Most are mixed in their motives rather than simply derived. While those reasons, one has to be very careful making this. But i think there is a default that nonintervention is dangerous. It does more harm than good. The second puzzle i will go over very quickly is that given these strong intervention is that we should intervene in two circumstances when nonintervention needs to be overridden for the sake of National Security or humanitarian rescue or has to be disregarded because the assumption that a government is capable of determining its own future through arduous struggle double. That may give you a couple examples of the disregard and over writing before i wrap up at the last remark. Think of a situation of an ethnic conflict within the country where there is a majority that is 80 of the population and a minority just 20 . The normal prescription allows the locals to struggle to determine what should go in that country. If you have a fight between 80 and 20, that doesnt qualify as a fair fight. If a because after the 20 with murderous intent, what you see instead is simply a massacre not a genuine struggle. In those circumstances, it might be legitimate to step in to assist the weaker side not to rule the larger side, but to separate and succeed and have a sound government that it can then determine on it as 80 majority do for themselves. In 1859 of course the separation of the u. S. From the u. K. But he is more directly in mind is a more recent event as congress rebellion of the austrian emperor and he thinks the hungarians have a right to farm their own government and not be dominated to the empire. It wouldve been prudent to do so. This is problematic but it would have been legitimate to develop their own empire. Let me skip. I give a few more examples in the outline that i passed out. You can see others id be happy to addressing the question. To me skip to the most notorious example where he attempts to justify benign imperialism. You get the discussion and india is a lot more capable than mill thought it was though it had many conflicts. Let me skip to the other kind of exception that is over writing with humanitarian concerns or National Security requires that you override the default of nonintervention. Think of the following. What about your citizens who might be being oppressed within the Foreign Government. Some Foreign Government seizes them and threatens their life. Do you have to say if the foreign matter theres nothing we can do about it . There are historical examples in the u. S. And u. K. Some have done well, some poorly. There is one very famous one by the israelis were to intervene to try to free their citizens being printed and they murderous consequences than they did so in a way that would quite surgical. They didnt stay around and overthrow what was they went in and got their citizens out. That is a case of a legitimate overriding of the sovereign borders of uganda. That is one example. Another example is in a situation where youve been fighting a defensive war. Youve been successful by pushing the invaders come at the dressers on his back to the border. Mill says he dont have to stop at the border. Instead you can keep going and sleeping that oppressive regime in place will believe what he calls a standing menace that would come back in the very near future. He is talking about napoleon who was left to close to europe after 1814, came back and had to be fought all over again and then they pass them all the way down to the south atlantic. Around examples are postworld war ii should have stopped the run, should japan have been did . These are the questions hes razing forests. Let me conclude with quick remarks on the humanitarian interpretation. A couple of obscure examples where he talks about a retracted war that is having no result. It is just writing down ordinary people to small farmers, the inhabitants of the towns and at some point he says that the legitimate to step in. And aaron davis raises the question of responsibility is to protect. The doctor announced that it argues for responsibility to step genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This was an important step forward. Nonetheless it move towards a better doctrine. A license Security Council to act beyond the narrow definition of interNational Security, a leash save only for this particular circumstances should the security get involved. If you would justify the intervention in libya, in 2011. Ive looked into that in some depth though im not a libya specialist. In the end i found it was problematic in a way that anyone would observe. The information was deeply confusing on which the decision was made. We need to do better in the future and i should declare an interest work and have the government on responsibility while protect teen should try to develop better standard to rescue this very important. Dream. If it becomes relevant again come needless to say you have to get the Security Council to agree, it would be better if looking at standards to be employed. Accountability in the middle of the operation commenced various sources of qatar operating outside of the mandate that was given an important money after the war, postbattle of action that unlikely happen in libya, which was a freeforall in late 20112012 with a more concerted effort to help in rebuilding unified government. But i think is necessary. Put that all together and we have a continually relevant standard with the doctrine and intervention. As a lover should learn most important is the default has to be nonintervention if you are a liberal. Second of all they can sometimes be overweight or disregarded in rare as him when thats done you take upon yourself the consequences including the likelihood that many of these operations could go wrong. One has a responsibility to prevent that. Most importantly in that regard, one needs to find ways to make sure that selfdetermination becomes a reality even if it has to be temporarily aggregated for this intervention. I look forward to the comments of my colleagues here. Thank you furby joining us. [applause] thank you, michael appeared we are fortunate to have two excellent discussants here who have read and are prepared to comment on the book. First, annemarie slaughter. Currently president and ceo of new america. Shes also a University Professor emeritus of politics and International Affairs at prince university. From 20092011 she served as director of policy planning at the state department appeared prior to government service, doctors daughter was at the Woodrow Wilson school of International Affairs from 2002 2000 an adjacent Claire Armstrong professor of international compared to the at Harvard Law School from 1994 reporter 2002. We also have chris preble. Here at the cato went to pick in that capacity is currently writing a book entitled a guide to Foreign Policy. His previous books include power pros, how American Military mix of less safe, less prosperous and less free. John f. Kennedy and the missile gap. In addition to his work at cato, preble teaches Foreign Policy at the Washington Center before joining cato in february 2003, he thought history thinkpad university in temple university. He was an officer in the u. S. Navy and serves the board ticonderoga demanded 1993. Now let me turn it over to annemarie slaughter. [applause] thank you. I am delighted to be here. Something you left out of my biography that i would only tell all of you because Michael Doyle is thinner doyle is the youngest grandfather ive ever seen. I emphasize grandfather because he dedicates this book to his grave done. Given that background, i can say another piece of my biography is Michael Doyle taught me a policy task force in 1979 on policy towards zimbabwe when i was an undergraduate and ive been following him around ever since. When i got this invitation, i thought of course i would want to do this because of the subject matter, which i thought a great deal about and am still thinking about in the same way michael is, but also because michaels work has been an enormously important in exactly the way this book is, which is to interrogate issues of enormous practical significance for him and historically important perspective and one informed by political theories, the classics to contemporary. I am very honored to have a chance to talk about the book. I am going to divide my remarks in five categories. Each will be short i assure you. Things i like, things they disagree with, things i questioned, thing