The intervention taboo(s) : Strategy and normative invalidation. / Bentley, Michelle.

In: Review of International Studies, Vol. 43, No. 3, 31.07.2017, p. 557-580.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Published

Standard

The intervention taboo(s) : Strategy and normative invalidation. / Bentley, Michelle.

In: Review of International Studies, Vol. 43, No. 3, 31.07.2017, p. 557-580.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bentley, Michelle. / The intervention taboo(s) : Strategy and normative invalidation. In: Review of International Studies. 2017 ; Vol. 43, No. 3. pp. 557-580.

BibTeX

@article{7a2b37d70f6145cb9d22409813ee04b1,
title = "The intervention taboo(s): Strategy and normative invalidation",
abstract = "Intervention comprises one of the most contentious issues in International Relations. This controversy results from the way normative understanding is structured around two key, but mutually exclusive, taboos: the moral expectation to respond in cases of humanitarian need and the protection of state sovereignty. In examining this dilemma, this article asks: what happens to the construction of rhetorical strategy, where that strategy seeks to justify intervention (or not), within a binary normative environment? It is argued that actors can only successfully construct a rhetorical case by engaging in, what is termed here, normative invalidation. In a binary situation, actors cannot adhere to both taboos. These taboos are so compelling, however, that actors must necessarily invalidate or neutralise any taboo not adhered to. This is discussed in relation to the Strategic Narratives paradigm and comparative case studies on the presidential rhetoric of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.",
author = "Michelle Bentley",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "31",
doi = "10.1017/S026021051700002X",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "557--580",
journal = "Review of International Studies",
issn = "0260-2105",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The intervention taboo(s)

T2 - Strategy and normative invalidation

AU - Bentley, Michelle

PY - 2017/7/31

Y1 - 2017/7/31

N2 - Intervention comprises one of the most contentious issues in International Relations. This controversy results from the way normative understanding is structured around two key, but mutually exclusive, taboos: the moral expectation to respond in cases of humanitarian need and the protection of state sovereignty. In examining this dilemma, this article asks: what happens to the construction of rhetorical strategy, where that strategy seeks to justify intervention (or not), within a binary normative environment? It is argued that actors can only successfully construct a rhetorical case by engaging in, what is termed here, normative invalidation. In a binary situation, actors cannot adhere to both taboos. These taboos are so compelling, however, that actors must necessarily invalidate or neutralise any taboo not adhered to. This is discussed in relation to the Strategic Narratives paradigm and comparative case studies on the presidential rhetoric of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

AB - Intervention comprises one of the most contentious issues in International Relations. This controversy results from the way normative understanding is structured around two key, but mutually exclusive, taboos: the moral expectation to respond in cases of humanitarian need and the protection of state sovereignty. In examining this dilemma, this article asks: what happens to the construction of rhetorical strategy, where that strategy seeks to justify intervention (or not), within a binary normative environment? It is argued that actors can only successfully construct a rhetorical case by engaging in, what is termed here, normative invalidation. In a binary situation, actors cannot adhere to both taboos. These taboos are so compelling, however, that actors must necessarily invalidate or neutralise any taboo not adhered to. This is discussed in relation to the Strategic Narratives paradigm and comparative case studies on the presidential rhetoric of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

U2 - 10.1017/S026021051700002X

DO - 10.1017/S026021051700002X

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 557

EP - 580

JO - Review of International Studies

JF - Review of International Studies

SN - 0260-2105

IS - 3

ER -