Edinburgh Napier University

  In this article we argue that the issue of nationalism has been neglected in much of the academic and policy debate over humanitarian intervention to protect human rights. Underpinning much of the international relations literature, for example, is a set of taken-for-granted assumptions, which derive some of their force and salience from the grip of nationalism. Drawing on some of the more critical literature on nationalism that has emerged in recent years, we subject these assumptions to critical scrutiny, looking in particular at the Westphalian origins of the modern international order; the role of violence in the making of modern nation-states; and the problematic nature of rights of national self-determination. At the same time, a closer examination of the justifications offered in support of a number of cases of intervention shows that these still fail to break sufficiently out of a nationalist frame of reference. We conclude with a discussion of the possibilities and difficulties associated with the emergence of new cosmopolitan norms, partially expressed in the principles of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ of the ICISS. Finally, we argue for a break from nationalist principles if clear norms of, and support for, humanitarian intervention are to be developed.