Hierarchical Interventions in Post-2011 Syria and Libya

This chapter compares great power interventions in Libya and Syria, investigating why Western powers intervened directly and swiftly in Libya but indirectly with some delay in Syria, despite similar civilian atrocities in the two cases. Hierarchical intervention theory provides a compelling explanation for these differences, highlighting how great powers defend their clients and avoid direct intervention in their rivals’ spheres of influence. Using comparative-longitudinal analysis and pattern-matching of great power rhetoric and intervention policies, we show that human rights violations rhetoric primarily served as a rationalization for intervention. In Libya, Western powers employed this rhetoric to justify offensive actions, while in Syria, Russia escalated its human rights violations framing just before direct defensive action. By contrast, civil war rhetoric was used to justify Russia and China’s nonintervention stances. These findings align with our model’s predictions, suggesting that both offensive and defensive interventions may be justified through humanitarian intervention rhetoric. This provides further support for hierarchical intervention theory over rival explanations based on ideology, humanitarianism, or resources.