English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Counter-interventions have often been employed to promote specific political or economic interests. Using the morality of counter-intervention as a lens, this article explores Michael Walzer’s counter-intervention theory to interrogate the practicalities of applying his symmetry principle—equivalence when balancing a conflict—in the context of imperfect information. After examining the links between the principles of non-intervention and self-determination and identifying the main tenets of Walzer’s theory, this article demonstrates how the Yemeni conflict exemplifies the problematics of crafting a moral counter-intervention strategy. On the one hand, the longer a country waits to counter-intervene, the harder it becomes to calculate the effects of the previous intervention; on the other hand, the faster a country counter-intervenes, the less informed and symmetric the counter-intervention is likely to be. Consequently, this study concludes that Walzer’s symmetry principle does not successfully indicate when and how counter-intervention should develop.

The contradictions inherent in the concept of symmetry in Michael Walzer’s counter-intervention theory: a case study of the Yemeni conflict