{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019867549668874173, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008830022075055188, 'mean_word_length': 5.525179856115108, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Post-legitimacy and post-legitimisation: a convergence of Western and non-Western intervention

ABSTRACT This contribution makes the point that we have entered an era of post-legitimisation whereby intervening states invest little energy into justifying their international interventions. Non-Western intervening states are often accused of offering very minimal justifications for their presence and actions overseas. Where justificatory statements are made, they are often short and bland. In an interesting convergence, leading proponent states of the liberal peace have followed suit and no longer offer lengthy justifications of their actions. At the high-point of liberal internationalism in the 1990s and the early 2000s, immense diplomatic capital was expended on justifying intervention. Now that is not the case. Where justification is made, it deploys the language of security and stabilisation.