Ontological security, shame and 'humanitarian' action

Why do hegemons (the most powerful nation-states in world politics) or hegemonic organizations choose to perform 'humanitarian' or moral actions? This dissertation explains cases of puzzling hegemonic behavior by developing a theory which sees 'humanitarian' action as a rational response meant to fulfill a separate, sometimes competing, but natural drive of nation-states for 'ontological security.' Borrowing from the structuration theory of sociologist Anthony Giddens, I employ the concept of ontological security (defined as 'a sense of continuity and order in events') to assert that nation-states want to maintain consistent self-concepts, and the 'self' of states is constituted and maintained through routines with significant others (or other states). When a state's actions (foreign policy) no longer accord with its projected identity (through a 'biographical narrative' set up to explain foreign policy) state self-identity is disrupted. This sense of insecurity influences a state's national interests. While most scholars evaluate moral or humanitarian actions as deriving from collective, rather than self-, interest, I argue that humanitarian crises do not threaten the physical security of most states (since these problems could be ignored at little peril to a hegemon), but they do challenge a certain states' sense of self-identity and thus these crises can be considered identity threats. I then use ontological security to interpret two cases---British neutrality during the American Civil War (1861--1865) and NATO's (1999) Kosovo intervention. I first demonstrate how American President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation changed the meaning of the American Civil War for the British (from a 'War of Northern Aggression' to a 'War of Liberation'), thus preventing the British from intervening in the conflict because such an action would have challenged British self-identity. And in the case of Kosovo, I demonstrate how each NATO member suffered from what I term 'shame' (a metaphor for when a state's actions are inconsistent with its sense of self-identity) over past failed foreign policies, and this sense of shame compelled them to intervene on behalf of the ethnic Albanians to repair their sense of self-identity. I conclude by proposing some future avenues for ontological security research in International Relations theory.