The Tony BlairDoctrine and its Interpretation in History 1997 – 2007Abstract                  The‘Blair doctrine’ and its interpretation inhistory 1997–2007 exemplify a Britain reliving the past in its foreign affairsideology. Predicated on ‘Liberal HumanitarianIntervention’ and the ‘Just War Theory’, the ‘BlairDoctrine’ of 1997–2007 is a sort of nostalgia. Demoted Britain revealedits insecurity attempting to give to the world a ‘global value.’ Empiricalliberal interventionism of 1997 was not novel to Great Britain that was a suprapower in the 19th and early 20th century. The ‘new’ in itwas Blair’s moralistic twist suited to Britain’s image quest post-World War I.The ‘Blair doctrine’, a recast to the 1840sforeign policy of Lord Palmerston would swivel on the ethical tradition ofglobal interdependence and humanitarian intervention.Reviving Pax Britannica through the Blair doctrine requires relevance and value. Remaininga child of controversy even in 2017, the nature of this doctrine is appraisedwithin the international system. This paper discusses the ‘Blair doctrine’ andits interpretation in history 1997–2007. Itstates that every policy in diplomacy symptomises insecurities in theinternational system and concludes that the Blairdoctrine on liberal humanitarian intervention ifunobstructed by national interest or influence is worthy in itself. 197KEYWORDS: Blair Doctrine, Liberal Humanitarian Intervention, International System, Peace of WestpharliaIntroductionGreat Britain, in itsgolden age as the foremost global power before expiration in the earlytwentieth century, was a watchdog and a balancer in global politics. Reduced toa middle power by America and Germany, British foreign policy was marked by thedifferent approaches of its Prime Ministers especially post-1945 and post-ColdWar. Relevance for Britain became predicated on the curated policies of itsstatemen. This informed Blair changing to ethical values as “a force for goodin the world”; away from the realpolitik ofthe days of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Working with the “Just War”tradition and Liberal-Humanitarian Interventionism, Blair on the 22ndof April 1999 outlined the “doctrine for the international community”countering not only Article 2(4) and 51 of the United Nations Charter, but the1648 Westpharlian peace document. This document was the global principle ofnon-interference in the domestic affairs of nations. “BlairDoctrine” is a tripodal concept of: Britain carving a global identity to relivethe past, an ethical internationalist approach to contain despotism, andspreading liberal ideals of democracy, free trade and capitalism. Thisdoctrine appears humane excepting ulterior motivations. However, itsfunctionality required America’s economic and military surrogate.Unfortunately, Blair’s attempt in global politics haunts history withnostalgia. In three parts this paper examines thenature of the “Blair doctrine” in global politics from 1997–2007. The firstpart examines liberal-humanitarian ideology; the second analyses Blairdoctrine; while the third critiques this doctrine. 243Liberal and Humanitarian Interventionism At the height of the Operation Allied Force in Kosovoin 1999, on 22nd April, British Prime Minister TonyBlair on invitation to an Economic Club in Chicago, gave a speech on the approach to theinternational system titled “the doctrine of the international community” alsoknown as the “Blair Doctrine”. Blair believed leadership void occured whenBritain, a global power for over a century, was sapped of its economic andpolitical strength at the expiration of the First World War. Nonetheless, wasreplaced by America and the Soviet Union in bipolar structure at the end ofWorld War II. Thereafter, the intricacies of bipolarity built into proxy Coldwars, from 1945–1989. Marked by the death of communism in 1990, theinternational system evolved into a unipolar system led by the United States.Relegated Britain—‘a middle or third class power,’ from 1979–2007 createdrelevance, innovated in the linear principles of the foreign policy adopted byMargaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair, though in different approaches.Blair, in a foreign affairs policy strategy introduced a doctrine, premised on“liberal and humanitarian interventionism.” It was set to displace the doctrineof the 1648 Westpharlian system, The United Nations, and the International Lawguiding international relations, in an attempt to relaunch Britain as a pointof reference in international politics. The operational principles of thesethree on: equality of sovereign,rightto political sovereignty, and non-intervention in internal affairs of another;Blair considered obstruction, (Peace of Westpharlia; Derek Croxton, 1999:569-591). 248 Asa result, in 1999, Blair developed the ‘Blair doctrine’ from the values of theprinciples of liberal internationalism propagated by the United States.Historically, liberalism a rational approach emerged in England and Holland inthe sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in response to the coincidentalemergence of Christian denominations and characteristic absolute monarchy or‘doctrine of divine right of kings’. (Peace ofWestpharlia; Derek Croxton, 1999: 569-591).Its founding fathers sawthe propositions as ushering in a new world order of peace, promoting humandignity, religious tolerance, and the right to property; as well representativegovernment based on elective principles. Versions of liberalism werearticulated by Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, andJohn Locke among others, (Bertrand Russell, 1997:577–583). Liberal internationalism or interventionism is a foreignpolicy doctrine, which argues that “liberal states should intervene in othersovereign states to pursue liberal objectives, with ideals of democracy, free trade and capitalism”, (Radical, Jackpine, 2015).The objectives are based “…on the beliefs that democracy and democraticinstitutions provide the best form of government; able toachieve global structures, inclined to a world built onthe ideals of liberalism. These ideals have bases on ‘global free trade,liberal economics and liberal political systems,’ (Radical, Jackpine).” WhatBlair’s doctrine imagines and encourages as possible output from such ideals orglobal order is a ‘peace dividend’ from the liberals’ thesis of non-violence.Therefore, the Liberal tradition “sees itself as modern, superior and the onetrue way,” practicing “soft power” or according to NickTyrone (1–4), the heart and mind diplomacy. 246Meanwhile, the world in constant spatialinteractions meant the Westpharlian system of non-interference is not eternal. Especially, Adam Smith’s An Inquiry intothe Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nationsvoiced interdependence in division of labour, laissez faire and economicinterrelationships. Similarly, symbiosis in human existence rubbed offon Jean Jacque Rousseau (1712–1778) “body politic” or State, by which theStates acquire the pattern of human sociological interdependence, (George H.Sabine and Thomas L. Thorson, 1973: 529–548). The state not limited togeopolity as unitary agent but extending outwards in foreign affairs andinterrelations in a continuous pattern of interactions attains internationalintegration. Stephen Benedict Dyson, (2006:289–306) emphasized this global interdependence quoting Thatcher’s speech:No country can today escape economic involvement with the economies of others. …our economic welfare is increasingly affected by the operation of the market…there is a constant threat of disorder in the world oil market…the precarious balance of the world economy could at any time be shaken by political upheavals in one or more countries…in these circumstances, we all have a direct practical interest in the orderly settlement of political disputes. The signing of alliances; forming international organisations,already bequeathed a pseudo status to sovereignty. Therefore,interdependence had evolved to globalization especiallyduring the 1980s and 1990s eroding Westpharlia. Blair’s exploration of globalinterdependence seeded an effort at an approach to theinternational system: to justify the renunciation of Westpharlia throughLiberal internationalism, and effort at reliving Britain’s past, (Peace of Westpharlia; Derek Croxton, 1999:569-591) 252Blair’s DoctrineBlair’s foreign policy to promote liberal interventionism was given the ‘ethical dimension’. In 1999, Blair announced: ‘I set out what I described as a doctrine of international community…to justify intervention, including if necessary military intervention, not only when a nation’s interests are directly engaged; but also where there exists a humanitarian crisis or gross oppression of a civilian population’,(John Lairdaw, 2011). Military interventions are interjoined to humanitarian relief, as recast to intervention. ‘Ethical dimension’ was a new toga to British liberalism trying to contain despotism. Liberal interventionism, whose emergence is linked to the British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston (1784–1865) in the nineteenth century, was not a humanitarian endeavour but national interest. Intervention was carefully mentored at no damage, but on the scale of greater benefit to Britain. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson replicated this, in the second decade of the 20th century, constrained by the non-interference of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine,(Liberal internationalism; Norman A. Graebner, 1960: 740). Meaning the US—UK practiced liberalism in the same manner until Blair. Blair’s New Labour Party, commited to ‘restore Britain’s pride and influence as a leading force for good in the world’. The “‘ethical dimension’ was set to ‘rethink’ foreign policy, to change the world, reorder it, and spread democratic values,” through cooperative intervention. (Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, 2007: 205–221) Blair subordinated immediate national interest to international collaborating interest, announcing: ‘We are all internationalists now’. For Palmertston, “no gains with too much at risk meant Liberal-Britain was unlikely to help…In international relations—‘no eternal friends, only eternal interests.’” (“Comparing and Contrasting Palmerston and Blair,” David Vance) 263The humanity part of war had been theorised, Blair wasinterested to institutionalise. Blair wanted equity in a situation of outrightaggression of a ruling tyrant; or giving humanitarian aid in a situation ofnatural disaster. The English liberalist, John StuartMill (20 May 1806–8 May 1873), and the Dutch pioneer of internationallaw Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), felt that international relations andinternational law ought to have a place for humanitarian intervention. Grotius(2006: 16–17) wrote: The law of humanity or of human society is more worthy of respect than the rights of sovereignty and independence of states; wherefore when a government within its sovereignty, violates the rights of humanity, either by measures contrary to the interests of other States, or by excessive injustice or brutality, which seriously injure morals or civilization, the right of intervention is legitimate.Broadly,by inference, ““humanitarianintervention” is a use of humanitarian aid; international sanctions; ormilitary force against a sovereign state or states to…end human-rightsviolations…or alleviate massive human suffering within sovereignborder(s).” (Cottey,Andrew, 2008:429–446). According to David Rieff (2011), “…the fundamental premise is thatexternal powers have the right and, perhaps, under some circumstances, the dutyto intervene to protect people…being victimized, even in intra-conflict.”Rieff stresses that the index or scale of measurement for intervention is theeffect of conflict on civilians (that is deontology) and not considerations ofthe political rights and wrongs of a given conflict or State sovereignty(consequentialist). 237Therefore ideology—‘Blair doctrine’ is asocio-political construct based on ambiguous policy analysis approach of theNew Labour government’s ‘Welfare to Work’ domestic policy; and the‘Communitarian’ diplomacy shaping foreign policy. According to Ruth Levitas,the ‘Welfare to Work’ is a ‘social inclusion’ strategy, an uneasy amalgam of‘SID’, ‘MUD’ and ‘RED’ ideologies. The ‘social integrationist’ or ‘SID’ emphasizes paid work;the ‘New Right’ moralist-behaviour or ‘MUD’; and the Old Left or Labourredistributive-egalitarian or ‘RED’ are social inclusiveness, (Ideology,184–207). Labour’s ideology package was to reduce public spending and‘dependency’, to foster ‘inclusion’ and to promote equality by raising theincomes of the worst-off. It tallies with the ideology of the variant ‘new’Liberalism which developed in the late nineteenth century, when individualismcame to be viewed as an individual self development rather than simplyasserting individual rights and negative liberty. Riding energetically on themaxim—‘what counts is what works’, Blair situates the New Labour politics andpolicy within ‘social democracy’ or Old Labour-style statism and Thatcheriteindividualism, in which there is a role for both state and market. The party was pragmatic jettisoning the traditional Labourdogma. Blair successfully achieved this through the party’s ideology labelledthe ‘Third Way’ or a ‘middle way’ revived under NeilKinnock the party’s leadership, between 1983 and 1992. The restructuredLabour dropped the 1918 Clause IV in its constitution, which foisted socialistprogramme of nationalisation and public ownership; and replaced with acommitment to opportunity and equality, hence ‘New Labour’, (Ideology; Ian Kershaw). 256Whereby,Blair attempted bequeathing to the world global values and a new age to erodeIslamic extremism that threatens to grow into a global movement, tinkering withvalues. In post-World War II, earth planet had two distinct values—communismand democracy. Before the formal exit of communism the committment and thedanger posed by Islamic extremism was silent. But a world rid of communismbecame sensitive to the gradual and infiltrating moves of extreme fanatismspreading terrorism through sabotage in the Middle East and security threatwithin its regional origination and other parts. On this mission are: “…amixture of foreign jihadists, former Saddamists, and rejectionists’ insurgentsin Afghanistan, a combination of drug barons, the Taliban, and al Qaeda,” (Tony Blair, 2007: 79-90). Theclaims that: democracy is a Western concept, the intent of the West to seizeIraqi oil, and the designs of imperial domination; were dubbed conspiracytheory by Blair, (Blair, 2007). The strength of such argument lies for example inthe murder of a UN staff in August 2003 by Afghans, indicating another Talibanor Saddam Hussein in the offing. Strategising from the Kosovo ethnic cleansingand the terrorist attack of September 11, the modality of Blair’s doctrineproposed the combination of the hard (force) and soft (value) in globalpolitics, a fusion to destroy the ideas of Islamic fanatical ideology or anywhatsoever,  (Blair,2007). 239 Theforegoing poised this doctrine as a new content for existing theories andideologies in the international system. Especially, the post-Cold War presented a new internationalenvironment in international relations, thusthe international system aimed at finding a model to effectively supportstability and global security, herewith containing and controlling regionalconflicts. Britain in phobia felt exposed and vulnerable (Ioan Dragos Mateescu, 2013: 11–21). Unfortunately, in its helm days, having fought arecorded 137 wars from 1700–1850 and others after this period, (Peace of Westpharlia), it was exhausted in themilitary and economic capacity, in which its transatlantic American neighbouris vim. Strategising, Blair decided that Washington would lead the pack, and“London would influence from behind closed doors.” Fixed on the linearprinciple of “power maximisation” (Peace ofWestpharlia), and the return to the status of a great power, Blair’s approachwas a combination of realism and idealism,(JudiAtkins). While realism revers state’s autonomy and protection of itsinterests in a characteristic anarchic international arena (Carr, 1946; Morgenthau, 1985); Idealists, advocate a new world order secured on states interdependence.This basic premise Blair stated stating: “it is very rare today that trouble inone part of the globe remains limited in its e?ect.Not just in security, but in trade and ?nance—witnessed in the crisis of 1998which began in Thailand and ended in Brazil—the world is interlocked, (DavidVance: The Blair Doctrine, 2002: 1). However, combining these two theoriescontradicts, working at cross-purposes. The realistprinciple of state autonomy and non-intervention principle puts Blair’s‘ethical dimension’ in dilemma, (Judi Atkins). This is where Blair doctrine is critiqued. 272Critiquing Blair’s DoctrineThe ‘doctrine of the internationalcommunity’ is a pull on Western philosophy; attempting extrication would reveala Just War tradition (Tony Blair, 1999; A. Bellamy, 131–147; Burke) robed inthree major ethical theories. These ethics: Consequentialism, Deontology andVirtue are founded on universal rights and responsibilities; and substantiatedby ius ad bellum, (Atkins). Where Consequentialism, considers after e?ects of action; deontology, emphasizes duties to others; whilevirtue focuses virtuous individual and inclinations. Ius ad bellum that is ‘justification for the resort to warfare’stipulates four criteria. There is ‘legitimate authority,’ which queries ‘theright to the use of force and its justi?cation’; ‘just cause,’ demands ‘a justcause for war’; ‘proportionality’, ‘requires proportionate response to theinjury that has been threatened or received’; and ‘right intention’, concerns themotive of the war agent, (Atkins). When Blair’sfive considerations,(Vance) forwarfare are juxtaposed with the set conditions of ius ad bellum to validate ‘just war’ claim, its humanity appearsopaque, therefore a doubting semblance. Whereby Blairs’: ‘Are we sure of ourcase’; ‘Have we exhausted all diplomatic options’; ‘Arethere military operations we can sensibly and prudently undertake’; ‘Are weprepared for the long term’; and ‘Do we have national interests involved’; allended as ‘proportionality’ after analyses. Therefore, Blair’s doctrine weighingmore as ‘proportionality’ shows its heavy reliance on consequentialist moralityof war, collapsing into realism. To this extent, humanising this doctrine with ius post bellum that addressesreconstruction in the target state after hostilities seems out of course, (Burke). 254Restructuring this doctrinedisplace any ideology that infringes on spreading Western ideological-politicalculture—democracy, free trade and capitalism. The focal summary of the Blairagenda was on globalization, economics, politics and security, withparticularised attention on military intervention, (Kershaw).Liberalism without military intervention is ideologically incoherent. Americarevealed the plot when President John F. Kennedy in 1961 assured Americans andthe western world that America was strong enough to ‘‘pay any price, bear anyburden’’ to ensure the success of liberty,(HenryKissinger, 1994: 56). This internationalist status was attainedpost-Cold War. Subsequently, the end of the Soviet Union and the defeat of Iraqin 1991 led to talks of a ‘new world order’ and the ‘end of history’. FrancisFukuyama a leading scholar contended that this meant the triumph of liberaldemocracy and a common search for a market economy. It was the end of historyin the sense of end to major wars and searching for the best system,(FrancisFukuyama, 1992,39 – 55). But as noted by David Cameron five years after, the Alliedpowers soon came to realise that democracy, “cannot quickly be imposed fromoutside”, just as “liberty grows from the ground—it cannot be dropped from theair by an unmanned drone”. (Matthew d’Anacoda) Aggressive military response in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq were positive shortterm dividends. The wars were won but US—UK led coalition failed to winthe peace—a bad situation was made far worse. The puzzle then is…thejustification for attack, having failed to achievedesired result, (d’Anacoda). But then, the above just zinc perfectly with Blair’sambition. Every British stateman bore the burden of Britain’s great historicalpast. Britain’s organically evolved institutions had pioneered the modernworld, building the largest empire on naval strength. British institutionsinspired the Enlightenment philosophers and loaned the world representativeliberal democracy. PaxBritannica coveredmore than 22% spatial mass and more than 20% of the world’s population. Unfortunately, Britain got crushed by globalinterests, global order, European system; and financing theSecond World War, (Abby Rogers, 2011). Thatcher, reclaiming theFalkland Islands from Argentina in 1982 was for Blair possibilities, when a leader iswilling to risk political status and use character, (Tod Lindberg) Blair, despite high degree ofdiplomacy, could not actualise what the Brits could not sponsor through a USthat had the carrot and the stick to police the doctrine of a global community.Down the line, although intermitted, Britain had a history of ‘specialrelationship’ with America developed through President Woodrow Wilson toMargaret Thatcher. Winston Churchill traced thebasis for this partnership to “proximity and commonalities in shared culture,juridical systems, language and diplomacy,” and liberal interventionism. Thiswas the reason Winston Churchill of Britain and Roosevelt of America formed theAtlantic Charter of August 1941, through which the global order became theresponsibility of the two countries and others (Europe). Little wonder MargaretThatcher considered the 1989 acquaintance between Bush administration and theGerman chancellor, as misplaced. The breath for the Blair doctrine then becomesthe ‘special relationship’ between Britain and America built on a kind ofpartnership for the two countries to be ‘the engine of effectivemultilateralism’ providing leadership in reshaping global order. Again, itaccounts for the British foreign and defence policies appendaged to the‘special relationship’ since post-World War II. Lessons from history informedBlair of the importance of personal relationship as strength to the US–UKrelationship and alliance; demonstrated between Margaret Thatcher and RonaldReagan (1979–1989). Therefore, cultivating friendshipwith America would give legitimacy and strategic direction to the Blair agendaof promoting liberal ideals, which aligns with liberal-America’s interest.Blair’s decision was thus to be a yes-man to the whims of Bush to make thispartnership operational despite all odds. As such, Blair’s “Personalization”and “stifled communications” denied Britain the opportunity to effectivelyimpart on US and the Middle East; and reap any meaningful policy concessionsfrom the Bush administration. (William Wallace and Phillips Christopher, 2009: 263–284; Matescu) 300 A core component of Blair doctrine is Britain’s publicloyalty to US in exchange for influence on ‘the naïve American giant.’ Thefirst step in practicalising this was in 1999 Kosovo conflict. The consensuswas for a NATO bombing campaign against Milosevic’s Serbia in March 1999. Butthe Lewinsky scandal at the White House made Clinton reluctant to deploy theground troops. Blair tried to sway Clinton’s favour to ground troops for earlyvictory. In the midst of prevarication, Milosevic’s withdrawal without a NATOground invasion was believed by Britain a consequence of its suggested threatof land troops. Then came the historic 9/11 attacks, Bush Jr. was raging andAmerica was spoiling for revenge, but Blair seeing beyond the emotions advisedthat the ‘war on terror’ should first be launched on Afghanistan before Iraq.Again, the outcome, that Afghanistan and not Iraq was targeted, made Whitehallclaim diligence at restraining the bellicose Americans. (Wallace and Christopher) Then, Iraqi War of 2003produced a watershed in Britain’s foreign policy. Britain was ready to war atthe insistence of America, even against Blair’s doctrinal conscience. But Canada,France and Germany were recalcitrant, refusing to war despite previous collaborations with U.S. military efforts,including the 1990–91 Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan War and Korean War. LiberalPrime Minister Jean Chrétien was adamant without a second UN resolution forwar, notwithstanding America’s blackmail. Chrétien believed there were noweapons of mass destruction making Iraq a no danger to the world, and wasaversed to Canada being in war everytime to redress situations of dictatorship.(Sunny Freeman) Blair went against the British opinionof ‘No to war’ to join America and the 49 counntries of the ‘coalition of thewilling’ to fight Iraq and chase out Saddam Husseini-led Ba’athist regime. The notion ofnations going to war, not for territorial interests, but in order to save thelives of peoples threatened by humanitarian disaster, whether genocidal ornongenocidal is potentially a noble and inspiring concept. The misapplication ofhumanitarian intervention is not logic for its total condemnation, once thereis strong prove of genocide or the abuse of humanity in any mode. Thoughcamouflaged humanitarian intervention cannot be absent, likewise its goodwilland impact cannot be ignored when the famine of 1896 in Armenia is recalled andwhen a nation spits “Putin doctrine”, in a radical show of eccentricity byRussia in 2016, (Sergiy Fedunyak, 2014). Truisms as these authenticateoutfit such as humanitarian intervention or its subsidiary ‘Response toProtect’ (R2P). What the world needs to deal with is the animal, greed andselfishness in man identified by John Locke, which are being dealt with by thecomplicated checks and balances in the international system. The intricacies ofnature will provide the theory of plusand minus by which demagogues will always be checked no matter the arsenalbeing projected.  The Blair doctrine lost its framework and imperatives of ‘war on terror’ especially with theevents of 2001 September 11. Violent response to cleansings in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq hiccupped; tied tothe table of time, as the US—UK coalition won the warbut lost the peace. Consequently, the justifications for attacks have grown thin overtime. 237ConclusionIn concluding, the ‘ethicaldimension’ to Labour’s foreign policy has been mired in criticism andcontroversy since its’ first announcement in 1997. There were fundamental tensionbetween domestic interests and the ‘ethical dimension’ to foreign policy whichcould not be reconciled because of competing economic interests and thesubordination of the ‘preventative action’ to the hostile US ‘preemptiveaction’ ideology. The outcome was the fall of Britain’s proclaimed moralstanding in foreign relations. If it is true that good leadership creates itsown luck, then, Scholars are right to assert that Prime Ministers are notjudged by posterity on social issues but by the One Big Thing that happensduring premierships. That is why Neville Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement,Anthony Eden’s Suez Crisis, Edward Heath’s Three-Day Week, and John Major’s ERMdebacle have the failure stigma, (Kershaw, Graham Vanbergen).Although Labour undoubtedly highlighted the role of ethics in foreign policy,over the two terms which Blair’s government served, it is inconclusive ifBritain fulfilled its desired post-Cold War role as a ‘force for good in theworld’, especially with the fate of the doctrines’ consequences hanging onBritain post-Blair. With the much awaited BREXIT out of the way in June 6th2016 and Blair out of office shortly after, Tony Blair is stilldealing with the consequences of actions taken in what has been called “anillegal war” in Iraq despite the Chilcot Inquiry Report of July 2016, judginghim not guilty. ReferencesAtkins, Judi. “A New Approach to HumanitarianIntervention? Tony Blair’s ‘Doctrine of the InternationalCommunity’.” British Politics, vol 1, no. 2, 2006, pp.274-283. Springer Nature, doi:10.1057/palgrave.bp.4200023.“BBC NEWS | Politics |How Will History Judge Blair?.” News.Bbc.Co.Uk, 2007,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6636091.stm.Bellamy,A., (2004) ‘Ethics and intervention: the ‘humanitarian exception’ and theproblem of abuse in the case of Iraq,’ Journal of Peace Research 41: (2), p.131–147. Blair, Tony. “Leader’s Speech, Blackpool2002.” Britishpoliticalspeech.Org, 2002, http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=185.Blair, Tony. “A Battle for GlobalValues.” Foreign Affairs- Council on Foreign Relations Stable,vol 86, no. 1, January-February 2007, pp. 79-90. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20032212.Burke,A. (2004) ‘Just war or ethical peace? Moral discourses of strategic violenceafter 9/11’, International Affairs 80: (2), 329–353.Cottey, Andrew (2008)“Beyond humanitarianintervention: the new politics of peacekeeping and intervention.”ContemporaryPolitics, 14:4, 429 – 446, doi:10.1080/13569770802519342   d’Ancona, Matthew. “Libya Won’t Make DavidCameron’s Reputation, But It’s Certainly A Start.” Telegraph.Co.Uk,2017,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/matthewd_ancona/8727320/Libya-wont-make-David-Camerons-reputation-but-its-certainly-a-start.html.Derek Croxton (1999)  ThePeace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty, The InternationalHistory Review, 21:3, 569-591, DOI: 10.1080/07075332.1999.9640869Dyson, Stephen Benedict. “Personality andForeign Policy: Tony Blair’s Iraq Decisions.” Foreign PolicyAnalysis, vol 2, no. 3, 2006, pp. 289-306. Wiley-Blackwell,doi:10.1111/j.1743-8594.2006.00031.xE.H. Carr, (1946) The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1939: An Introduction to theStudy of International Relations (London: Macmillan). Morgenthau, H.J. (1985)Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 6th Edn (New York:Knopf)Freeman, Sunny. “Canada’s ‘No’ to Iraq War ADefining Moment For Prime Minister, Even 10 Years Later.” TheHuffington Post Canada, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca /2013/03/19/canada-iraq-war_n_2902305.html. Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the LastMan. New York, Avon Books, 1992, 39 – 55.Grotius,Hugo (2006). “The Rights of War and Peace.” In Phil William et el, ClassicalReadings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations. UnitedStates, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, p. 6 – 17“Ideology, the State and Welfare in Great Britain.”pp. 184-188; 200-207. http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/Alcock_10.pdf.Kennedy-Pipe, Caroline, and Rhiannon Vickers. “‘Blowback’ forBritain?: Blair, Bush, and the war in Iraq.” Review of InternationalStudies, vol. 33, no. 02, 2007, pp. 205–221, doi:10.1017/s0260210507007474.Accessed 14 Apr. 2016. Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New York, Simon& Schuster, 1994.Lairdlaw, John. “Bush and Blair: The Impactof a Special Relationship on National Interests.” E-InternationalRelations, 11 July 2011, http://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/26/bush-and-blair-the-impact-of-a-special-relationship-on-national-interests/.Lindberg, Tod. “Iron Logic: MargaretThatcher, Revised.” World Affairs, 2009,http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article /iron-logic-margaret-thatcher-revised.Mateescu, Ioan Drago. “International PoliciesOf Great Britain 1979-2007: The Relationship With The United States AndEurope.” Political Science and International Relations, 2013,pp. 11–21.Morgenthau, H.J. (1985) Politics among Nations: The Strugglefor Power and Peace, 6th edn. New York: Knopf.“Peace of Westphalia | EuropeanHistory.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 2017, https://www.britannica.com/event/Peace-of-Westphalia; Accessed May 17, 2016Radical, Jackpine. “Liberal Internationalism(AKA Liberal Interventionism) – Democratic Underground.” Democraticunderground.Com,http://www.democraticunderground.com/. Accessed12/05/2016Rieff, David. “HumanitarianIntervention.” 2011, http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/humanitarian-intervention/. Accessed 10 May 2016Rogers, Abby. “The 10 Greatest Empires In TheHistory Of The World.” Business Insider, 2011, http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-greatest-empires-in-history-2011-9?op=1.Russell, Bertrand. History of WesternPhilosophy. London, Routledge, 1995, 577 – 583.Sabine, H. George, and Thomas L. Thorson. A History ofPolitical Theory. New Delhi, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. PVT., 1973. 529 – 548Sergiy Fedunyak, “Putin’s Doctrine”, Threat