A Theory of Limited Foreign Policy

Introduction

In my earlier essay I argued that government is not sovereign but a delegated authority. Its legitimacy derives from a limited number of functions that require collective action, including security, dispute resolution, basic infrastructure, and certain public goods supported by broad consensus.

The same principles must apply to foreign policy.

The mere existence of a problem somewhere in the world does not automatically create a legitimate governmental interest. Nor does the fact that a policy is desirable establish that government may compel citizens to fund it through taxation or implement it through military action.

Foreign policy should be judged by the same tests as domestic policy:

• subsidiarity;
• necessity;
• broad consensus;
• limited jurisdiction;
• the prohibition on unjustified harm.

Three questions follow.

---

1. When is foreign intervention legitimate?

The first question is not whether intervention may sometimes be beneficial, but whether it falls within the legitimate sphere of government.

Government exists primarily to protect:

• citizens;
• the political community;
• the territorial integrity of the nation;
• the institutions necessary for peaceful coexistence.

Therefore, intervention abroad is only prima facie legitimate when it serves these purposes.

Examples may include:

• defence against aggression;
• counter-terrorism;
• intelligence cooperation;
• protection of sea lanes and vital infrastructure;
• support for security alliances;
• actions necessary to maintain national security.

The burden of proof always lies on intervention.

The question should be:

How does this protect the political community that delegated authority to the government?

rather than:

Would this be a good thing for the world?

A government has no general mandate to improve the world.

It has a delegated responsibility to protect the community it governs.

---

2. Does government have positive duties to humanity?

The answer is largely no.

The fact that suffering exists somewhere does not automatically generate a governmental obligation to solve it.

Nor does it necessarily generate an individual obligation.

A starving child in Sudan is a tragedy.

That does not entail:

• a duty on every citizen to provide assistance;
• a duty on government to redistribute resources there;
• a right to tax citizens for that purpose.

Positive duties must be limited if individual autonomy is to survive.

Without limits there is no obvious stopping point.

If government has a duty to meet every need, then every unmet need everywhere becomes a political claim.

Foreign aid therefore requires separate justification.

If it genuinely contributes to:

• security;
• stability;
• disease prevention;
• treaty obligations;
• other legitimate public functions;

it may be justified.

If it is simply an attempt to do good abroad, however admirable the motive, it lies outside the primary responsibilities for which government was established.

Voluntary charity remains entirely legitimate.

Governmental compulsion requires a stronger justification.

---

3. Does government have negative duties?

Yes.

The strongest and most universal duty binding both individuals and governments is the obligation not to inflict unjustified harm.

This duty does not stop at national borders.

A foreigner may not be part of the political compact, but they remain a human being.

If a government:

• poisons communities abroad;
• destroys civilian infrastructure without necessity;
• engages in aggressive war;
• supports oppression;
• knowingly creates foreseeable and disproportionate harm;

then it violates the same moral principle that justifies its existence.

This imposes significant constraints on military action.

War may be justified:

• in self-defence;
• against aggression;
• to neutralise genuine threats.

But the objective must be limited.

The aim is:

to stop aggression,

not:

revenge,

conquest,

punishment,

humiliation,

ideological transformation,

regime change for its own sake.

Civilian casualties may be unavoidable in some legitimate military operations.

They do not become morally irrelevant.

The duty remains to minimise foreseeable harm and use only proportionate force.

---

Alliances

Alliances should be assessed according to the same principles.

No ally should receive a blank cheque.

The fact that a country is friendly, historically important, or politically sympathetic does not relieve government of its responsibility to exercise independent judgement.

Alliances are justified only insofar as they materially contribute to the security and stability of the political community.

Each request for support must be judged independently.

Historical friendships do not create unlimited obligations.

---

Conclusion

A legitimate foreign policy is therefore neither isolationist nor missionary.

Government has no mandate to remake the world, spread ideology, or pursue universal welfare.

Nor should it retreat entirely from international affairs.

Its proper role is narrower:

• defend the nation;
• maintain security;
• honour legitimate commitments;
• avoid unjustified harm;
• resist aggression;
• preserve peace where possible.

The same principle that limits domestic government also limits foreign policy:

Government exists to provide a framework of security and peaceful coexistence, not to pursue unlimited projects at home or abroad.