Today we are facing a new type of interventionism grounded on what may be called a “new just war theory”. The new just war theory is characteristic in claiming both substantive justice and its representativeness in waging a war. These two factors are conspicuous in NATO’s intervention in the Kosovo crisis and the US war on terror. A number of writers points to the punitive nature of the new just war theory. Following this line of thought, the current author explores the idea of the right to punish which correlates with the duty to punish, and draws constraints on its exercise. The major requirements derived from the concept of justice following Inoue Tatsuo’s argument are the prohibition of double standard and of free riding. These conditions should be construed as disjunctive rather than conjunctive, taking into account the decentralised structure of the international society. If either of these conditions is met, there is a room for the punitive new just war theory to be justified as an internally consistent claim. However, the punitive nature of the new just war theory incurs a prohibitive cost not only for the intervening state but also for neighbouring states of the state being “punished”. For any activity of punishment in the international sphere almost inevitably impedes the government function, and necessitates recovery of governance and reestablishment of government. Thus, sharing cost internationally is an unavoidable consequence of unilateral intervention, while consistent application of a standard of intervention is almost impracticable for an individual state. In contrast, the UN collective security system is best interpreted as founded on the idea of administration in a broad sense. While the organisation’s role commenced as a police action, its activities now extend to peace building and prevention of conflict, based on a broad and substantial understanding of peace. Contemporary international settings has made it inevitable that any intervention depends upon the well-functioning of such activities and therefore when made unilaterally any intervention involves free-riding on the administrative scheme.
