Throughout the Yemeni Civil War, western states have supplied weapons used in the indiscriminate bombing campaign conducted by the Saudis. In defence of their actions, British politicians have argued that they are exchanging weapons for influence, and using the influence obtained to encourage compliance with humanitarian law. An additional premise in the argument is that Britain is using its influence more benignly than alternative suppliers would use theirs if Britain were not on the scene. The idea is that Britain is substituting itself for other, less scrupulous, interveners. I argue that, regardless of whether British substitution intervention could be justified in this way…, it is not in fact justified, because Britain has not plausibly used its influence to secure an amount of good sufficient to offset the various harms that its actions have created (or to discharge the expanded duties of rescue that greater influence entails). In addition, the article identifies the various forms that substitution intervention can take, and shows how the concept reveals hitherto neglected reasons to both support and oppose intervention in foreign conflicts.

在整个也门内战期间，西方国家提供了用于沙特人进行的不分青红皂白的轰炸行动的武器。英国政界人士为自己的行为辩护，称他们正在用武器换取影响力，并利用获得的影响力来鼓励遵守人道法。该论点的另一个前提是，如果英国不在现场，英国正在比其他供应商使用其影响力更温和地使用其影响力。这个想法是英国正在用自己代替其他不那么谨慎的干预者。我认为，无论英国的替代干预是否可以以这种方式被证明是合理的……，它实际上是不合理的，因为英国并没有合理地利用其影响力来获得足以抵消其行为造成的各种危害（或履行更大的救援职责的扩大职责）影响需要）。此外，文章还确定了替代干预可以采取的各种形式，并展示了这一概念如何揭示了迄今为止被忽视的支持和反对干预外国冲突的理由。