|Does a state have the right to attack or intervene in another country that has not attacked said state, if the country has committed grave injustices or crimes against humanity?
This sounds like a concept called Responsibility to Protect, something which in general I think is good - but the trick of it lies in the aftercare. There has to be a process to make the state function in the aftermath. If we're going to engage in actions justified by R2P we have to commit to leaving the state far better at the end.
Yes, and in some cases they are obligated to do so under international law.
Mind thy own bidness.
I believe that The UN should do its job, however, since it cannot and will not, I believe that the only thing worse than men committing great atrocities are the men that stand by and deliberate their severity and the price of coca cola. I believe the fate and futures of the oppressed are the responsibility of the entire world.
Attack unprovoked? No. Crimes against humanity must be dealt with through the legal system not the military system. Sanctions, boycotts etc. So intervention (a la the Geneva Conventions, WHO, the UN, etc.) must be civil.
If this policy existed in the 30s, we'd be speaking Deutsch-Japanese. Should a country be the police of the world? No. Should they stop genocide? Of course. I always think this is a silly question.
I don't think so. I feel that we are too quick to jump into other countries problems. If asked to help & it is approved by the United Nations then it is worth the time.
Yes, if they were asked for their help.
It depends. In any case, a right doesn't mean a duty. You should consider if it is in your interest to intervene, since it is your blood and treasury.
always tough. Are we better off for having killed a bunch of Nazis? yes. Should we have sent troops into Rawanda? Well, not nearly as clear cut an answer for the nation.
Has knocking off Saddam and his evil progeny stopped lots of the suicide bombings in Israel? definitely.
As always it depends on the situation and the willingness of the country to bear the burden of the intervention. For example, I don't think letting a bunch of anti-Semitic fanatics in Iran to get nuclear weapons will make the world safer. But pretty obviously no one is going to stop them.
No. Attacking is never an answer.
No. no nation has the right to intervene in any other sovereign state's internal matters. The United Nations can take care of the problem.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
<< PREVIOUS NEXT >>