Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dayuhan who wrote (77595)	2/26/2003 6:42:06 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) of 281500

What do you consider to be sufficient grounds to justify the invasion of one nation by another? I don't think this is a simple question What might be situations leading to an invasion proposal? Here are a few. 1. Military attack. (Including attacks by proxies?) 2. Genocide or ethnic cleansing. 3. Huge civil rights violations? (eg stalinist regime). 4. Military coups? 5. Theft of common resource like water? What might be some characteristics of the invader and its case for invasion? 6. Loss of territory or resources. 7. Threatened sovreignty or actual loss of it. 8. Disinterestedness. (In the case of genocide and/or massive injustice). That is, the invader is not deliberately trying to gain huge material advantage or political dominion. That's not to say it has no interest of any sort. (I have to say I'm a "modernity chauvinist" and therefore tend to favour cases amde by democracies). I think 2, 3,4 and 8 are the most controversial items. I think you do have to look at specific cases and how they played out to get a real feel for it. Vietnam's invasion to stop the Pol Pot horror is an instructive case. I think also the intervention in Yugoslavia is useful. US invasion of Afghanistan. US invasion of Granada, Panama. Russian invasion of Chechnya. The non-invasion of Rwanda and the genocide. (The UN's own representatives asked for intervention). Israel's invasion of Lebanon. I had a dustup about this with Zonder last fall. It came out of the Iraq discussion but I found it interesting generally. Discussion and treaty making seem mostly concerned with the rights of collectivities - governments, rulers, and sometimes more rarely, ethnic and religious groups - rather than individuals. The emphasis is on integrity of boundaries. As the world becomes smaller activities within countries such as civil war and heavy repression are having a greater effect not just on neighbours but further removed countries as refugees flee and economic activity is diminshed with accompanying hardships. Warfare in areas like the Middle East have a worldwide economic effect. Boundary integrity does not guarantee quarantine of disastrous results and noxious influence. It tends to insure the security of massive criminal enterprise. Only recently have human rights become an international issue and sovreignty of individuals any sort of serious topic for discussion, treaty making, or reason for military intervention. There is not a lot of international law on the subject. I found this article on the NATO Yugoslavia intervention interesting: 216.239.33.100 www.law.cam.ac.uk/RCIL/Murase.doc Also here: law.cam.ac.uk Look for "State Responsibility Project"

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next