“Boundary – An imaginary line beween two nations separating the imaginary rights of one from the imaginary rights of the other.” – Ambrose Bierce
I mean, generally no. But in terms of human rights violations, some nations believe intervention is the only way to curb the infractions of one nation against it’s people.
The use of one nations influence to change another is a moral grey area. Like so grey it makes putty look off-white. So grey, they had to come up with a halfway point between grey and gray and called it graey so they could talk about this area specifically. Serious.
The environmentalist movement in particular likes to centralize and strengthen power at the top, where broad overarching policy can be formed. There is a strong belief of higher authority to hold large entities like corporations and individuals accountable in many environmental movements.
Since one country among hundreds going green will not save the planet, and many of the greatest offenders (large corporations) originate in one country but remain present in many, the battle for environmental health happens on a global scale.
So the battle climbs another rung up the ladder of power to th UN. Kind of. The UN doesn’t hald much authority, or at least effective authority, because it’s hard for all countries to agree on how much authority the UN should have. This is why one country might go all Batman on another country after loosing faith (or never having it) in a sound global structure of power.
Even the word “right” is it’s own gray area. Who defines right? What rights do others forfeit if they defy others rights? Does a country have the right to kill other humans who were killing other humans and denying their right to live? I tend to think that we are all just animals running around with various culturally constructed agendas fighting for or breaking culturally constructed rights. What rights exist in Nature that we might go off of? It’s a tricky subject. In my opinion, it’s all case by case. Sometimes I agree with one country telling another what to do, sometimes I am vehemently opposed.
Technically speaking, no country has the authority to command another; all international agreements come from power (be it economic, military, etc.) and negotiation. While the term ‘international law’ is commonplace, it may be somewhat misleading. There is no international government to enforce these laws, making them closer to ‘agreements’ which are often formalised as treaties.
The United Nations exists as a platform to facilitate negotiations between nations and has no method of enforcement in and of itself. Nations influence other nations through the UN and may attempt to use their power to bully other countries into doing a particular thing, but, again, no country is ‘above’ another in a hierarchical sense.
No there are certain circumstances which a country can controll others because of agreements or just simply taking over
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC