What can states do?

Are there certain actions that states can’t do given social norms? The first distinction that should be made is between what a state is capable of doing and what it should do given the consequences. A state like the US is capable of invading Mexico, stealing its gold reserves, and then leaving; however, given the probable consequences this action would not be wise. However, more essentially, the US cannot invade Mexico out of obvious self-interest unless it is ready to completely redefine itself and become a very different US. I believe the question is whether a state can carry out certain actions given its identity?I believe that without a dramatic change of identity there are some things a state can’t do. A state the gets so used to ways of being and functioning will become so indisposed to carry out certain actions that for all practical purposes we can say it “can’t” do it even if they have the capacity.

For example, the UK has the capacity to invade and occupy Ireland. However, because of the socio-political attitude that exists in the UK we may say that they can’t do it. Excuse me for the Wendt and PTJ regurgitation but I truly do believe that by acting in a certain way a nation becomes defined by those actions. Furthermore, if the UK were to carry out this action, it would be accompanied by such an extreme change in identity that they could be defined as a different UK.

To draw a perfectly stereotypical and tropic literary example, I would make a parallel to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. While both individuals occupied the same physical space and were even part of the same psyche, they were given separate names because they constitute separate identities given the differences between their world views, reasoning, and actions. In much the same way, if a state were to completely change the institutions that it adhered to one could call it a different state. For this reason I believe there are certain actions that a state cannot do while remaining the same state.