There really is no limit on what states can or can not do. If a state decides to invade another country and take control of the government by force, they can. If a state wants to massacre everyone within the state that disagrees with the political regime, they can. Just like how PTJ can start swearing at us in class if we say something he doesn't agree with. It may not be completely illegal, but that doesn't make it right.
I feel like there are some rules that most countries abide by, even if they could get away with breaking them. For instance, democratic countries don't interfere with each other's government - at least, there's no situation like Iraq, where one democratic country invades another and attempts to change their government. Democratic countries recognize each other as legitimate governments, and in that way they are somewhat allies. For the most part, countries follow the unspoken ethical rules that we all somehow believe in: don't massacre people. Avoid killing civilians in war. Hostages, if taken, are traded in fairly for that state's demands.
But just because most states follow these behavioral norms does not mean that all of them do, or that they by any means can't. There really is no "can't" in international relations - if a country has the power to do something and get away with it, then they can. And, if it improves their position in any way, they ought to. I'm not trying to condone morally wrong behavior, but if a state has the power to do what it wants, why shouldn't it?
I completely agree with you. States have the ability to make any decisions they may choose to make. The real question is what is most in their interest to do. I think this is what drives countries to abide by certain rules - they don't want to risk their power positions by making a decision that would hurt their standing/weaken them/etc.
ReplyDelete