Who has authority over a country from beyond its borders?

[Machjo]

Who has authority over a country from beyond its borders? Does any country have the right to criticize, place sanctions against, or invade Canada, China, or Iraq, for example, or would it be only the appropriate international bodies such as the UN, or no one?

 

[Avro]

If my neighbor beats his kids, do I sit by and let it happen or get involved?

 

[Machjo]

Personally, I vote the UN or some other equivalent international body. On the one hand, I understand that Canada's actions can affect other countries, and certainly mankind reserves the right to to defend it fellowmen living within our borders if those persons are being persecuted, or if Canada itself is hurting people beyond our borders.

However, I also believe in order in all things. It's not up to any one country to be judge and jury against Canada and take the law into its own hands, as that would be plain imperialism. However, the international community, through appropriate international bodies such as the UN, would certainly be allowed to criticize Canada, place sanctions against Canada, or even attack and invade and occupy it if it was a decision made by the world in defense of the wellbeing of the world and not just one country's or a group of countries' 'national interests'.

And of course, since I don't believe in double standards, I believe the same ought to apply across the board, and we ought to treat other countries the same we we would want to be treated by them.

 

[Mowich]

Who has authority over a country from beyond its borders? Does any country have the right to criticize, place sanctions against, or invade Canada, China, or Iraq, for example, or would it be only the appropriate international bodies such as the UN, or no one?

I guess my first question would be, why would anyone want to invade Canada? Next would be, who in their right mind would invade China? Iraq has already been invaded, so that question has already been answered.

As far as the appropriate authority to make the decision, my answer would be the UN, as far as I know.

Last question would be, why are you asking? Do you know something we don't??? :smile:

 

[countryboy]

Well...now there's a loaded question. Basically, I'm of the opinion that if every country minded its own business, we'd all live happily ever after. But, I guess it's not exactly a black & white issue - in fact, it's got various shades of gray everywhere.

But, in principle, I think countries should mind their own business on the "soft" issues, i.e., the ones that don't pose any threat to the security or well-being of citizens in other countries.

(Yep, I'm "dancing" a bit on this one!)

 

[L Gilbert]

People should keep their noses out of others' business, likewise for countries. There are exceptions, however. EG, if one country implies or states threats against anotherhink it's perfectly cool for the threatened country to investigate if the threats are hollow or not. If they aren't hollow, they should put on their own show of force as a warning.
Countries should act like the people they are made of unless it's harmful to others.

 

[Machjo]

If my neighbor beats his kids, do I sit by and let it happen or get involved?

'Beats' or 'is beating'?

If he beats his kid but is not beating his kid at present, you call the police and keep an eye out for him, and let the appropriate authorities deal with it. If you mean 'is beating', then and only then would I say you have a right to defend him in accordance with the law.

Now those last few words in bold are important. It's not up to you to decide how the word 'beat' is to be defined. If he's beating his kid according to the legal definition of the word, then yes, you intervene in accordance with the law and use whatever force required in conformity with the law.

The same could apply to countries. If a country is in violation of international laws, then it is dealt with in accordance with international laws. If we don't like the laws, we try to change them, but abide by them in the mean time.

 

[countryboy]

I guess my first question would be, why would anyone want to invade Canada? Next would be, who in their right mind would invade China? Iraq has already been invaded, so that question has already been answered.

As far as the appropriate authority to make the decision, my answer would be the UN, as far as I know.

Last question would be, why are you asking? Do you know something we don't??? :smile:

I guess my first question would be, why would anyone want to invade Canada?
Because of our resources...including water.
Why wouldn't they invade Canada?
Because the U.S. is next door

Agree that the UN is theoretically the right body, but it has a fair amount of dysfunctionality...too bad.

 

[Avro]

'Beats' or 'is beating'?

If he beats his kid but is not beating his kid at present, you call the police and keep an eye out for him, and let the appropriate authorities deal with it. If you mean 'is beating', then and only then would I say you have a right to defend him in accordance with the law.

Now those last few words in bold are important. It's not up to you to decide how the word 'beat' is to be defined. If he's beating his kid according to the legal definition of the word, then yes, you intervene in accordance with the law and use whatever force required in conformity with the law.

The same could apply to countries. If a country is in violation of international laws, then it is dealt with in accordance with international laws. If we don't like the laws, we try to change them, but abide by them in the mean time.

So now you have made a case to help people internationally.

Make up your mind.

 

[Machjo]

I guess my first question would be, why would anyone want to invade Canada? Next would be, who in their right mind would invade China? Iraq has already been invaded, so that question has already been answered.

As far as the appropriate authority to make the decision, my answer would be the UN, as far as I know.

Last question would be, why are you asking? Do you know something we don't??? :smile:

This is a spin-off from another thread about Harper criticizing China's human rights. The question is, who has the right to criticize China's human rights beyond its borders? Is it the appropriate international bodies? Is it anybody? Nobody? Of course if we believe that what applies to one applies to all, then the same question could be asked of Canada. Who has the right to criticize Canada from beyond our borders? Anybody? The appropriate international bodies? Nobody?

Of course in all fairness, the answer to one applies to all.

 

[Machjo]

I guess my first question would be, why would anyone want to invade Canada?
Because of our resources...including water.
Why wouldn't they invade Canada?
Because the U.S. is next door

Agree that the UN is theoretically the right body, but it has a fair amount of dysfunctionality...too bad.

Of course we could start another thread on how to improve the UN or replace it with a body with more teeth. But the principle still applies.

 

[L Gilbert]

I guess my first question would be, why would anyone want to invade Canada?
Because of our resources...including water.
Why wouldn't they invade Canada?
Because the U.S. is next door

Agree that the UN is theoretically the right body, but it has a fair amount of dysfunctionality...too bad.

Pretty much.

 

[Machjo]

So now you have made a case to help people internationally.

Make up your mind.

I've been consistent through and through. I've never, ever said we should not help people internationally. Prove that I have.

What I've been saying all along is that we should help them in accordance with international law. For example, Bush was right to go to the UN to ask help for Iraq. He was wrong in invading Iraq after the UN said no. The UN said yes to Afghanistan, and so he had the legal right to enter Afghanistan.

I don't know the details concerning Mulroney here, but certainly if he brought the pressure through the UN, then fine. If however, it was just him and a few other countries doing so on their own, then no.

If you're stealing a chocolate bar, I certainly have the legal right to make a citizen's arrest and call the police and hand you over to the police. I do not have the legal right to take you out back and put a bullet through your head.

I know the difference might be too subtle for some, but it is there. It's a matter of abiding by the law in an orderly society vs international anarchy.

 

[Machjo]

To take a current example, I think Harper would be well within his right to take up China's human rights issues through his ambassador at the UN General Assembly or through the world court, the UNHCR, or some other UN body.

As a diplomat though, he should not be going out and badmouthing China publicly. If I have a concern for how my neighbour treats his kids, I might call the authorities, but it's not up to me to publicly humiliate him in the local papers. If he goes to jail in the end, then the appropriate authorities will publicize what ought to be publicized with all due respect to the prisoner. If harper wants to bring up the issue privately with Hu or Jia Bao, that's fine. Publicly though, he ought o be more diplomatic and let the UN deal with it. If the UN decides on
sanctions, then fine, Canada abides by them with all due respect to China, but does not go out criticizing China on a regular basis.

Same applies of course with other countries and Canada's human rights.

 

[Avro]

I get it.

Can't say or do anything unless it goes through commitee.

 

[L Gilbert]

I get it.

Can't say or do anything unless it goes through commitee.

That's what happens anyway. Even Dumbya had the support of his cronies like Cheney before he ordered Iraq invaded.
You;d rather have country A, B, and C flipping out every time they perceive country D to be doing something A,B, and C don't like? What if D's people like it. Interfere on the hunch they don't like it anyway?

 

[Machjo]

I get it.

Can't say or do anything unless it goes through commitee.

You can do whatever you want as long as it's in accordance with international law. I suppose in that sense, Harper is well within his right to criticize China.

But I'd rather my elected politician go beyond that and recognize that abroad he should e more conservative and diplomatic too. In other words, criticize them behind closed doors face to face, and not out in public. If he wants to take further action, then do so through the UN General Assembly.

 

[L Gilbert]

Depends....how many more times are you going to go leave very important info out?

Your comment about South Africa was...."Such is life."

I sometimes take it for granted that after years of being here saying the same things periodically that fellow posters have paid attention to what my beliefs are. I think anyone that's been here a month and has read my posts could tell that I'm a humanitarian. And you've been here how long?:roll:
BTW, the "such is life" comment was sarcasm.

 

[Avro]

That's what happens anyway. Even Dumbya had the support of his cronies like Cheney before he ordered Iraq invaded.
You;d rather have country A, B, and C flipping out every time they perceive country D to be doing something A,B, and C don't like? What if D's people like it. Interfere on the hunch they don't like it anyway?

So the blacks in south africa liked it?

Did the student protesters in China like getting run over by tanks?

Now, in desperation you want to bring it to the severity of the offense. You can't see the diffrence between captivating an entire race to dancing naked in the streets?

Nice.

 

[weaselwords]

Whoever has the biggest stick