In order to support my point of view, I will give importance to the reasons of why rulers appeal to categorical imperative when making foreign policy, so I have two reasons for this. One of them is that states depend on each other in economically and politically. Thus, in order to provide this stability which means that continue to stay among other states, states should act through the principles of categorical imperative which are universally valid, good intention and never using people or other states as means to end. The second reason is that if rulers appeal to categorical imperative when making foreign policy decisions, the world can be more peaceful. Since, wars and conflicts which are caused by bad intention, using other people or states as means for gaining advantages which are not universally valid can be hindered by categorical imperatives.
The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights.
The source reflects a perspective that supports illiberalism. It suggests that the government must protect its citizens in time of crisis but it mentions that in times of stability people will be free from unnecessary government intervention. It does not however suggest that people should be free from unnecessary government intervention in times of crisis. The illiberal view opposing the principles of liberalism, suggests that governments should use unnecessary intervention in times of crisis and so does the source (indirectly as mentioned above). But who can confirm that the government will only intervene and suspend civil liberties in times of crisis?
With all of the war and conflict going on in the world, finding a way to resolve it is the dream. The moment a way to prevent these conflicts arises, the best thing to do is take it. Though there are many benefits that come with the Theory of Conflict Prevention, the benefits do not outweigh the consequences felt at the end. These consequences may not affect the countries involved in the supply chain, but it will affect others. In brief I believe that perks of being part of a supply chain does not amount to the benefits of being treated as a human being with rights.
International relations initially had marginal consideration for morality concerning the actions of sovereign states. The main principals of international relations such as realism had inhospitable consideration for ethical Judgments. Realists believe that morality is a relatively unimportant and is only understood in terms of national interest and power. Therefore from a realist perspective, power is the centrifugal force in dictating state behavior. However, this does not mean that there is absolutely no place for ethical reflection in the study of international relations.
Power combined with perspective taking results in constructive and integrative negotiation. When considering others perspective or opinions, individuals with more power has a protective shield against the traitorous behaviour from other disputants . This means powerful negotiators are not easily manipulated or affected by their disputants anger or threats posed. As I mentioned before individual with more power is less likely to be influenced by opponents emotions but identifies only their interests in bargaining and the total desired outcome. Therefore power inversely affect the negotiator’s perspective taking but it also immunizes him/her from disputants angry or threatening tactics.
Should the constitution then continue to protect the terrorist against such torture? The author said that millions of lives outweigh constitutionality. Surely it is not justiable for a constitution to uphold the rights of a terrorist, but at the expense of the thousands that, too, holds the right to live never asked to be placed in such danger. Again, the moral of one's action must be reviewed in such cases. On a personal note, I feel that to sacrifice one that is convicted, in exchanged for the many innocents, is a permissible one.
We do not live in a "John Lennon" world. We can imagine it, but to make it reality is an impossibility and our stance on war should reflect this impossibility. A country cannot survive alone on an optimistic look at things. Sometimes action is necessary. Sometimes the lives of many must be sacrificed to preserve a nation.
However, trying to cover the bases of every single level of analysis is not a theory 's intention. It is supposed to be specific and trying to appeal to every level would be near impossible; that is why we have multiple theories to explain international relations. Theories are there to break down each level of analysis. Lastly, theories may seem to have useless information if not analyzed carefully. Detailed information is important and can be significantly useful, but those details could also be unnecessary depending on what an
The government would not be doing this if they were in full confidence of their actions. If they had a good conscious they would not have to worry about the information released as they know that what they are doing in reality is well intentioned. Overall, Censorship should have never been taken into consideration and is not the ethical nor right way to lead a country due to its lack of integrity. History has shown that this type of way is very superficial and not sustainable. This unsustainability is caused by a lack of integrity and an inability from the government to manage their citizens with confidence and respect.