The reading spoke of sovereignty, an inherent right of each
state that protects it from foreign interference in domestic matters, as the
primary principle in international relations and the study of war and conflict.
The chapter studied for our previous discussion, when discussing collective
security, mentioned the perceived role of the international community to step
in when a state is seen to have ‘failed’ and is considered a threat through
becoming a haven for illegal activities.
I often write about dilemmas. In this scenario, we face
another case of conflicting priorities, each of whom potentially compromises
the other. In certain scenarios, to ensure the collective security of the
international system, to avoid an armed conflict (war) or to attempt to secure
closure of a previously contested war, state sovereignty must be violated. An example
of this was the American operation in Abbotabad in May 2011.
In the scope of international relations, the superbly high
stakes in scenarios of international conflict (whether they are armed, economic
or a war of ideas) mean that decision makers bear immense responsibilities on
their shoulders. Decisions made impact the course of history and millions of
lives. And in that endeavor, there are dilemmas. There are conflicting options
and choices to be made between multiple positive objectives, with some needing
to be compromised for the sake of others. There are priorities that must be set.
One such example is the trade-off between sovereignty and collective security,
a prime example of which, as mentioned above, was the elimination of Osama Bin
Laden.
No comments:
Post a Comment