Circumstancesunder which it is Not Advisable to Use Military in Another Country
Acountry’s decision on whether its military should enter other soilsis one of the most crucial challenges. Military ethics believes inthe use of these powers in instances where the vital interests oftheir home country are at a threat. However, there have been greatdebates on the issues that should be looked at as constituting thecritical and the most significant aspects of a nation’s interests.As a matter of fact, a greater percentage of the public believes thatthe attack of b one nation’s army on another country’s soil is anaspect of threatening the vital interests of the attacked economy.Further, one of the greatest unethical issues in military attacksconsidered as a threat to the interests of another economy emanate ininstances where another country decides to attack another economy ithad come into a security agreement with (Lobell,Ripsman, Taliaferro, J. (Eds) 2009).In most cases, international disagreements emerge when a particulareconomy decides to cut the free flow of precious commodities into theother country. While these situations may not pose immediate directeffects on the stability of the deprived economy, they may havelong-term effects and justify military interventions from otherneighboring economies. For instance, when a country within a regionis faced with security issues, other nations may opt for militaryinterventions as a way of curbing the spillover effects of theinsecurity cases in their boundaries. This paper looks at theinstances in which military interventions need not be allowed inother countries with emphasis on the principles of deontologicaltheories of ethics and morality.
Useof Force in Military Interventions
Whilethe phenomenon of military interventions on other soils has existedfor a long time now, there are boundaries to these interventionsparticularly the use of force. Military interventions may not bepermitted if they pose security threats and threats of morality onthe nation being attacked (Alder-Nissen & Pouliot, 2014). Thebasic principle of morality has it that all human beings have rightswhich should not be looked at based on the basis of their communitiesbut because they belong to the endless human community. Therefore,this principle is neither driven by customs nor positive law. Sincethere is a clear link between what needs to be intervened and theaspects of life that call for intervention, the .principles ofmorality play a crucial role in laying a moral base for inter-countryinterventions. However, there is no need for military intervention ifit is intended to undermine the freedoms of the inhabitants ofanother nation. Further, philosophers like J.S Mills who were notgreat proponents of intervention as a way of settling inter-countrychaos argued that it went a long way in undermining the crucialreasons for the nation’s struggle for liberty. For instance, theRwandan military interventions during the genocide period saw a lotof helpless people being killed (Lobell,Ripsman, Taliaferro, J. (Eds) 2009).As a matter of fact, the war left close to 1 million Rwandansmurdered because of their inability to fight for their freedoms.
MilitaryThreats on Foreign Soils
Militaryinterventions should not be permitted in instances where they posethreats to human security and efficient administration of justice.The United Nations goes to record as one of the internationalorganizations with the powers of ensuring high levels of humansecurity and international administration of justice. However, itsefforts in dealing with humanitarian intervention aspects ofmilitaristic origin have proven futile in a number of instances.There are instances where military interventions may be justifiedparticularly if there is evidence of an excessive violation of humanrights (Alder-Nissen & Pouliot, 2014). However, there are severalcases where countries use their sophisticated military powers toundermine other economies. The scant support for militaristichumanitarian interventions in international law could be looked atbased on its deliberate nature of a military of a country enteringinto other soils without the consent of the host to instill changesin the levels of the country’s functions, policies, and goals.
NormativeAspects of Life
Thegreatest challenge of military interventions in foreign countriesemanates from the current substantive deviations towards normativeaspects of life. As a matter of fact, recent occurrences ininternational relations which uphold high levels of realism andstate-centric ideologies have been great opponents of militaryinterventions. Many avenues have argued that politically instigatedmilitary interventions are driven by greed and the struggle for poweras opposed to giving aid by amicable means. As a matter of fact,states are driven by selfish interests in their move to intervenewhile putting their vital requirements at the forefront. Forinstance, a number of analysts on international security andinternational law have argued that powerful states on the globe werebehind the conception of the Darfur war for the Chinese and theRussian governments to establish a site for showcasing theirpolitical and military powers. Despite this, the greatest intentionof these powerful states was to deprive the oil-rich Sudanesegovernment of its powers and therefore its vital resources(Alder-Nissen & Pouliot, 2014). In most cases, countries releasetheir military men into other soils as a way of looking for agenciesof benefiting themselves.
Thedeontological theory is founded on the principles of fulfilling setobligations as a way of obeying absolute moral laws and requirements.In this case, the deontological perspective associates duties andresponsibilities to moral obligations (Kant, 2008). By implication,it is a moral requirement for human beings to fulfill (or not tofulfill) certain roles as a way of upholding to the set rules andlaws. The extents to which a moral rule is looked at as being rightor wrong is determined by applying some levels of independence on itslevels of consciousness, happiness and the levels of pleasureattributed while abiding by that rule.
Thereare instances in life where fulfilling our duties may not do anymoral good to the people in our surroundings. For instance, inancient days, a member of antislavery movements was totally againstslave trade with the argument that it posed great harm to the slaves.This was despite the fact that the slave traders enjoyed a lot ofeconomic benefits from this trade. While the proponents ofteleological theory would argue that slave trade should be encouragedbecause of its positive economic impacts on the people involved,morality looks at a human being as a great treasure which needs notto be traded (Kant, 2008). Based on the deontologists` perspectives,moral rights and wrongs need not be looked at based on the extents ofpleasures and pains caused by other parties. Putting militaristicinterventions into perspective, it is true based on the discussion ofthis paper that these interventions cause a lot of conflicts on themoralities of the inhabitants of the host countries. This isparticularly if they are driven by selfish interests and greed.
Whilethe deontological theory put a lot of emphasis on morality, there areinstances where an action needs not to be judged but the reasonsbehind the actions. Militaristic attacks may be justified ininstances where members of the army are instructed to fulfill theirduties. In this case, the interests of their home country are put atthe forefront.
Militaristicinterventions in foreign soils have caused a lot of political chaosin host countries. This could be attributed to the fact thatintervening countries are driven by selfish interests and malice. Thedeontological theory puts a lot of emphasis on sober morality inthese interventions.
Adler-Nissen,R., & Pouliot, V. (2014). Power in practice: Negotiating theinternational intervention in Libya. Europeanjournal of international relations,20(4),889-911.
Kant,I. (2008). Groundworkof the Metaphysics of Morals.Retrieved fromhttp://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf
Lobell,S. E., Ripsman, N. M., Taliaferro, J. W. (Eds) (2009).Neoclassicalrealism, the State, and Foreign Policy. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press