I've been thinking about Jules Verne's Captain Nemo. He really is an anti-war war star. His approach really begs a review of the ethics of "zero-tolerance collective security."
Specifically, this model applies to the following scenario: Country A attacks Country B in a manner which is voted to be "unjust" by a dedicated International Law jurying body.
Zero-tolerance collective security dictates that Country(ies) C who voted on this decision are compelled to go to war as peacekeepers in the scenario. Ideally, they halt the aggression from Country A to Country B.
Let's leave aside, for the sake of argument, the logistical nightmare and political aftershocks of such a policy.
What say you to the ethical implications?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment