[toast0]

> Sorry but I have to call it what it is: Bullshit. You do not invade a Sovereign Country. Period. No "consensus" can justify the invasion. You just don't invade. If the Government calls for help, then and only then you have a right to go help. If it is a Civil War, you let the people decide. You do not interfere. This is the rules-based order that the West keeps thrusting on everyone else. But the West doesn't follow itself. Hypocritical.

I don't think that's a good summary of the rules.

It's permissable to invade soverign states for lots of reasons.

a) if the UN Security Council says it's ok, it's ok

b) if there's a real civil war or genocide going on, it's usually fine to invade to 'keep the peace', and the occupiers often get to choose who gets to control after. You're supposed to ask the UN Security Council, and it's nice to wear the UN uniforms, but whatevs.

c) if the soverign nation is invading others without Security Council approval, it's fair game to be invaded; but caution is advised, because it could trigger a larger conflict. Again, it's best to get Security Council approval, but not really needed. Regular border skirmishes don't count; has to be a real invasion to trigger a responsive invasion, not just planting a flag on an island or fifty feet from the consensus border.

d) It's always permissable to provide advice and training to armed guerrilas (or the current government); and to arm them if necessary. If neccesarry, you can do d, until it triggers the conditions for b, and it's permissable.

[throwaway_434]

None of the points you mentioned are present in any Charter/Convention which Countries signed up to when joining the United Nations. None of it is "permissible".

The only time it is "permissible" is when you have been directly attacked by a Country or you have actionable intelligence that your Country will be threatened.

Everything else is vague. What you call as genocide might be a revolution for someone else. What you call terrorism might be a fight for independence for someone else.

I really feel we need to respect the territorial boundaries of all countries. Doesn't matter if it is Russia, China, India, USA or any European country. Territorial integrity is sacrosanct.

But as you pointed out, every major power, including the UNSC, has violated territorial integrity of various countries on frivolous grounds. I guess it ultimately boils down to human nature: to break and twist rules and definitions to justify invasions/genocide/terrorism etc. The hypocrisy is only when one side is whitewashed while other side is castigated. Depending on which camp you are, you are either declared a Hero or a Villain. But at the end of the day, both sides are doing the same thing: Killing human beings, destroying the environment and causing untold suffering of millions of living creatures.

[toast0]

> None of the points you mentioned are present in any Charter/Convention which Countries signed up to when joining the United Nations. None of it is "permissible".

Article 1, section 1 is

> To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

Which to me seems to suggest consensus measures to 'remove threats to the peace' and 'suppression of acts of aggression', or in other words, if the UN Security Council says it's cool, it's cool.

If you read further, article 42 explicitly authorizes use of force as may be necessary:

> Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

> Everything else is vague. What you call as genocide might be a revolution for someone else. What you call terrorism might be a fight for independence for someone else.

Yeah, but good luck codifying anything of that nature. You can take an absolutist stance and say even in such times, the territorial integrity is paramount. Or you could say, you can only violate territorial integrity if you're invited in --- but then it becomes a question of who is qualified to invite. Should a genocide be permitted because it's done by the lawful government of the territory? (I mean, sometimes they are; I'm not arguing that past history of intervention or non-intervention was perfect or even good, just that it followed something like rules)

That's why it's best if you can get UNSC sign off on invasions, because then it's clear it was permissible. But, if you go in, claiming it's justified and the world community disagrees with you, they can go to the UNSC to repremand you (unless you're one of the permanent members, in which case you're beyond reproof, whoops).