With international affairs, isn’t stopping the aggression the main priority? That is stopping the death and suffering of humans on both sides? Sure it would be good to punish the aggressors rather than the retaliators but if that doesn’t stop the fighting it just means more people are dying.
Also there is a difference between the adult and the child, the adult relies on the law of the land for retaliation the child takes it upon himself when he continues the fight. That is the child is a vigilante, and he may punish disproportionately e.g. breaking a leg for a dead leg.
There is open war, and then there are human rights abuses on the quiet. If one side is fighting against another that wants to impose those abuses upon them, then enforcing a truce and “a rule of law” and “whoever currently holds the territory gets to keep it” can lead to WORSE outcomes than continuing the war, if only because the resources that were previously invested in keeping the hostile army away can now be reinvested into internal repression.
Rather similar to a bullied child fighting to take back their possessions that a bully took away—adults who don’t care about that, say it’s all “he said she said” and only want to stop the fight, factually cement the transfer of property.
With international affairs, isn’t stopping the aggression the main priority? That is stopping the death and suffering of humans on both sides? Sure it would be good to punish the aggressors rather than the retaliators but if that doesn’t stop the fighting it just means more people are dying.
Also there is a difference between the adult and the child, the adult relies on the law of the land for retaliation the child takes it upon himself when he continues the fight. That is the child is a vigilante, and he may punish disproportionately e.g. breaking a leg for a dead leg.
There is open war, and then there are human rights abuses on the quiet. If one side is fighting against another that wants to impose those abuses upon them, then enforcing a truce and “a rule of law” and “whoever currently holds the territory gets to keep it” can lead to WORSE outcomes than continuing the war, if only because the resources that were previously invested in keeping the hostile army away can now be reinvested into internal repression.
Rather similar to a bullied child fighting to take back their possessions that a bully took away—adults who don’t care about that, say it’s all “he said she said” and only want to stop the fight, factually cement the transfer of property.