"He is, however, continuing to assert that the United States ought to acquire ownership of the self-governing territory. Trump has repeatedly raised the possibility of using military action, against both Greenland and Canada. These threats were often taken as fanciful. The fact that he has, successfully, used military force to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power has lent some plausibility to these threats."
"Crucially, these military possibilities have been justified almost exclusively with reference to what Trump's administration sees as America's national interests. Anything short of ownership in the case of Greenland, the president has emphasized, would fail to adequately protect American interests. As a political philosopher concerned with the moral analysis of international relations, I am deeply troubled by this vision of warfare - and by the moral justifications used to legitimize the making of war."
President Trump signaled temporary willingness to abandon a military threat to seize Greenland, stating a preference for negotiation, while still insisting the United States should acquire the territory. He has repeatedly suggested possible military action against Greenland and Canada, and past U.S. military action to remove Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro has increased credibility for those threats. The administration frames potential military measures primarily in terms of American national interests, arguing ownership is necessary to protect those interests. That framing repudiates the Nuremberg-era legal principle that military force cannot be justified solely by national self-interest and contrasts with the Kellogg-Briand Pact prohibition on war for national advantage.
Read at The Conversation
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]