Do the needs / rights of our compatriots take precedence over those who live beyond our state borders ?

Résumé du document

States keep hesitating between what they consider their moral duty towards the human beings of the whole world and the pursuit of their own interests. When President Clinton flies to China, his discourse shows both the care his nation takes about Human Rights and the fear that his going on too far on such subjects might threaten the US commercial interests in the potentially biggest market of the world

Extraits

[...] So, through society, people gain rights but also duties. The recent implosion of the USSR into separated nation-states and the reluctant wars in ex-Yugoslavia illustrate this will of feeling bound. If a group, like a State, shares the feeling of being a whole, it seems then quite rational that, without always attempting to oppose the others, that group will try to look for its own interest before seeking the one of people it feels less bound with. The idea of groups or States is also presented as necessary especially if they form small entities. [...]

[...] This way of acting is more likely to maximise utility at a global level and even prevent each state from wastes. So, even if states need to secure themselves, it has become quite obvious that peaceful agreements have first to be sought, which would benefit most of the time to both parties. What is more, a State willing to maximise its interest may enter federations, confederations or relations of co-operations. This kind of new relations between states reminds of Kant's description of the federations of states, these commonwealths of nations in the seventh proposition in the essay Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose[7]. [...]

[...] He prefers the notion of independent ones. The idea of a global institution seems actually very hypothetical since the more people would compose the community, the more clashes between opposite interests are likely to occur. And if we refer to Hegel's conception of the State, a people is far more likely to feel bound to the institutions if he can identify with that superior whole, and be sure that his interests are bound with the State's ones. What is more, if the state is to survive in the world, it has to act so as to preserve its own interests. [...]

[...] This motivation may occur through a faith that promises a reward after death, but what recompense does a philosophy based only on human beings offer? is not inevitably “homini lupus”, therefore should not the new challenge of mankind be to find grounds strong enough to act morally? Bibliography: NARDIN, Terry and MAPEL, David R. Traditons of international Ethics, Cambridge University Press, UK HAMPSHER-MONK, Ian, A History of Modern Political Tought, Blackwell Publisher, UK PELCZYNSKI, Z.A. Hegel's Political Problems and perspectives, Cambridge University Press, UK Kant's Political Writing, Cambridge Univresity Press, UK WIGHT, Martin, International Theory, The Three Traditions, Leicester University Press, UK WILLIAMS, Howard, International Relations and the Limits of Political Theory, Macmillan Press LTD, UK WILLIAMS, H., International Relations in Political Theory Niebuhr, Reinhold, Moral Man and Immoral Society, p Burke Edmund, Reflections on the Revolution France, Oxford world's classics, USA p PELCZYNSKI, Z.A. [...]

[...] So this will for some countries to promote the Human Rights around the world should not be considered as a form of ideological imperialism. The mere term of culture should not become a means to legitimate any behaviour. Promoting pluralism does not mean bearing everything. Some conducts such as the life-conditions imposed on women in Afghanistan or sexual traffic of children in Philippines remain unbearable. So states who try to defend Human Rights around the world cannot be accused of pursuing their own interest. [...]