In a paragraph of 5–7 sentences, choose two of the nations involved in the conflict
and critique their actions. Are their actions justified or unjustified? Legal or illegal?
Moral or immoral? How does the evidence in your sources support your critique?
Due to the lack of specificity regarding the conflict in your question, I will use a general example. Let's consider the hypothetical conflict between two nations, Nation A and Nation B, where Nation A has launched a preemptive strike against Nation B, claiming a threat to national security due to alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Nation B, on the other hand, claims that its WMD program is purely defensive and accuses Nation A of aggression.
Critiquing the actions of Nation A, their preemptive strike could be seen as unjustified and illegal if there was no imminent threat and if the action was not sanctioned by an appropriate international body, such as the United Nations Security Council. The moral stance of preemptive self-defense is highly contentious, especially if the evidence of the threat is unsubstantiated or if diplomatic avenues were not exhausted. Similarly, Nation B's actions might be deemed unjustified and illegal if it is found to be in violation of international disarmament treaties or if it was deceitful about the nature of its WMD program.
The evidence from sources such as intelligence reports, international observers, and whistle-blowers would be crucial in determining the legality and morality of both nations' actions. If independent verification confirmed Nation A’s claims regarding the immediate threat posed by Nation B, it could potentially justify Nation A's actions to some extent, though legality would still rest on adherence to international law. If, however, the evidence suggested that Nation B's WMD program was not an offensive threat, this would undermine Nation A's justification for a preemptive strike and cast their actions in a more negative moral and legal light. The condemnation or support from the international community, based on objective evidence, would also significantly affect the perception and judgment of the actions taken by both nations.