What can we do to stop harming others?

It is part of human nature to care for those around us. One form of hurting people is intervening in their lives especially when they don't want us to. Often times we do not know that our actions hurt other people especially our loved ones. Most times, we are too occupied focusing on the small things that we tend to forget the big picture. We fail to take into account what we should be taking good care of, or simply what our actions portray to those around us. Similarly, the people we meet every single day do not notice that at times, they hurt us and in return, we feel bad without them knowing.

This question is complicated to answer. It may be answered by two main approaches: Political and legal approach. The political approach asks what can be realistically and legitimately done to stop people from hurting each other? What main political organizations must play a role in preventing others from harming the people? It's a dilemma about the limits of lawful authority during times of emergency (Orford, 2009). There is what we call the Metaphysical account of law which was shown when NATO intervened in Kosovo in the year 1999. Many argued that the intervention was illegal but legitimate. It is in this law that the universal law is taken into account because this gives legitimacy to intervention itself (Orford, 2009). There's what we call the realist account of law where it comprehends the law as an expression of the interests and desire of states. Here, global politics and humans are expected act naturally and instrumentally (Orford, 2009). She also mentions that "the realist approach privileges bilateral relations as the heart of international order". She states that the third type of account of law is the Decisionist account of law which states that the primary role of the state is to protect its people and it shall survive depending on the life of a sovereign who can guarantee the values and law of the state (Orford, 2009). Lastly, there is a Democratic account of law which centers on understanding relations and commitments between individuals in terms of politics. Here, the claims to authority shall always be seen and contestable.

Though there are several views regarding the law and how our political and legal law affects how we see the relations of each entity in the society, the question stills holds valid and unanswerable. In terms of politics, in order to be effective in preventing people from harming one another, we should think about the possible measures that are required of the community in terms of humanitarian processes (Orford, 2009). In other words, it is up to us to change these political queries into our own understanding. These views must be challenged and geared towards our own initiative to participate in molding the circumstances in our lives and those around us.

Now we move on to think about how we can properly stop people from hurting others, in terms of legal means. This raises the issue of legal authorities and legal protocols but in the end, it is still in us and what we can do that can only be determined and justified by us alone. Our decisions about protection must be informed by a lawful and political concept. The law we know must be based on a common political order, which requires respect and obligations from each member of the whole community (Orford, 2009). As such, we can only stop people from violence and trouble based on how we see their actions, intentions and perceptions. It is based on out own minds to be able to think critically and know right actions from wrong.

In the light of the emergence of globalization everywhere, we shall take into account the views from before and use these to become a more harmonized global world. Interventions and revolutions are harmful ways of containing order in a specific geographical area. Thus, we must put into mind how we can effectively and properly execute peace among individuals.

Source:
Orford, A. (2009). What can we do to stop harming others?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge