Countires have been interfering in other countries affairs since the idea of a nation was first proposed. In the 21st century however, this inteference has greater consequences than ever before, particularly in matters of war. The retaliatory attacks on Syria by the USA, UK and France this week are just one example of countries becoming involved in another county's conflict.
When should a country step in to anothers war? When are governments morally obligated to take action against a country? Is there ever a moral obligation to take action? These questions split political parties ans governments across the globe. In the UK Jeremy Corben stated that "The government needs to act as a restraining influence in this crisis, not a camp follower". On the other side of politics Theresa May "says the government had to act urgently to deter the use of chemical weapons" (The Guardian).
The US government in contrast is prepared to take action against groups in other countries who are using weapons or tactics that and morally or legally wrong, without extended debate. "The United States continues to use all efforts available to hold those who use chemical weapons, in Syria and otherwise, accountable" - Department of State spokesman April 7th 2018
How far can countries go before they should be stopped? The Rwandan genocide and the actions of the Nazis before WWII are just two examples of atrocities that could have been prevented by the world.