Self interest and international hegemony.

International organizations often seek regime change for reasons, including political, economic and humanitarian factors. Here are some primary motivations, behind why international bodies may opt for regime change:

[Political]

[Economic]

[Humanitarian]

What I listed above is some of the most common reason and justification of why international establishment sometimes pushing for a regime change. Of course, Regime change does not come without responsibility. This responsibility is not merely political or moral, but legal.

It is consequently binding on the state or international organization that has undertaken such a mission. The responsibility entails a twofold obligation concerning administration of the territory while exercising control and ensuring that the successor regime thereafter will respect the rights of the population. These obligations extend beyond the formal text of the Hague and Geneva agreements relative to occupation. Any benefits to come out of these interventions should be weighed against the large costs that were imposed on the people living in these countries.

Remember that not everything noble is lawful; not everything noble and lawful is feasible; and not everything noble, lawful, and feasible is wise.

Athallah Nanda Septiansyah made very good remarks about the case. I will also add some below with some examples:

Sometimes the regime is so indolent that it basically changes itself by implosion- for example, during French Revolution, the Ancien Regime has fallen, because it was too preoccupied with it's own lavish being, financed by high taxes imposed on starving (because of crop failure and already high taxation levels, implemented because a lot of money was needed for financing overseas American Revolution) population, which had no political rights whatsoever. So when another elevation of prices of bread happened- which was what broke the camel's back- the revolution started and deposed the king, the nobility and the clergy. But let's not forget about cultural changes of that time- the years before French Revolution were the era of Enlightenment, when it's became trendy to criticize the organisation of society, the religion and the rulers. So when aforementioned revolution happened, the neighbors of France were firstly amused (especially England, which lost it's colonies with high potential (the States) partly due to the meddling of the French), but quickly became terrified due to the societal changes that were happening in France after the revolution and quickly mounted an international military coalition which intervened in boiling french state, which, after a couple of years, spent fighting with at least three regimes of France (internal coups, with the last made by Napoleon), made a forceful regime change in France (back to the monarchy in form of a regular kingdom (Napoleon made France an imperial state out of the republic- he crowned himself not as a king, but as the Emperor (Caesar)).

So, as we may see above, there were a few factors which, combined, ended in regime change:

But we must remember that political decisions on every level (yes, even on the top) are being made by HUMANS, which have their own temperament, very own personal outlook of the world, shaped by their upbringing and living in a given culture and society, they have their favorite things to do and have, but also have their own prejudices, their insecurities, their phobias etc.

Also, we must not forget that in the older times (or at least in most of them), the given land / state (and it's inhabitants) was a private property of it's ruler(s), who was often represented as a god (or being chosen by the god(s)) (with a few exceptions- for example Athenian democracy (but it also had it's degenerate form- a tyranny)). That property was then used to satisfy their personal needs (food, amenities, treasures, attractive mates, money, influence, feeling a sense of power and prestige). And I think (please be aware that next statements is my personal take on a subject and are not substantiated on any data or confirmed knowledge) that through the evolution of statehood and political participation of it's occupants, the concept of state-property of the ruler evolved to a concept of a state-property of it's inhabitants, who are just represented by the picked members (politicians, states(wo)men (those who actually pick these people are not so important in the end) of the given state-society elite. Those states(wo)men are then obliged (at least theoretically) to ensure the well-being of the state-possession of the ruled (minimally- not to make matters worse, on maximum - to increase / improve the desired elements of the state). Then they are being judged by those who they represent based on their performance in ruling the state. And if running the state requires disrupting (or outright destroying) another country? Then there come the rationalizations, based on the given society outlook- like 'Hey, that happens', 'It's their problem', 'THEY are the problem', 'If they were in our place they would do us the same' etc. And so it goes ever since the concept of the state was conceived.

And please remember that the international establishment is quite closely knitted group of persons who know each other. They have (I am writing now on present time- our time) their own, written and spoken, set of rules of behavior (International law), mutual interactions (diplomatic protocol) and spheres of influence. So, when one of them falls out of favor (for example by breaking the aforementioned rules- e.g. makes an incursion in another one's sphere of influence , then his/her state goes out of favor too (due to him/her being THE representation of a given state).

Also, the last 33 years was (and still is, but I think we are currently on the brink of establishment of a new, tri-polar political division of "our maps") the time of remodeling of world's political structure and thus each country's sphere of influence, due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and redirecting the policy of People's Republic of China towards the world and their own economy under Deng Xiaoping- those changes brought instability in their's respective client states, thus resulting in a sweep of regime changes throughout the Earth- due to those regimes losing the political, economical and sometimes military backbone provided by those big countries, plus creeping cultural and societal changes, politicization of population, revolutions and thus democratization (or, of course, the opposite- more tyrannical governments and outright genocides), irredentism, economic upheavals and so on. This was also the time of great unpredictability - one day's world elite's pupil rulers and countries were put on a pedestal and grossly supported with everything they needed, only to become world's foremost 'peril ' the next day- and this is due to the contextual changes in world's politics and economy (see Saddam Hussein's Iraq: ->before 1979 - peril, part of pan-Arabic socialist baathist movement, a danger to the Persian Gulf. Sanctioned by the West, supported by the USSR (due to Cold War's logic); ->after 1979 (the Iranian Islamic Revolution) - the paragon of stability and guardian of the Persian Gulf- diligently protects the region from the religiously fueled political insanity (and our oil supp 'nothing to see here')- Kennedy of the Middle East- sanctions lifted, support comes from both West (because the Americans lost their influence on Iran when Pahlavi was ousted from power) , and East (due to Iranian Tudeh party being thwarted by the revolutionaries, and revolted Iran being equally dangerous to the Soviet influence in the region); ->war ends in 1988, revolution contained to Iran itself, acceptable loss, time to go forward. -> 1991, Gulf War starts with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq (due to debts and (direct casus belli) illegal drilling of Iraqi's oil deposits by Kuwaitis) - PERIL OF THE WORLD, bandit state, 'they are murdering infants by dropping them out of the neonatal incubators!!1!!!! (false accusation as it turned out), sanctioned, UN resolution issued, international, very exotic by the standards of Cold War, military coalition established and deployed, Kuwait liberated, but unfortunately Hussein's regime didn't topple due to defeat in the war (case temporarily dropped, but don't worry-we will get back to it); ->2003- invasion of Iraq due to false accusations (again!) of manufacturing WMDs and supporting and harboring terrorists, regime changed, country devolved into complete chaos, but now, with Saddam's gone, Iraq are A-alright (the fate and well-being of people living there are actually non-important).

My compatriot, Florian Znaniecki, a early XXth century sociologist, developed a quite interesting typology of people from the perspective of our discussion. He established in his theory, that people can be divided into four types- 1) a people of work, 2) a people of good-upbringing, 3) a people of play, 4) a people-deviants. People of the first type are being socialized as a children by working together with their parents from early age, and thus they put work above all else. People of second type are being socialized in controlled environments only supervised by their guardians, where they're being prepared for conducting roles of adults in make-believe situations- they are basically being prepared to life theoretically. They put their manners and good, proper conduct above all else. And now we are getting to the core of our interests in this theory- people of play. They are being socialized by ->other children

Dear Tomasz Wojciechowski Athallah Nanda Septiansyah and Feng Frederic Deng

Thanks a lot for your useful comments.

Regards,

M.Rashid

You're welcome, Mr. Radshid. Have a good day and a prolific acedemic carrer.

Best Regards,

Tomasz Wojciechowski

Les institutions internationales poursuivent des objectifs d'intérêts communs. A partir du moment où un régime politique s'écartent du contrat fondateur, de ses objectifs, il peut arriver que l'institution internationale appuie les opposants, les populations, les militaires même pour préserver l'intérêt de l'institution.il peut arriver qu'un Etat partage les positions d'un Etat qui est contraire à celle des pays dominants dans une institution, dans ce cas de figure, les pays puissants peuvent organiser le renversement des dirigeants acquis à cet État. Une institution ne peut militer à l'encontre d'un régime qui respecte ses engagements politiques, qui respectent les droits de l'homme et des populations.