The Criminal Assertions of a Nation-State

Introduction

Since the collapse of the Roman Empire there has been general assertions of criminal behaviors by nation-states, both internally and externally (Dunn, 1999; Mazish, 2006).  The borders that have been crafted by world leaders has the ability to present cultural conflicts and, in turn, cause criminal activities that are placed upon the individuals within the identified boundaries (Nash, Crabtree, & Dunn, 2000; Stearns, 2010).  In many cases, the assertions attack the geographical landmarks on a general level and transpire into individual assumptions about a particular group of people.  Once more, this happens both internally and externally by nation-states.  This is seen when political leaders deliver speeches about foreign counterparts participating in activities that are not considered to be acceptable, and the communication from the public figure shapes the beliefs of citizens in their country as well as in individuals across the globe.  For example, when President Trump refers to sanctions that ought to be placed on North Korea he is criminalizing an entire country for its perceived negative actions by a few of its leaders (Hornsey, Gallois, & Duck, 2008; Osnos, 2018).  These types of referrals assume that landmarks are guilty of behaviors and transitions into individual perceptions from the United States believing that citizens from a foreign country condone the perceived negative actions and, in turn, criminalizes them as well – this is done without communicating with citizens from the criminalized country.  The same example can be implemented into how foreign citizens in external countries view the disdain that has been projected.  Thus, nation-states assert criminal thinking to other areas and even permeate ill-conceived thinking within its boundaries.  The idea that nation-states can forge general thinking is outlandish, yet it has been occurring for thousands of years in human history.

As the political-criminal assertions are manifested, coupled with the understanding that there is global community, the ideas about a particular country spread into governmental projections in international formats and cause global consensus about ideations on how to address the projections that caused the global consensus about a specific nation-state (Cornwall & Brock, 2005; Zúborová, 2015).  Because of the global consensus of reactive sanctions, ordinary citizens take on the labels given by the world leaders.  Turmoil, stress, bigotry, and outright prejudices are formed because of this (Altheide, 1997; Lewis, 2012).  Blind support is also given in many cases because of false patriotism and the conceptions about human rights on a domestic and international level (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008).  That is, citizens praise the actions by world leaders without much insight about the matters that have been presented, as well as condone general criminal labels about a culture without much knowledge about the people who make up the culture that is being criticized (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008).   

With this being stated, this essay will present how nation-states formulate deviant behaviors that are accepted by other nation-states and the citizens within the boundaries of the criticizing countries, the specific misconceptions of false pride that eventually support the criminal behaviors of world leaders and external nations, and discuss how political desires of world leaders causes global chaos, war, and inhumane actions against innocent people.  Lastly, references and examples will be implemented in order to allow the reader to glean the premise of this essay and comprehend the policy implications that should be implemented without having skeptical thoughts about the content within this essay. 

The External and Internal Formulating of Criminal Assertions by Nation-States

Deviancy is used by political leaders to justify sanctions and violence against foreign nations.  These internal assertions have many justifications, but political gain is the primary variable why leaders initiate campaigns against foreign adversaries – or create adversaries (Jackson, 2004; Skoll, 2010).  Internal formulations are noticed all throughout human history.  Early on, many nation-states sought to increase their borders and to reap the resources that other lands utilized for sustainment.  As history progressed, these intrusions became subtler due to the advent of human rights and political attrition that is common in our world today.  More specifically, after World War Two it was considered to be barbaric to assault another nation-state for the personal gain and domestic tranquility of a country.  The horrible activities of the Third Reich caused national leaders to be more careful with their speeches, foreign affairs, and decision-making about the use of violence.  Internal advents of criminal assertions on external nation-states began to be shaped through economics, and political leaders used ideas of employment, higher taxes, and family concerns to criminalize foreign countries and to justify actions taken to make the citizens in their country patriotic towards the claims that were being conveyed (Jackson, 2004; Skoll, 2010).  For example, the United States’ current trade war with China serves as a justification to be prejudiced against Chinese culture, the country’s politics, and Chinese people domestically and abroad (Jackson, 2004; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010; Swanson & Bradsher, 2018).  The concept of delivering negative depictions about increased prices for products causes social turmoil internally – and externally – and Americans are left with the idea that because of the Chinese their prosperity will diminish.  Criminal assertions can also be described with the comprehension of demonization and judicial conduct that caters to the political conveyances that are abundant in the above-mentioned example. 

Moreover, internal criminal assertions by nation-states manifest from individual desires to be viewed as righteous.  This concept is similar to the scare tactics that are used to justify foreign sanctions and to instill patriotism on a general level; however, the individuality of the political leader who ascertains a movement against another country has roots in personality traits that many psychologists and psychiatrists have identified in their studies (Jackson, 2004; Post, 1986; Skoll, 2010).  For instance, narcissism tends to be the primary causation of such chaos for these leaders, and with the power and authority that is desired – as well as already attained – the inability to utilize authentic diplomacy is disregarded by these narcissistic leaders because of the personal desires to be liked by many people in the short-term and long-term and their self-generated thoughts about how great they are or should be (Cheliotis, 2011; Post, 1986).  Power retention is also very relevant in these decision-making processes and how nation-states perform criminal assertions (Cheliotis, 2011; Post, 1986).  Second to this, internal criminal assertions by nation-states are construed because of anti-social and borderline personality traits by world leaders.  Specifically, anti-social behavior is exhibited when world leaders disregard the rights of others, lack empathy about the discourses and residual effects of decision-making, praise themselves for taking action or no action on a particular issue, and are manipulative and impulsive in their activities that radiate from their authority – especially toward external entities and nation-states (Cheliotis, 2011; Post, 1986; Sharp & Sieswerda, 2013).  For example, the callous military tactics that are used in territories that are suggested to be harboring terrorism is an ideal illustration.  The idea of using less violent actions and the casualties that happen is the main premise of this example for anti-social behaviors by world leaders.  Real-life examples can be delivered by observing bombings, chemical warfare, and additional military practices in the Middle East (Maynes, 1998; Sullivan & Shear, 2018).  Most recently, the chemical warfare and bombings in Syria serves as an example of internal causations of criminalizing a nation-state and how the internalizations come to light (Cheliotis, 2011; Maynes, 1998; Post, 1986; Sullivan & Shear, 2018).  Innocent people are attacked and criminalized because of the unusual desires to cause mass harm, and there may be further harm if military action is taken by external countries, that is.  Pedagogy, unfortunately, takes place because of this.   

As aforementioned, borderline personality traits are apparent in discourses described above.  In particular, abrupt mood swings, inability to have stable relationships in both domestic and global mechanisms, self-harm, and identity are all found within the decision-making processes of world leaders that ascertain internal exertions that, in turn, criminalize nation-states on a general and specific level (Cheliotis, 2011; Post, 1986; Sharp & Sieswerda, 2013).  Withal, these defects serve as a catalyst for the subjugation of media and citizen-based perceptions that are accumulated via the depictions that are projected into a culture – propaganda, in other words.  Nonetheless, borderline personality disorder within world leaders is exhibited when they change discourse in policy adherence that is conjured prior to an event, dismiss foreign allies and expectations and create new enemies in the world, cause social turmoil that makes them appear self-defeating and hypocritical, and use the criminalization as an identity that is comprehended by themselves, their peers, and the public (Cheliotis, 2011; Post, 1986; Sharp & Sieswerda, 2013).  More specifically on the concept of identity, world leaders routinely adjust to events and social issues that arise and fail to maintain a stable identification of who they are and what they represent (Cheliotis, 2011; Post, 1986; Sharp & Sieswerda, 2013).  This is noticed when world leaders change their opinions on an issue, deviate from campaign strategies, and use the criminal assertions of a nation-state to justify the lack of identity that they once proclaimed (Cheliotis, 2011; Post, 1986; Sharp & Sieswerda, 2013).  The evolution of a political leader is one thing, yet when it includes criminal assertions towards an external nation-state and has no association with what they once proclaimed it can be inferred that the individual lacks a stable identity of themselves and uses political issues to circumvent the descriptions and feelings of identity that they, again, proclaimed in previous periods of their lives.  

External formulations of criminal assertions upon a nation-state can be done without political associations or the depictions that are given to individuals by government leaders (Altheide, 1997; Farrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010).  That is, the sheer presence of an organization or symbol in an environment has the ability to project criminal assertions on an entire nation and the individuals within the country’s borders.  To be more precise, subjective and objective realities have the power to persuade individuals to believe something given their understanding of an organization, symbol, or environment.  These understandings are rooted with cultural experiences and, in turn, do have the ability to label a nation-state and individuals within the country in a criminal manner (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010).  For instance, the presence of the United Nations, non-profit organizations, anti-government flags and artwork, statues, and memorials or shrines allow perceptions to be forged by individuals without any direct communication about the environment and the circumstances that are unfolding in an area.  Biased interpretations exist because of the conceptions and misconceptions about the above-mentioned materials and the life experiences by the individual participating in the observing (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010).  In addition to this, criminal assertions take place because of the cultural elements that are viewed as odd by external parties.  Such as, seeing different behaviors that are not common in the individuals’ livelihood and the anxiety that manifests from these observations causes deviant perceptions that are placed on entire regions and the people who reside within the jurisdictions (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010).  In sum, cultural conflicts, symbols, and presences of entities – as seen in the media – foster criminal assertions on entire nation-states because of the fear of unknown activities and abnormal processes according to the observer (Altheide, 1997; Farrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010). 

Social Status and Criminal Assertions on Nation-States

Social elites are responsible for delivering criminal assertions and the comprehension of the consensus of the global capitalism structure is the primary mechanism that is utilized to assert criminal ideations on nation-states from external parties (Altheide, 1997; Gidron & Hall, 2017; Skoll, 2010).  The common misunderstanding that the media is responsible for this needs to be briefly discussed.  That is, the media depictions are not under complete control by the social elites and simply serve as entities that depict images and situations for others to see.  In many social scientific postulations – especially critical scholarship – the media is viewed as the main culprit for criminal assertions and culture biases.  This is untrue in the understanding of criminal assertions by world leaders and the deviant assumptions that are placed on entire countries.  The media devices, in the delivered philosophy in this essay, are simply conduits that convey the images and scenarios that are being attacked by world leaders.  Moreover, once these images are broadcasted into a society it is the individual and their cultural understandings of themselves and externalities that cater to the world leaders’ assertions of criminal and deviant behaviors by and in a nation-state. 

Social status comes into effect because the world leaders can only coalesce with each other to dictate which assertions will be conveyed and to manufacture the practices to assert the criminalization (Altheide, 1997; Gidron & Hall, 2017; Skoll, 2010).  It is the laypeople that are responsible for meting out the criminal assertions that the world leaders configure (Altheide, 1997; Skoll, 2010).  This is to be understood not only with military or law enforcement operations, but with a massive consumption and projection of individuality by ordinary people.  More precisely, criminal assertions that are depicted by world leaders and the media have the ability to cause thinking and behaviors because of the selection of images and notions that are simultaneously delivered by the configured images (Altheide, 1997; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010; Young, Rebbellon, Barnes, & Weerman, 2014).  Common people are responsible for carrying out the beliefs and accusations that world leaders create (Altheide, 1997; Skoll, 2010).  With this being stated, factual evidence is not always perverted.  Meaning that realistic events that are depicted still make their way into a culture and, in turn, cause the individual to think about the images and react because of their cultural norms, expectations of normalcy, and desire to rectify behaviors that they feel are uncanny (Altheide, 1997; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010; Young, Rebbellon, Barnes, & Weerman, 2014). 

Moreover, social stratification has an influence on these thoughts and behaviors and does so without much insight into the comprehension of social classification being present.  In other words, laypeople abide by their morals and do so without telling themselves that they are being controlled or forced to react in a particular manner (Altheide, 1997; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010; Young, Rebbellon, Barnes, & Weerman, 2014).  This is not an understanding of conspiracy theories or governmental intrusions on the ability of free thought.  It is an understanding that the proletariat is free and has the ability to react however they feel fit, yet the reactive mechanisms are forged because of the actions by the social elites – world leaders, that is.  Criminal assertions about a nation-state are sustained and supported by the common people in the world and communication about these assertions becomes normalized because the desire of human beings to socialize; the world leaders are responsible for delivering these interactions into their cultures (Altheide, 1997; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010; Young, Rebbellon, Barnes, & Weerman, 2014).  Case in point, social structure shapes the criminal assertions on and from nation-states because of the massive numbers in the lower social classes and cognitive attributes of human beings, and the criminal assertions are guided by the inclinations that higher members in the world develop. 

Informal and Formal International Laws

Codified laws and informal regulations are also required to present when discussing the criminal assertions of a nation-state.  International consensus on moral conduct exists even when there is no specific regulation that can be identified (Stearns, 2010; Zúborová, 2015).  As the International Criminal Court was created to enforce global interpretations of behaviors that are deemed as inappropriate, there are still many activities that are unable to be regulated or enforced because of the development of nation-states and their proscribed norms (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008).  Constitutions, world power, and cultural norms allow world leaders to bypass many discrepancies that other nation-states deem as unethical and intrusive (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008).  Policing countries comes with resistance and hesitation because of the adherence and understanding of political correctness regarding cultural differences – yet it still occurs (Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Viano, Magallanes, & Bridel, 2003). 

Nevertheless, internal laws and informal rules are used by world leaders to justify criminal assertions on a country and to implement methods that would displace behaviors that are not in line with a country’s deliverance of acceptable behaviors (Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008; Stearns, 2010).  Moreover, this occurs in more than one fashion from a nation-state because of the previously mentioned global consensus of acceptable behaviors and desired political attrition.  That is, given the fact that there is a global community of super-powers that dictate the decency that is expected by all nation-states, any nation-state that does not have an adequate level of authority and does not fall in line with the consensus is viewed as an outsider and weaker in the norms and values that are accepted by the political rulers of industrialized nations (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008).  These outsider nation-states are not always participating in terrible actions that require communal attention by the elite nation-states. 

Formal and informal laws come into effect and are enforced through sanctions and ignoring the weaker nation-states and thus further alienates the nation-states that cannot acquire similar power or do not desire to enter the spectrum of normalcy that is delivered by the super-powers of the world.  Less powerful nation-states are criminalized because of their lack of industrialization and participation in the global market – even if a nation-state’s inability to do so is natural and not chosen by its civilians and government leaders (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008).  Ignoring commodities and other resources are disregarded through formal regulations and the wealth that nation-states can use to surpass a weaker country.  Simply put, because the less powerful nation has little to offer wealthier external nation-states they are criminalized and ignored because of the inability to return favors in a political and economic fashion (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008).  In sum, criminal assertions by nation-states happens because poorer countries are unable to produce rewards for the super-powers and the formal laws in the world serve as justification to further assert deviant labels on a less powerful country (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008; Stearns, 2010).    

     

Conformity in Political Beliefs and Criminal Assertions

Criminal assertions on nation-states also occurs because of minimal conformity to political attributes of a world leader and overall governmental structure that is not in line with external nation-states and their political leaders’ associations (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Stearns, 2010; Viano, Magallanes, & Bridel, 2003).  When a country does not support a world leader’s ideas and behaviors they are admonished in an international spotlight.  This is seen when dissenting political leaders are deemed as tyrannical and inept to global issues that are suggested to impact the world and, specifically, it is done by countries that have conventional democratic processes (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Stearns, 2010; Viano, Magallanes, & Bridel, 2003).  Not all of these assertions are placed on homicidal leaders who target their own citizens or participate in actions that deplete free will of citizens criticizing government-related functions.  That is, when a political leader does not adhere to requests or contribute to politically motivated campaigns he or she is deemed as farcical and incoherent to the inferred important issues that most others would participate in (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Stearns, 2010; Viano, Magallanes, & Bridel, 2003).  Criminalization occurs because retaliation manifests in many of the situations that are within the previously mentioned example.  For instance, lack of military, financial, and external political support all becomes evident when a political leader dismisses the decisions of another world leader.  This transitions into general labels on an entire nation-state, and thus demonizes the country and the individuals who reside within it (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Stearns, 2010; Viano, Magallanes, & Bridel, 2003). 

Atypical government structures cause nation-states to insult and chastise the countries that are functioning on an irregular basis.  Again, this is not only with countries that have dictatorships or extreme militarism.  Less powerful countries that do not implement wealthy politicians into their system, or nation-states that rely solely on popular votes and participate in protestations about governmental corruption, are viewed as less developed and archaic in their activities (Altheide, 1997; Andreas & Nadelman, 2006; Stearns, 2010; Viano, Magallanes, & Bridel, 2003).  Many smaller countries that operate on sincere citizen demands – and not an oligarchy – are criminalized by the world leaders on a general level.  Which, in turn, causes individuals in the criticizing nation-states to formulate biased opinions because of the prejudiced actions and depictions by their government leaders.  Criminalization takes shape in ethnic prejudices and disparaging attitudes about the atypical government structures and the citizens who live in the countries that have these irregularities (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010).  Once more, cultural conflicts contribute to criminalizing a country on a general level and, in turn, causes individuals to outcast an entire nation-state because of the norms and values that they are not used to (Altheide, 1997; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008; Rapping, 2003; Skoll, 2010). 

     

Policy Implications

World leaders who base their reputations on capitalistic schemes and faulty notions of human rights need to be quelled with devotion towards understanding external cultures and respecting outside ways of living.  Second to this, grouping up on countries that do not have typical democratic governance and wealth that other nation-states have acquired should be eliminated.  A global consensus about humane behaviors and proper governance is acceptable, yet the callous discourses and disenfranchising of nation-states that happens because of political dissent towards external leaders and countries can be ceased with developing international assistance programs for financial needs and learnings on cultural differences.  Training seminars can be taught at international summits by citizens of the nation-states and culture barriers can be diminished by proper learnings of the presentations. 

Tolerance for militaristic approaches should be shunned by the international community and when there is an incident that includes the requirement of military action it should include countries that are not as wealthy or typical in their governance with the status quo that currently exists.  Media depictions should include coverage on in-depth issues in other countries and show world leaders attempting to learn about other cultures and making allies, rather than disparaging broadcasts of world leaders making crude remarks about external nation-states and its leaders and citizens.  Regulating the media in this fashion would allow for peaceful transitions that produce efforts for all of humankind to respect each other.  Ordinary citizens would benefit from this as well, and the media depictions would cause more cultural awareness and better appreciations for people from other nation-states. 

Social stratification needs to be augmented so that citizens from all walks of life are able to live prosperously and not be labeled in a detrimental manner.  Capitalism does not have to include poor attitudes about people from lower economic and social backgrounds.  The idea that worth and value can have importance without celebrity-like statuses or economic affluence is the main idea within this policy implication.  World leaders should practice tolerance and appreciation for people from all social statuses in their jurisdictions and externally.  Elements of socialism would properly deter such callous activities on the global level.  Decreasing or increasing budgets so that basic human services and utilities are covered would transition into a capitalistic system that truly allows all citizens an equal opportunity for positive social mobility and, in turn, would produce positive benefits towards external cultures.  Peace and harmony can be established through better social classification systems.  The fact is that social status exists and, currently, it has negative repercussions for individuals when attempting to comprehend external cultures.  

       

References

Altheide, D.  (1997).  The news media, the problem frame, and the production of fear.  The

Sociological Quarterly, 38(4), 663-664. 

Andreas, P., & Nadelman, E.  (2006).  Policing the globe:  Criminalization and crime control

            in international relations.  New York:  Oxford University Press.

Cheliotis, L. K.  (2011).  Violence and narcissism: A Frommian perspective on destructiveness

under authoritarianism.  The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 36(4), 337-360. 

Cornwall, A., & Brock, K.  (2005).  What do Buzzwords do for development Policy? A critical

look at "participation", "empowerment", and "poverty reduction."  Third World

Quarterly, 26(7), 1043-1060. 

Dunn, R.  (1999). The new world history: A teacher's companion.  Bedford/St. Martins:    Macmillan.

Ferrell, J., Hayward, K., & Young, J.  (2008).  Cultural criminology:  An invitation.  London:

            SAGE. 

Gidron, N., & Hall, P. A.  (2017).  The politics of social status: Economic and cultural roots of

the populist right.  The British Journal of Sociology, 68(S1), S57-S84.

Hornsey, M. J., Gallois, C., & Duck, J. M.  (2008).  The intersection of communication and

            social psychology:  Points of contact and points of difference.  Journal of

            Communication, 58(4), 749-766. 

Jackson, J.  (2004).  Experience and expression:  Social and cultural significance in the fear of

            crime.  British Journal of Criminology, 44(6), 946-966.   

Lewis, C. S.  (2012).  Tough-on-crime tolerance: The cultural criminalization of bigotry in the

post-civil rights era.  Critical Criminology, 20(3), 275-292. 

Maynes, C. W. (1998).  The Middle East in the twenty-first century.  Middle East Journal, 52(1),

            9-16. 

Mazlish, B.  (2006).  The new global history.  New York:  Routledge.   

Nash, G., Crabtree, C., & Dunn, R.  (2000).  History on trial: Culture wars and the teaching of

the past (2^nd ed.).  New York:  Random House.

Osnos, E.  (2018, January 3).  Donald Trump and North Korea:  Big button, small president.

            The New Yorker.  Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/sections/news/donald        

trump-and-north-korea-big-button-small-president.     

Post, J. M.  (1986).  Narcissism and the charismatic leader-follower relationship.  Political

Psychology, 7(4), 675-688. 

Rapping, E.  (2003).  Law and justice as seen on TV.  New York:  New York University Press.

Sharp, C., & Sieswerda, S.  (2013).  The social-cognitive basis of borderline and antisocial

personality disorder: Introduction.  Journal of Personality Disorders 27(1), 1-2.

Skoll, G. R. (2010). Social theory of fear: Terror, torture, and death in a post-capitalist world.

United States: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stearns, P. N.  (2010).  Globalization in the world.  New York:  Routledge. 

Sullivan, E., & Shear, M. D.  (2018, April 11).  Trump promises strike on Syria and warns

Russia against backing Assad.   The New York Times.  Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/world/middleeast/trump-syria-attack.html.

Swanson, A., & Bradsher, K.  (2018, April 5).  Trump doubles down on potential trade war with

            China.  The New York Times.  Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/business/trump-trade-war-china.html. 

Viano, E. C., Magallanes, J., & Bridel, L.  (2003).  Transnational organized crime:  Myth,

            power, and profit.  Durham, NC:  Carolina Academic Press.   

Young, J. T., Rebbellon, C. J., Barnes, J. C., & Weerman, F. M.  (2014).  Unpacking the

            black box of peer similarity in deviance:  Understanding the mechanisms linking personal

            behavior, peer behavior, and perceptions.  Criminology, 52, 60-86. 

Zúborová, V.  (2015).  Buzzwords in politics? Communication and disources of national politics

in context to the local and regional level.  Journal of Universal Excellence, 4(3), A12

A30.