However, arguments rage on the extent and threshold that would warrant such interventions. In the second scenario, the US and other countries may seek to intervene where it obtains authority from relevant international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council.
Just in the same breadth, other countries may seek to intervene into the US economic and political affairs with a view to secure their own political or economic interests (Lahneman, 2004). This may be witnessed in cases where the condition in the US warrant directs or indirect intervention. However, because the US enjoys military, economic, and diplomatic endowments, it becomes difficult for similar interventions to be carried out by countries perceived s inferior, at least measured by the US’s metrics.
Countries across the world have rights under the international law to intervene into other countries, especially where they are warranted by circumstances described under the international law. Therefore, there is no universally agreed upon the threshold that countries may use to justify their intents of intervention because country-specific interests motivate interventions. In conclusion, the US may be justified to intervene into the internal affairs of another country under the dictates of international law. Similarly, other countries have an equal right to do so in the US under similar conditions. In practice, however, the US has exhibited much intervention power because of its strong military, economic,