When two nations have fundamentally different definitions of justice, coming to an agreement can be extremely challenging. If one nation defines justice as might, it likely prioritizes the use of force and domination over other nations to assert its own interests. On the other hand, if the other nation defines justice as defending sovereignty, it likely prioritizes the protection of its own borders and autonomy over external influences. These two definitions of justice are in direct conflict, as one nation may seek to exert power over the other, while the other nation may resist these attempts to maintain its sovereignty.
If these two nations are engaged in an agreement, it is likely to be a negotiation rather than a collaboration. In a negotiation, the parties are seeking to advance their own interests and may be willing to compromise only to the extent that it benefits them. For instance, the nation that defines justice as might may agree to limit its use of force if it means it can achieve other strategic objectives. Similarly, the nation that defines justice as defending sovereignty may agree to make certain concessions if it means it can protect its borders and autonomy. In this kind of agreement, both nations are trying to maximize their own power and security, which can lead to a precarious and unstable situation.
As a member of the mediating team seeking to bring peace, a stipulative definition can be helpful in some cases, but it depends on the context. A stipulative definition is a definition that is created specifically for a particular context, rather than being based on existing or commonly accepted definitions. In the case of the two nations with differing definitions of justice, a stipulative definition could be helpful if it provides a common ground that both parties can agree upon.
For example, the mediating team could propose a definition of justice that emphasizes the importance of mutual respect and non-interference in each other's affairs. This definition could recognize the importance of both nations' sovereignty while also emphasizing the need to avoid conflicts that could undermine both parties' interests. A stipulative definition like this could provide a basis for further negotiations and help to establish a framework for a more collaborative and peaceful relationship between the two nations.
However, stipulative definitions can also be limiting, as they may not fully capture the complexity and nuance of the issues at hand. They may also be seen as artificial or imposed, rather than arising naturally from the values and beliefs of the parties involved. In the case of the two nations with different definitions of justice, a stipulative definition may be seen as superficial and inadequate if it does not address the underlying reasons for their differences.
Ultimately, the success of any mediation effort will depend on a variety of factors, including the willingness of the parties to compromise and the ability of the mediators to understand and address the concerns of both parties. In the case of two nations with different definitions of justice, the mediating team will need to work closely with both parties to understand their perspectives and find common ground. By focusing on shared interests and values, rather than on differences, it may be possible to establish a more constructive and peaceful relationship between the two nations.