@CapitalB I would say that the focus on countries really overlooks the more important factor of individuals, making sure that people are able to get honest information if they care about the situation.
The focus on countries instead of people promotes nationalism that all too often buys into the propaganda. Either put out by or supporting those countries.
My example is Swiss neutrality as defined and enforced in 1815. We need more big institutions to just remain neutral. Be it the IOC, BIS, ISO or...Walmart.
Neutrality from top down enables individuals to seek alternative ways. It is like a unplanted plot were those living there can wait and see and learn by doing.
Neutrality does neither mean doing nothing nor ignoring the world. It ranges from silent time to reflect to outright help the commoners from the start.
@CapitalB and yet that doesn't disclose the possibility that the country will fail.
Just because an eventuality is bad doesn't mean it won't happen.
It's even more reason to recognize that truth and work hard to make sure it doesn't happen. Even more reason to recognize the interface between institutions and humans because the worst case scenarios are pretty darn bad.
@volkris @Nazareno Initiatives were introduced in the 1860ies and 1880ies nationally. Neutrality was defined in 1815, tested in 1848 and 1871.
All democratic elements were built out thereafter.
I wrote subsidiarity. I mean it.