Answer:
None, this not an unethical behaviour
Explanation:
Andy's behaviour is unethical as it does not promote the principles of ethical leadership which are respect, service, community, honesty and justice neither does it promote altruism. He acted in a self-centered and egotistic manner.
The context of the speech can be placed on what is promoted on the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), founded back in 1910 under the name of Pan American Society of the United States as a regional agency dedicated to promote peace, collaboration and solidarity among the countries of North, Central and South America. Dean Acheson was known at some point as the architect of foreign policy during the Truman administration. The speech of Dean Acheson back in 1949, made reference to those cases when a government is overthrown and a military one takes place instead. This used to be a common situation in Central and South America until 1990s. It is important to retrieve some principles that can be found on the charter followed by the organization, “the Organization of American States has no powers other than those expressly conferred upon it by this Charter”, so at some point specially during the 1950s and 1960s, United States must find ways to negotiate and relate with this military governments which arose all over the region.
It is also important to considered some of the principles present on the charter that allows us to understand the posture presented by Dean Acheson in his speech, one of them is “to promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the principle of nonintervention”, another is how “international order consists essentially of respect for the personality, sovereignty, and independence of States, and the faithful fulfillment of obligations derived from treaties and other sources of international law”, so, according to these principles it can be said that the statement which best summarizes his quote is: The United States might recognize military rulers, but it does not necessarily support them.
Answer:
In the landmark U.S. v. New York Times case, the Court ruled that the government could not, through "prior restraint," block publication of any material unless it could prove that it would "surely" result in "direct, immediate, and irreparable" harm to the nation.
Hello :)
A chocolate bar tbh, probably more if we’re being honest.
