I think that when some nations take a dove-like stance on some foreign issues, it encourages some volatile nations to act a lot more careless when it comes to wars, etc. I think that it is important for some countries to be a little more strict when it comes to foreign affairs.
There are a number of ways in which force could be justified, and the failure to intervene in certain cases actually could leave people with intense animosity. Look at the US: while people have been complaining about the US for years about being too active, in any conflict, the country in question immediately gets angry if the US doesn't get involved.
There is clearly a few ways to handle foreign policy. The two biggest ways are through diplomacy and the other is with a iron fist. There is actually a time for both types of styles. The only problem is some people think you have to be all or none. You can be a diplomatic "dove," until that is not working anymore. Then you can become a "hawk," with an iron fist. Why does if have to be one or another? That is why the world is so screwed up.
No, no other nation is going to help out a different one. It all comes to the nation that is the one who has the problem, and whether or not they want to go and make the changes that is needed to make the country a lot better and stable.
I believe Nations that act dovish can bring about more stability in the world, I would say though that the dovish nations must be prepared to use force when diplomatic ties break down but I would say a initial dovish approach to many problems globally brings about more co-operation and stability then rushing into war left and right.