Posted on 01/21/2005 6:42:19 PM PST by quidnunc
A chief bugaboo in today's political discourse, and one that President Bush addressed forthrightly in his second inaugural speech, is the concept of sovereignty, a notion that has been analyzed since Hugo Grotius, the Dutch 17th century philosopher. Grotius set the stage for centuries of debate on international law, proclaiming, for example, that there are "open seas" over which nations may not make sovereign claims. He also set forth rules on when nations can use military force, usually in self-defense.
A chief complaint against the Bush inaugural speech is that he seems to ignore the constraints of sovereignty, which prevent the United States from encroaching on the legitimacy of even the most evil of regimes and proclaims their borders sacrosanct.
But sovereignty often has nothing to do with ethics and one can respect sovereignty and commit ethical crimes in doing so. Was it ethical to abide by the sovereignty of Sudan while it was committing genocide? Is it ethical for us to sit on our hands while millions of Africans are maimed or slaughtered?
Remember the movies in which a gang of criminals would rob a bank and then outrace the county police to the border of another county, cross the border, and leave the county police fuming in frustration because their authority prevailed only in their own county? I used to think this was the most stupid situation from an ethical point of view, even though the law was being upheld.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at techcentralstation.com ...
Where are those Hugo Grotius Flame Retardant Underroos?
:>)
Who better to understand the concept of limited sovereignty than a Remonstanter, or whatever they're called?
Ok, maybe now I'd better go find those asbestos undergarments.
I think you're talking about popular sovereignty, as opposed to absolute sovereignty. The latter is based on the entity's ability to assert itself to the exclusion of any competitors.
There was a time when our own states had soverignty. And the Federal government did not. But that was when it was a Federal and not a general government.
And which is this article discussing?
The idea of sovereignty is best expressed using the business end of a gun.
Opposition to the Iraq war is not based on Saddam's power to oppose American will. The claim to sovereignty is based entirely on the fact that he controlled Iraq for a few years and that control entitled him to continued sovereignty. A position that is absurd.
Amen.
I agree. I'm just clarifying the definition of sovereignty. Saddam and company are no longer sovereign since they were not able to hold onto power in the face of the coalition that removed them, i.e., "regime change". Those opposed to the war apparently don't understand the correct definition of sovereignty when they claim our removal of Saddam was "illegal". Legality applies to citizens of a sovereign power. The sovereign has unrestricted rights, until stopped by another power. The lefties would have us believe that the UN is somehow sovereign and that the US and other nations are legally bound to it. Not so. It's just an organization with freely participating member nations. Sorry, no world government yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.