NationStates Jolt Archive

As many people seem to get very hung up about proposals that "threaten National Sovereignty", I thought it appropriate that we have some rational and polite debate on the subject.

So first a couple of rules on the debate:
Use common sense, speak in a dignified manner wortherly representitive of the great (imaginary) people of your country.

Only valid, constructed comments please, skip the "stupid commie/facist pig routine.


There are two mainstream views of National Sovereignty.

The first is that it is Sovereignty is the ultimate right that exists in the world, above and beyond all others, the ultimate garuntee of rights of a people, and the ultimate defence against oppression and imperialism.

The other is that Sovereignty is useful up to a point to prevent conflict, but after that point, it is used and abused for evil ends, lets dictators opress their people, removes the threat to corrupt, evil incumbent governments, the ultimate garuntee to dictatorship and opression.


I personally agree with the second, that it has been used far to often as an excuse to continue to perpertrate crimes against humanity that could have been easily stopped in the absence of this idea. We should move to place the sentiments of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the ultimate guide to human and international interaction, rather than Sovereignty.

That's my ideas, so please, fire away.

Actually, National Sovereignty is quite simply the idea/belief that others should butt out of your nation, that you should do whatever the heck you like (be it kissing babies to shooting the "Commies). THAT is sovereignty, the ability to maintain YOUR prescence in the world, free from others.

Actually, National Sovereignty is quite simply the idea/belief that others should butt out of your nation, that you should do whatever the heck you like (be it kissing babies to shooting the "Commies). THAT is sovereignty, the ability to maintain YOUR prescence in the world, free from others.

The Gearheads have been seeing this thinking quite a bit, and it's something that we really don't understand. If you want absolute sovereignty, why are you in the UN? Currently, the UN has no right to interfere with non-UN nations. We feel that unless countries are willing to bend a little, the UN will never be successful in setting international standards, improving international communication and understanding, or generally making the world a better place.

Absolute sovereignty gives way to much power to a nation to abuse it's people. All members of a civillized world ought to be able to come together to denounce abuses of basic civil rights. The problem comes when nations disagree over what is a basic right.

That being said, a large degree of sovereignty helps to insure that as many people as possible are happy. Sovereignty leads to a "worldwide federation" of sorts. If people have the basic freedoms to move from place to place, then if they aren't happy with the living conditions in a particular country, they can move to another.

The first is that it is Sovereignty is the ultimate right that exists in the world, above and beyond all others, the ultimate garuntee of rights of a people, and the ultimate defence against oppression and imperialism.

I think this position is untenable. Extending it to its logical conclusion would mean that every person has a right to complete sovereignty, which leaves you with anarchy. And I don't think that most countries that believe in the ultimate right to sovereignty belive in anarchy as a ligitimate form of government.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am an imperialist, a dictator. I do not shy from the label and I make no excuses for it. I rule over my nation with an iron fist and I make decisions that ultimately lead to life or death on their heads. I have made choices that I knew would end in death as freely as those that support life.

I am also a member of the UN, and I staunchly defend it.

Why are these two concepts incompatible?

I have never viewed the UN as a tool to dictate policy to other nations. I have never attempted to use it as a club to decide what is right for other nations. I have encouraged its use as a place for mediation and negotiation, common ground for differing cultures and philosophies to meet and hammer out solutions to international problems. I have resisted and deliberately disobeyed all attempts to turn my nation into a democracy. Democracy is what brought me to the position I now hold, because it failed.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit to you that democracy isn't always the answer.

I am loathe to resign my UN membership because I do not believe in the holy scripture of democracy. I joined in order to make sure that I had a role in international affairs, that I could stand up in a public forum to make my voice heard. I did not join so that I could meekly surrender the governing of my nation to a committee of yammering grandmothers.

There have been resolutions that attempted to install democracy in my Empire. I have fought against them. There have been resolutions to create the foundation for international aide and resolution. I have supported them fully.

I am a dictator, and I support the UN. If you consider this to be a contradiction, then I pity you. You truly do not understand the nature and purpose of politics.

**************************
http://www.pwfc.org/images/gallery/smtorso3.jpg
Emperor Devon I
Empire of Treznor
**************************

We don't feel that absolute sovereignty is either possible or desirable. But we do support the right of nations to govern themselves, within very broad parameters. It seems to us that such a principle is inherent in the notion of democracy itself.

Not everything that other nations do, with which we disagree, constitutes a "crime against humanity". A case in point is the recently defeated "Bill of No Rights". Proponents of that measure felt that their view of "absolute property rights" was so cogent as to justify using the U.N. to insult and ridicule every nation that did not share their opinions.

The BONR would have flatly contradicted the following provisions of our constitution:

Title VI, Article 2, Section 1: "Human life being a necessary condition of human freedom, all people shall have a right to the requisites of a human existence, including adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care; to be provided at public expense, if necessary"; and

Title VI, Article 1, Section 19: "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations on the tenth day of December, 1948, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations on the twentieth day of November, 1989, are hereby adopted as fundamental law and made a part of this Constitution, by reference."

It would also have contradicted the spirit, if not the letter, of the following provisions:

Title VI, Article 1, Section 10: "No form of torture, capital punishment, corporal punishment, or other cruel or unusual punishment shall be permitted";

Title VI, Article 1, Section 14: "The right of workers to organise, bargain collectively and strike shall not be infringed..."

Title VI, Article 2, Section 2: "It shall be the policy of government to ensure, to the extent of its ability, that all adults willing and able to work have an opportunity to obtain gainful employment";

Title VI, Article 2, Section 3: "All children shall have a right to receive an adequate education; and to this end, the government shall maintain and properly fund the public schools...";

Title VI, Article 2, Section 4: "No form of discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference shall be permitted in housing, public accommodation or employment";

Title VI, Article 2, Section 5: "Government shall foster and promote the arts, sciences and culture, to the extent of its ability"; and (last but not least)

Title II, Article 1, Section 7: "The Head of State shall ensure that the government of the Realm is conducted in the fundamental interest of all the people, with special regard to the needs of the poor..."

We leave it to the judgement of common sense whether these provisions constitute such a violation of the norms of civilised behaviour as to justify international intervention.

If we lose our national sovereignty, we're at the mercy of every group of fanatics who want to trash our people's way of life.

There are two mainstream views of National Sovereignty.

The first is that it is Sovereignty is the ultimate right that exists in the world, above and beyond all others, the ultimate garuntee of rights of a people, and the ultimate defence against oppression and imperialism.

The other is that Sovereignty is useful up to a point to prevent conflict, but after that point, it is used and abused for evil ends, lets dictators opress their people, removes the threat to corrupt, evil incumbent governments, the ultimate garuntee to dictatorship and opression.

This is an attempt to frame the issue in false terms. The real debate is over a third viewpoint, quite common in this august body, which claims that national sovereignty does not exist and that the UN should completely ignore the right of various nations to self determination. Many proposals presented to us presume this position, and that is why they run into opposition.

The position of Rational Self Interest is that nations should be left to manage those aspects of their affairs that concern only them, and should not be compelled to contribute to projects they do not value. National sovereignty is the rule until a nation's conduct affects its neighbors.

Soveriegnty is the basis of any democratic government...it must be. The idea that a free man has the right and duty to self-determination is sacrosanct and immutable.

In order for a society to function above the level of anarchy, however, free men (or women, or goats, or Gungans, whatever floats your boat...) must consign a certain amount of soveriegnty to a government. These concessions usually fall in the areas of defense from outside harm, defense from crime, intra- and interstate commerce, and a few other minor areas.

Democratic governments cannot take too much soveriegnty from the people they govern, nor should they allow other outside interests to do so. And there is the crux of the national soveriegnty issue as far as Nolanavia is concerned. The UN and it's members are outside interests who could care less about Nolanavia, it's people, or it's fine Llama-meat industry. For that reason, the amounts of soverienty we are willing to give up to the UN stops at the doorsteps of our education system, at the gates of our military/defense infrastructure, and at the footsteps of our Constitution.

Nolanavia recognizes the UN's need and responsibility to resolve international disputes between nations. We do not, however, recognize the UN's right to meddle in our governmental affairs. No member of the UN has a right to our national security secrets, to dictate to us how to educate our children, or what rights our people can or cannot reserve for themselves.

Further, Nolanavia will not support any UN resolution that goes beyond the settling of international disputes ... i.e. those that dictate national policy. The people of Nolanavia wish to continue to participate in the UN for the betterment of international relations. But, should the UN prove too meddlesome in our internal affairs, we shall not hesitate to "take our ball and go home".

In order for a society to function above the level of anarchy, however, free men (or women, or goats, or Gungans, whatever floats your boat...) must consign a certain amount of soveriegnty to a government.


We just wanted to point out that we are an anarchy, and our country is functioning quite well, with superb civil and political rights and a powerhouse economy. Despite what our description may say about our citizens living in fear because of a gang of bikers, we believe we are functioning quite well, thank you.

Simply, sovereignty is a human construct and as such is not absolute.

I believe sovereignty is a crucial metaphysical consruct which holds the
internal affairs of nations as sancrosant. That is, until a nation
voluntarily joins an international cooperative body or their soverignty, or actions taken behind the protective veil of sov., is viewed as threatening to the survival or peaceful existence of others.