NationStates Jolt Archive

National sovereignty is a concept that was mainly influenced by the treaties and conferences that brought an end to religious warfare in central Europe. The idea was to make sure every little lord got to choose which faith to impose on his subjects without that being a reason for other little lords to start something.

Since then that's been expanded and occasionally modified to what it means today. The UN and some other conventions have various rules that limit national sovereignty in extreme cases, but overall it still holds that a government has the exclusive power to make laws within a given area.

Unfortunately that removes one potential way to provide a check to the state. It eliminates competition between codes of law, providing barriers to the ability to make a choice which law to follow. It also makes it a lot easier to make stupid or counter-productive laws.

Is that a good thing? Would you want more sovereignty, or less? Why?

National sovereignty is a concept that was mainly influenced by the treaties and conferences that brought an end to religious warfare in central Europe. The idea was to make sure every little lord got to choose which faith to impose on his subjects without that being a reason for other little lords to start something.
HUH? Where on earth did this idea come from?

Unfortunately that removes one potential way to provide a check to the state. It eliminates competition between codes of law, providing barriers to the ability to make a choice which law to follow. It also makes it a lot easier to make stupid or counter-productive laws.

Is that a good thing? Would you want more sovereignty, or less? Why?
Hmm... all in all, generally it's a good thing. IF a world body could be democratically elected and IF that body could act in world interests and not in regional let's-screw-the-ones-we-don't-like interests, the loss of sovereignty wouldn't matter as much and would reduce the world's nation-states to more US state like status.

But that's IF such a thing could happen. Until then though, there's too many opportunities for abuse by one block of countries at the expense of another. The British Empire during colonial days was a master at getting its colonies, created or invaded, to pass laws favorable to England, but not to said colony.

Also, I'm not too sure about what you mean by "It eliminates competition between codes of law, providing barriers to the ability to make a choice which law to follow." Surely each area should have a single code of law and not play multiple choice on it. If you get stopped by the police in Australia for, say, suspected DUI, I'm sure you DON'T want the police to decide to apply Japan's draconian DUI laws to you instead of your native Australian ones.

how about personal sovereignty? I'm not so hot on national sovereignty or *international* sovereignty, either.

I'd say that everybody needs some national sovereignty; otherwise we might as well proclaim all nations as citizens of the Republic of Nationstates. Neverthless, the NS UN makes laws for all member nations as well as their own issues. You could think of it as the parent of a lot of children that keeps the naughty ones in line... :D

How exactly would "competition between codes of law" work? It seems as though the only likely outcome would be conflict between law enforcement officials of contradictory systems of law. Geographic separation of systems of law would work, but then you've pretty much just gotten right back to the state again.

I think a democratic international body wouldn't be to bad. It should only have limited power though. For instance, it shouldn't have any say in how a country's education or health services are organized imo, and there are a bazillion other things it shouldn't have any say on.
It should have a say on things that affect everybody on a global scale. Global warming, international trade, international conflicts etc.
It could also give incentives for countries to become more democratic and have more respect for human rights. The first one could be done by having the representatives be chosen democratically with the amount of representatives (or votes) for each country depending on the amount of civilians of each country. If a nation refuses to let democratic elections take place within it's borders it would only get one representative (or a limited amount of votes).
Human rights abuse could be dealt with the same way, or coupled to other 'punishments' (financial or maybe military).

An interesting book about this I once read on this topic was "one world: ethics of globalization" by Peter Singer (http://www.amazon.com/One-World-Globalization-Peter-Singer/dp/0300096860/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198936572&sr=1-13) (although I'd rather lend it from a library than buying it). It was interesting though, especially his analysis of the WTO.

HUH? Where on earth did this idea come from?
End of the Thirty Years' War in 1648, if I'm not mistaken. I think I may be off on the date, but not the war. It was the culmination of all the turmoil kicked off by the Protestant Reformation in the early 1500s.

End of the Thirty Years' War in 1648, if I'm not mistaken. I think I may be off on the date, but not the war. It was the culmination of all the turmoil kicked off by the Protestant Reformation in the early 1500s.
That was territorial integrity, not sovereignty.

National sovereignty is a concept that was mainly influenced by the treaties and conferences that brought an end to religious warfare in central Europe.
End of the Thirty Years' War in 1648, if I'm not mistaken. I think I may be off on the date, but not the war. It was the culmination of all the turmoil kicked off by the Protestant Reformation in the early 1500s.

There was no sense of Nationhood before then? What have you guys been smoking?

The idea was to make sure every little lord got to choose which faith to impose on his subjects without that being a reason for other little lords to start something.

That seems to be what NERVUN is questioning, at least to me. Can you point out something suggesting that Westphalian sovereignty had anything to do with religion instead of the territoriality and exclusion of external state actors in domestic politics of other states that I learned were the basics of it?

Personal opinion:

National sovereignty is good, clear borders are good.

In a nutshell, as long as we don't disturb the neighborhood, what we do in our backyard is none of your damn business.

In a nutshell, as long as we don't disturb the neighborhood, what we do in our backyard is none of your damn business.
Even if you (as a nation) are, for example, killing of indigenous peoples, or persecuting religious or ethnic minorities that only exist within 'your' borders?

An extreme, yet important, example.

I think national sovereignty is usually a good thing. The "Stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours" argument is a sensible one which seems to prevent wars. Obviously there is an exception to every rule, but I think national sovereignty is something that we should work hard to preserve. I don't like the way the EU likes to interfere with member states' internal affairs, and seem to want to do it even more.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13328806']I think national sovereignty is usually a good thing. The "Stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours" argument is a sensible one which seems to prevent wars. Obviously there is an exception to every rule, but I think national sovereignty is something that we should work hard to preserve. I don't like the way the EU likes to interfere with member states' internal affairs, and seem to want to do it even more.

The members of the EU did choose to join..
That being said, I agree with you.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13328806']I don't like the way the EU likes to interfere with member states' internal affairs, and seem to want to do it even more.
I can see the worry over unneeded bureaucracy and government being alienated from the people it's supposed to be serving; indeed, I'm a big favour of more localised, devolved government.

However certain institutions and processes of the EU, especially its Court of Human Rights, are a good thing; shared, supra-national accountability and scrutiny is sometimes very useful. And, as Dyakovo says, the EU was hardly imposed upon its member nations.

There was no sense of Nationhood before then? What have you guys been smoking?

They're just a tad eurocentric. Sovereignty of Nations had existed well before, and had been the common form throughout the orient and Africa for centuries. It had been partially extinguished in Europe by the influence of the Church and the Holy Roman Empire, both of which advanced the concept that all christians should submit to the ecclesiastic and temporal rulers of 'all christendom' - a term which never did apply to half of christianity, let alone anyone else.

Official sovereignty as a policy or political position, and as a legal concept, stems from this period; everyone else had considered it too obvious to have to actually write down.

As to the op: National Sovereignty maintains national divisions, and I consider this a good thing. Different groups of people want different things from government, different kinds of government, prefer to retain their own, separate cultures. Without natonal sovereignty, we could not have the independence of thought and ideal we currently enjoy, and we would not have the finer divisions of law which account for local conditions - and which prevent otherwise positive law from being a despotic straightjacket upon minorities and individuals.

I can see the worry over unneeded bureaucracy and government being alienated from the people it's supposed to be serving; indeed, I'm a big favour of more localised, devolved government.

However certain institutions and processes of the EU, especially its Court of Human Rights, are a good thing; shared, supra-national accountability and scrutiny is sometimes very useful. And, as Dyakovo says, the EU was hardly imposed upon its member nations.
The European Court of Human Rights is under the Council of Europe rather than the EU, the the point is still the same. Not really keen on the European Convention on Human Rights (Which is what the court enforces) myself, it's responsible for some pretty retarded things. For example, we mustn't deport the poor extremists as they may get mistreated back home. Of course, it is true that the EU has never been forced on anyone. I just think our government should be much more aggressive when guarding our sovereignty in the EU.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13328875']The European Court of Human Rights is under the Council of Europe rather than the EU, the the point is still the same.
My mistake but, as you say, the point is still the same.

Not really keen on the European Convention on Human Rights (Which is what the court enforces) myself, it's responsible for some pretty retarded things. For example, we mustn't deport the poor extremists as they may get mistreated back home.
I don't see in any way how this is 'retarded'. We, as a society supposedly committed to basic human standards and against the death penalty, should in no way be sending people back into danger; death penalty by proxy.

Of course, it is true that the EU has never been forced on anyone. I just think our government should be much more aggressive when guarding our sovereignty in the EU.
The fear of the EU and other similar institutions is totally misplaced. National sovereignty is gone; multinational corporations, banks, institutions and a globalised world have seen to that. No country in the world can be truly isolated; even places like North Korea are dependent on outside trade, etc.

Sovereignty has already died a death; we've got to look at a way to deal with a, thankfully, more connected and interdependent world.

Even if you (as a nation) are, for example, killing of indigenous peoples, or persecuting religious or ethnic minorities that only exist within 'your' borders?

An extreme, yet important, example.

Indeed-y ^_^, for why is this not SPARTAAAAAAAAAAA?

But then again, do it quietly,... else you woke up the neighbors.

Basically, the "disturbing the peace of the neighborhood" could be interpreted in many ways... nuke testing devalue the real estate, discrimination and genocide is bad for your neighborly image (you don't want to live next door to a serial killer, do you?)

Jokes asides, this is probably true, there are times people gets stepped on for other's freedom (the idea of segregation and discrimination is more or less, more freedom for me and less for you because you're different, right?)

So to answer your question:

Yes, I'd probably ask politely to the rest of the world to butt out while I kill someone's who's different from the rest of me, since they don't have to do anything to do with me, BUT we live in a global society, and there are sanctions like embargoes and stuff, and there's no ONE nation that could work alone in this international climate, I'd probably back-off from killing people, as long as they don't come barging in a committee with forks and torches.

If they do, I'll have to shoot them so they'd "GET THE HELL OUT OF MY LAWN!"

tl;dr:

National sovereignty is always good, but no matter what, you should always consider the consequences of your actions before doing it and took responsibility for it.

I don't see in any way how this is 'retarded'. We, as a society supposedly committed to basic human standards and against the death penalty, should in no way be sending people back into danger; death penalty by proxy.
I think it depends on how you look at things. I see it more as washing our hands on those who are hostile to us and our way of life. Either way, I don't think a bunch of old folks in gowns in a pretty building in Strasbourg should be able to overrule anything.

The fear of the EU and other similar institutions is totally misplaced. National sovereignty is gone; multinational corporations, banks, institutions and a globalised world have seen to that. No country in the world can be truly isolated; even places like North Korea are dependent on outside trade, etc.

Sovereignty has already died a death; we've got to look at a way to deal with a, thankfully, more connected and interdependent world.
Obviously the world's much more connected than ever before, but I still don't think it is quite to the extent that you're saying. Just because we're interconnected in many economic areas doesn't mean we need to consciously and deliberately surrender sovereignty in all other areas as well. For example, the EU until recently was trying to force Britain over to the metric system. I'm in favour of the metric system in all areas, but I can't really see how it's always a necessity of globalisation. I think it's necessary to conform to a standard system for international trade, but it hardly matters if someone buys a pint down the pub or a pound of bananas down the market. I am in favour of cooperation in areas where everyone's decisions affect everyone else, such as the environment. But doing so in other areas such as wether or not we deport someone is needless and only happens through deliberate political means.

Limited sovereignty is fine. It is absolute sovereignty that is problematic.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13328930']I think it depends on how you look at things. I see it more as washing our hands on those who are hostile to us and our way of life.
That would be a rather naive way of looking at things; we are sending people to their deaths. This is an abhorrent practice. If you're OK with foreign governments killing criminals, why not be fine with the death penalty being re-established in Britain?

Moreover, it's not just 'extremists' the UK administration is thinking of sending away; small time criminals, asylum seekers, etc.

Either way, I don't think a bunch of old folks in gowns in a pretty building in Strasbourg should be able to overrule anything.
And I think the idea of having learned judges ensuring governments are accountable to the public and complying with certain standards of humane treatment rather comforting.

For example, the EU until recently was trying to force Britain over to the metric system.
No, the EU was making sure traders were complying with the traders on the Continent. If you wish to sell things in pints and pounds then you're perfectly free to do so; as long as you also display the weight in the metric system as well.

It's this kind of anti-EU waffle that's pushed by tabloids (the EU enforcing straight bananas, the EU enforcing Wintermas, etc. All complete nonsense of course) that detracts from real debate and discussion about international institutions.

But doing so in other areas such as wether or not we deport someone is needless and only happens through deliberate political means.
Once again, it's far from needles; it's ensuring that nations live up to a set of standards which safeguard civil liberties. Treating prisoners humanely and properly is one of those standards. I, for one, don't want to see people tortured and executed; either by my own government or through a proxy government somewhere in Africa or the Middle East.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13328875']Not really keen on the European Convention on Human Rights (Which is what the court enforces) myself, it's responsible for some pretty retarded things. For example, we mustn't deport the poor extremists as they may get mistreated back home. Of course, it is true that the EU has never been forced on anyone.
If only. Most of the cases the right wing tabloid press pick up are cases where people claim something in front of the courts, which is completely different to a court ruling. Of course, the press don't present it like this, and make it look like that the courts have ruled something 'retarded', not that your example is particulary.

How exactly would "competition between codes of law" work?
Well, it would require a pretty drastic restructuring of exactly how a state works, but at least in civil matters it should be quite possible to organise it the same way as international arbitration is done at the moment, with the parties able to choose which court they go to for a decision.

Criminal matters are a different question. Perhaps every person could choose a code of law, and if a crime involves two people, the court will take both their respective chosen laws into account when coming to a decision, rather than the one that happens to be the law of the land.

There was no sense of Nationhood before then? What have you guys been smoking?
Well, in Europe at least, there remained a lot of the old feudal system, which had people align with people or a piece of land they lived on, rather than a nation. You claimed allegiance to the king of France rather than to France itself.

Not to mention Germany, where there was no sense of nationhood to speak of among common people until probably 200 years later. Though Luther did start a big part of it by making language a topic again.

That seems to be what NERVUN is questioning, at least to me. Can you point out something suggesting that Westphalian sovereignty had anything to do with religion instead of the territoriality and exclusion of external state actors in domestic politics of other states that I learned were the basics of it?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/
In 1555, a system of sovereign states gained important ground in the Peace of Augsburg, whose formula cuius regio, eius religio, allowed German princes to enforce their own faith within their territory. But Augsburg was unstable. Manifold contests over the settlement’s provisions resulted in constant wars, culminating finally in the Thirty Years War, which did not end until 1648, at the Peace of Westphalia.

[...]

Second, Westphalia brought an end to intervention in matters of religion, up to then the most commonly practiced abridgement of sovereign prerogatives. After decades of armed contestation, the design of the Peace of Augsburg was finally consolidated, not in the exact form of 1555, but effectively establishing the authority of princes and kings over religion. In ensuing decades, no European state would fight to affect the religious governance of another state, this in stark contrast to the previous 130 years, when wars of religion sundered Europe. As the sovereign states system became more generalized in ensuing decades, this proscription of intervention would become more generalized, too, evolving into a foundational norm of the international system.

It wasn't all about religion, but it was a main motivator and probably the biggest immediate effect, other than perhaps the right of German states to make alliances independently outside the Empire.

National divisions are artificial, people are ultimately divided more by class.

National divisions are artificial, people are ultimately divided more by class.
Now we know what you answered on question seven of the Political Compass test! :D

Now we know what you answered on question seven of the Political Compass test! :D

Somehow I think you knew that before given the previous compass thread.

Somehow I think you knew that before given the previous compass thread.
'twas a joke, my dear Red.

Rudimentary creatures of flesh and blood. I am Sovereign!

(High five to anyone who caught that reference.)

Now we know what you answered on question seven of the Political Compass test! :D

That wasn't obvious from his constant advocacy of pro-revolutionary ideas from the tradition of Marx and Stalin?

But anyway, onward to the topic. You might think the pro-sovereignty links in my signature would indicate that I'd be all in favor of a very strict adherence to the doctrine of the sovereign nationstate.

Only in this game do I think it makes sense. Here, each nation is truly a body unto itself (that's the way the game engine is built). Here, it is purely voluntary for a nation to allow another nation to affect its circumstances (that's the way roleplay works, with the consent of the relevant parties).

The real world is rather more integrated and complicated. We are all a part of the same planet, the same global economy. We reside on different continents, in different cultures, in different cities. Our understanding of politics should take into account both our participation in the larger world and the uniqueness of local and cultural circumstances. Declaring any political entity sovereign seems counter to that notion.

Personal opinion:

National sovereignty is good, clear borders are good.

In a nutshell, as long as we don't disturb the neighborhood, what we do in our backyard is none of your damn business.

I disagree; what you do in ME, most certainly is my business. LMAO

But all kidding aside, I agree with you.

No, I hope the world unites under one government as soon as possible.

I'd much rather have many nations than one large nation (aka: one world government). No nations would be best of all. But, since there are many nations now, I say, yes. National sovereignty is a good thing.

I'm against The RL UN and any kind of world gov't national sovernty should be the highest level but it shouldn't be so extreme that it oppresses foreigners.

I would only support national sovereignty as the lesser of two evils, i.e. against super-national sovereignty. The former at least still gives you the ability to vote with your feet; you are no more than a plaything of those operating the central apparatus of the latter.

Nationalism is a disease, and it's greatest expression is war.