There is no such thing as right to Sovereignty

[Archbob]

It makes me laugh that some of you think that certain groups of people or nations have some intrinsic right to sovereignty. This is such a sham concept. Throughout history as it is today, the right to be sovereign comes through the blade of a sword of the barrel of a gun. The native Americans had it, until we took it away by force. The ROC dominated the mainland until the PROC pwned them in war. Empires and nations have always traded hands according to who was the strongest. The countries that are there today are only "sovereign" because they have the power to stay that way, or they have made enough allies to ensure backup to stay that way. Countries and nations will change and fall in the future. New Ethnic peoples will be born in the future and some old ones will die out.

Why do people insist on some intrinsic right of a group of people to a piece of land who no intrinsic right has ever existed in that realm?

 

[Dachs]

I don't think you understand what sovereignty means. You sound like you're talking about some weird mishmash of national self-determination and the law of the jungle.

 

[Archbob]

I know what it means it means:

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory

There is no intrinsic right to that.

 

[timtofly]

I agree that Sovereignty is not a right. Each group of individuals either have to keep the status quo going every generation or start a whole new concept and fight for it. No 4th or 5th generation should be complacent and expect to get everything for nothing.

If one thinks that life, liberty, and happiness is a right, they should be in for a rude awakening. People are either in the generation fighting for it, or enjoying it, but when the people pass away who fight for it, it is not guaranteed unless others stand up and fight for it also. Those who demand rights are the least likely to get them. Rights are not given, but fought for.

 

[Dachs]

There is no intrinsic right to that.

Congratulations, you can reproduce copypasta. But going by the OP, you were not referring to that at all. You were talking about "certain groups of people or nations" and intrinsic rights to territory, which is national self-determination, not sovereignty.

Sovereignty is useful as a legal concept because without it, there is no basis for any relations between states at all.

I agree that Sovereignty is not a right. Each group of individuals either have to keep the status quo going every generation or start a whole new concept and fight for it. No 4th or 5th generation should be complacent and expect to get everything for nothing.

If one thinks that life, liberty, and happiness is a right, they should be in for a rude awakening. People are either in the generation fighting for it, or enjoying it, but when the people pass away who fight for it, it is not guaranteed unless others stand up and fight for it also. Those who demand rights are the least likely to get them. Rights are not given, but fought for.

That is not sovereignty either, that's just a generalized rant at the concept of entitlement.

 

[Archbob]

Congratulations, you can reproduce copypasta. But going by the OP, you were not referring to that at all. You were talking about "certain groups of people or nations" and intrinsic rights to territory, which is national self-determination, not sovereignty.

I think your referring to "what dachs wants the definiation of sovereignty to be" not what its actually defined as. Supreme independent Authority over a geographic area or terristory is basically the right of a certain group to a piece of land basically.

Any definition of sovereignty you can find in any dictionary or encyclopedia stresses that sovereignty means independent political or territorial control by a group of people or in extreme cases, a person.

 

[GenMarshall]

ROC has right to sovereignty weather you like it or not .

I think Dach just owned this thread.

 

[Dachs]

I think your referring to "what dachs wants the definiation of sovereignty to be" not what its actually defined as. Supreme independent Authority over a geographic area or terristory is basically the right of a certain group to a piece of land basically.

...

Have you ever, by chance, read anything, at all, on diplomatic history or international relations that isn't a blog or newspaper article?

Sovereignty is a concept that applies to states, not "groups of people".¹ You do not possess sovereignty; Indonesia does. The Israelis do not possess sovereignty; Israel does. This is a fairly elementary building block. A typical diplomatic history work will inform you that this is a concept that began with the treaties of Westphalia in 1648, but this is nonsense; there is no clear definition for how the concept originated, or from where.

If you want a broader definition, sovereignty is the concept that states get to define their own internal policy. What happens in Russia is Russia's business, that sort of thing. This has always been a sticking point, because a gray area arises when the internal affairs of another state have a direct impact on those of another, and, since the Second World War, the issue of human rights has frequently conflicted with the nature of sovereignty as well. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the right of the Republic of China to control mainland China, nor with the existence or lack thereof of Palestine, which, if it did not exist, would be a stateless territory and therefore not impinge on anybody's sovereignty.

¹ = Except in the very loose, anarchist formula of states being nothing more than, well, groups of people that decide to call themselves a state, but we can discount that because it's literally useless.

 

[Archbob]

...

Have you ever, by chance, read anything, at all, on diplomatic history or international relations that isn't a blog or newspaper article?

Sovereignty is a concept that applies to states, not "groups of people".¹ You do not possess sovereignty; Indonesia does. The Israelis do not possess sovereignty; Israel does. This is a fairly elementary building block. A typical diplomatic history work will inform you that this is a concept that began with the treaties of Westphalia in 1648, but this is nonsense; there is no clear definition for how the concept originated, or from where.

That just it, states are just made up of groups of people. If your so sure of your definition, why does every dictionary define "sovereignty" in terms of groups of people and in terms of a state? Because all of them are wrong and you are right?

Honestly, it probably has more than one definition and yours isn't the only one that is right.

If you want a broader definition, sovereignty is the concept that states get to define their own internal policy.

Regardless of the definition, my argument still stands. Russia wouldn't get to define its own policies if it didn't have the power or diplomatic connections so that its not conquered or dominated by someone else. States(which consist of the people living in them) don't have it unless they have the might to back it up. If it makes you happy, I'll use self-determination instead although the nit-picky definition of whether groups of people can have sovereignty or the state itself is pretty pointless since without the group of people to make the state, the state wouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[Dachs]

That just it, states are just made up of groups of people. If your so sure of your definition, why does every dictionary define "sovereignty" in terms of groups of people and in terms of a state? Because all of them are wrong and you are right?

Honestly, it probably has more than one definition and yours isn't the only one that is right.

Well, you clearly didn't read the Wikipedia article you quoted, which is entirely about sovereignty in the state sense, i.e. the exact way I was talking about it. So, um, excellent reading comprehension?

 

[Archbob]

Well, you clearly didn't read the Wikipedia article you quoted, which is entirely about sovereignty in the state sense, i.e. the exact way I was talking about it. So, um, excellent reading comprehension?

Actually if you actually read the article, it refers to the ruling sovereign or ruling political body(whichever is present) as much as the state itself when it comes to sovereignty.

Also from Merriam webmaster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty

2.

a : supreme power especially over a body politic
b : freedom from external control : autonomy
c : controlling influence

3
: one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

#2 is more of what I'm referring to it as, #3 is what your talking about

Lets look at examples of use:

1. upon leaving home she felt that she had achieved sovereignty for the first time in her life


2. as parts of the same sovereignty, the states should not enact laws intended to harm one another economically>

Both are legitimate uses of the word "sovereignty". It can be used as applied to people or groups of people.

 

[Dachs]

Actually if you actually read the article, it refers to the ruling sovereign or ruling political body(whichever is present) as much as the state itself when it comes to sovereignty.

Um, both of those things - a monarch or "Ruling Political Body X" - can be said to possess sovereignty because they are or have been the embodiment of the state.

 

[Archbob]

Um, both of those things - a monarch or "Ruling Political Body X" - can be said to possess sovereignty because they are or have been the embodiment of the state.

Now, your just arguing semantics.

The 1789 French Revolution shifted the possession of sovereignty from the sovereign ruler to the nation and its people.

If the people are the state, then they are the ones who possess the sovereignty, so sovereignty can actually be used as applies to a group of people because they actually make up the state.

The state always embodies the group or person that rules it, or in a democracy, it embodies the people. Without any people, or a ruling political party, or a king of sovereign, there is no state. Therefore that group, person, or ethnic group can indeed to said to possess sovereignty.

 

[Dachs]

Now, your just arguing semantics.



If the people are the state, then they are the ones who possess the sovereignty, so sovereignty can actually be used as applies to a group of people because they actually make up the state.

The state always embodies the group or person that rules it, or in a democracy, it embodies the people. Without any people, or a ruling political party, or a king of sovereign, there is no state. Therefore that group, person, or ethnic group can indeed to said to possess sovereignty.

Again, you've crossed the line from "sovereignty" (which has nothing to do with ethnicity) to "national self-determination" (which is fundamentally about ethnicity, and about which you consistently fail to talk, despite the fact that it would resolve this entire stupid goddamn argument). The argument that a "people" possesses sovereignty is contingent on the people in question comprising the citizenry of a democratic state; it is a political theory concept, not an international relations one, but is theoretically valid in rhetorical terms. Except in the cases in which an ethnic group comprises the entirety of the citizenry of a given state, it cannot be said even by polisci wonks to possess "sovereignty".

 

[Archbob]

Again, you've crossed the line from "sovereignty" (which has nothing to do with ethnicity) to "national self-determination" (which is fundamentally about ethnicity, and about which you consistently fail to talk, despite the fact that it would resolve this entire stupid goddamn argument). The argument that a "people" possesses sovereignty is contingent on the people in question comprising the citizenry of a democratic state; it is a political theory concept, not an international relations one, but is theoretically valid in rhetorical terms. Except in the cases in which an ethnic group comprises the entirety of the citizenry of a given state, it cannot be said even by polisci wonks to possess "sovereignty".

It doesn't have to be an ethnic group, it can just be a group of people. Someone or some group always possess sovereignty, whether it be a king, or a ruling group, or the citizens of a democratic state. Sovereignty can do applied to a person or groups of people.

You should have recognized that I was referring to the political theory concept and not to the international relations one from the start.

 

[Dachs]

It doesn't have to be an ethnic group, it can just be a group of people. Someone or some group always possess sovereignty, whether it be a king, or a ruling group, or the citizens of a democratic state. Sovereignty can do applied to a person or groups of people.

Repeating yourself doesn't make it right.

You should have recognized that I was referring to the political theory concept and not to the international relations one from the start.

The native Americans had it, until we took it away by force.

Yeah, that isn't international relations. Totally.

The ROC dominated the mainland until the PROC pwned them in war. Empires and nations have always traded hands according to who was the strongest.

The countries that are there today are only "sovereign" because they have the power to stay that way, or they have made enough allies to ensure backup to stay that way. Countries and nations will change and fall in the future.

International relations? In my post? It's more likely than you think.

Yeah, I think I'm done here.

 

[useless]

I guess it's also a form of legitimacy.

 

[Archbob]

Repeating yourself doesn't make it right.

Except that it wasn't wrong in the first place. We've quoted sources that always refer to sovereignty both in terms of the ruling people and the state.Your embodiment argument doesn't work because the ruling political party or the people always embody the state so they will always possess the sovereignty.

The native Americans had it, until we took it away by force.

That isn't about international relations nor was the ROC or PROC. Its basically showing that the "right" for a state or the people to stay sovereign is based on their might to maintain it thus invalidating any intrinsic right.

I guess it's also a form of legitimacy.

Well, its only legit until someone conquers you.

 

[innonimatu]

So you were talking about "who rules a sovereign state"? And arguing that a right to rule a sovereign state doesn't exist? What the hell! Someone must rule a state, no?

Or are you arguing that a right to democratic rules doesn't exist?

I also don't get it.

 

[Ergo Sum]

I believe this is an attempt to rail against the Palestinians for wanting their own state despite not leading a powerful state nor having friends in high places. Or, FAL hates self-determination.