There is no such thing as right to Sovereignty

[Arwon]

Thread Westphails.

 

[Tahuti]

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.

He basically says sovereignity is only a right insofar a nation is able to enforce it, which - I hate to admit - is true in a certain way: No matter what morality you believe in, sovereignity is just a fancy word if its definition doesn't live up to what is going on in practice.

 

[innonimatu]

Well, I don't think that is quite right. It's not so much about enforcing it (how does one enforce sovereignty?) as it is about getting it recognized by the other states.
"Weak" states can be sovereign, with good diplomacy (and some luck), and strong states can be attacked (or foolishly start a lost war) and lose their sovereignty.

 

[timtofly]

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.

I think the OP's point was keeping (use of the word intrinsic) that sovereignty, but Dach's...... It is quite true that sovereignty is not given but acquired, unless someone does give it to you. If one is denied sovereignty, it must be taken by force. Sovereignty must never be taken for granted or it can be easily lost.

BTW @ Dachs, I did not call it entitlement for a reason. Entitlement is an ideolgy, and what I was stating had nothing to do with that ideology, but with sovereignty. I just happen to live in a nation where those three things are mistaken to be rights along with sovereignty. Those are privileges that may be afforded by sovereignty, nothing else.

Spoiler :

There is only one nation that has a God given right at sovereignty, even if people believe that or not. I would say that that group of people feel it is a curse rather than a blessing. That was felt long before reason and science came along; it is just a fact that no one and every one hates to be the teacher's pet.

 

[warpus]

There is no intrinsic right to that.

There are no intrinsic rights to anything.

 

[Yeekim]

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?

Leaving aside the debate over correct definition of "sovereignty" for a moment, everything you say also applies to things such as "life" or "property". Does that mean you reject the concept of "rights" at all?
EDIT: Damn you warpus!

 

[Quackers]

There are no intrinsic rights to anything.

Do you believe in human rights?

 

[timtofly]

Do you believe in human rights?

I believe it is possible for people to grant rights.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Hopefully we can evolve past the jungle system and create a world with laws and morals where theft and slavery isn't practiced for moral reasons.

 

[warpus]

Do you believe in human rights?

I believe they exist, yes. They do not derive from basic principles though, they are granted by men (and women, and sometimes hermaphrodites)

xpost, etc.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, I don't think that is quite right. It's not so much about enforcing it (how does one enforce sovereignty?) as it is about getting it recognized by the other states.

Well, you first need to give other states a reason to recognize you, right? Otherwise, right and duties are a few words on paper.

 

[amadeus]

So FAL, are you arguing for self-determination? If so, to what extent?

 

[innonimatu]

Well, you first need to give other states a reason to recognize you, right? Otherwise, right and duties are a few words on paper.

Of course, and I agree with FAL that there is no intrinsic right to sovereignty. Rights are a result of interactions between different people, and depend on them agreeing on those rights.

But this does not mean that a nation has its sovereignty permanently at risk. Such risks arise only in case of conflict, few nations have had their sovereignty constantly disputed by others. That's more the exception than the norm.

 

[Archbob]

So FAL, are you arguing for self-determination? If so, to what extent?

You have a right to self-determination if you can keep yourself from being conquered by someone else basically.

It really doesn't matter if you get other states to recognize you or not. If someone conquers you, your still screwed if you don't get other people to intervene militarily.

 

[Artifis]

I think this thread has a good idea, but maybe it could've been said better...

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

...
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.

That's a bit unfair. I think you're right in an IR context, but the language used is sometimes very similar. E.g. the Atlantic Charter:
"Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;"

Sovereign rights appear to belong to peoples, not states.

There's also a long tradition of talking about 'popular sovereignty' in constitutional theory.

So I can understand the OP's confusion.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

You have a right to self-determination if you can keep yourself from being conquered by someone else basically.

It really doesn't matter if you get other states to recognize you or not. If someone conquers you, your still screwed if you don't get other people to intervene militarily.

So might equals right?

That view has a long tradition in IR theory with many respectable supporters, and some less respectable ones (Berlin/Vienna/Moscow 1914???), but that seems to be what they boil down to.

 

[Flying Pig]

That view has a long tradition in IR theory with many respectable supporters, and some less respectable ones (Berlin/Vienna/Moscow 1914???), but that seems to be what they boil down to.

No it doesn't. Nobody seriously argues that anything done by a stronger party to a weaker is automatically right - that would make most of our legal system rather irrelevalant - the debate is whether morality comes into the equation at all. Since 1945 we've rather realised just how stupid and destructive an international system run by that idea really is, and that's why we have the United Nations and so on.

On the subject: the only legitimacy that a government can ever have is the support of its people, whether that means the people of Quebec accepting the rule of Her Majesty or the people of Gloucestershire preferring their current MP to his opponents at election time. However, the classic counter-example is the American Civil War: however much I agree that the Southern states should have had the right to secede, it seems impossible to condemn the USA for re-absorbing them in the manner that they did. The issue perhaps is more in the means - using violence rather than the legal, democratic process and all that - than the actual idea.

And, to impart some advice that I learned very quickly on this forum - never, ever argue history or politics with Dachs.

 

[GoodGame]

I'd define sovereignty as something exercised by a polity, not necessarily a tribe, and definitely not something exercised by virtue of geography nor history. But I do get FAL's meaning in that it definitely a late 20thC. phenomena that ethnic groups (not necessarily ethnic minorities either) have demanded political independence tantamount to declaring their own sovereign nation. The granting of such is much about diplomacy, human rights, political correctness, and disinterest in igniting ethnic dissidents to form armed rebellions/terror movements.

 

[Archbob]

On the subject: the only legitimacy that a government can ever have is the support of its people, whether that means the people of Quebec accepting the rule of Her Majesty or the people of Gloucestershire preferring their current MP to his opponents at election time.

That is only true if the government or people can defend itself from other governments or people. As soon as its conquered, it ceases to be relavent in terms of self-determination.