There is no such thing as right to Sovereignty

[Archbob]

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.

It actually belongs to both because the State is always embodied by either the ruler, the ruling political group, or the people. The state and its ruling class are inseparable.

 

[Flying Pig]

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.

If the people of an annexed country don't want to be annexed, there is more than a little precedent for international action to un-annex them. The annexation of Kuwait in 1991 would be a good example of how this 'should' be done, but the Falklands in 1982 and even (however much it Wasn't About That, Really) Belgium in 1914 were reasons for countries to go to war.

Also, I'd advance the Free French for how a government can continue to represent its people despite being physically driven from its home country.

 

[Archbob]

Also, I'd advance the Free French for how a government can continue to represent its people despite being physically driven from its home country.

But if Germany had won the war, they wouldn't really be all that relavent.

 

[Flying Pig]

But if Germany had won the war, they wouldn't really be all that relavent.

Well, from the French point of view they had, by the time that the Government in Exile was formed. I'd disagree with you even had Germany won overall, but that's a matter for another thread, and it really doesn't change the central point. Annexing territory doesn't make it automatically rightfully belong to the invader.

 

[Yeekim]

everything you say also applies to things such as "life" or "property". Does that mean you reject the concept of "rights" at all?

I repeat my question. Why did you pick out "the right to self-determination", instead of e.g. "right to life"?
You could similarly say:

Throughout history as it is today, the right to be alive comes through the blade of a sword of the barrel of a gun. The native Americans were alive, until we slaughtered them.