Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

The sovereign rights of a nation. posted 21 December 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionThe sovereign rights of a nation. by Harrol, Moderator

Due to the debate on the concept of nations a thought came to my mind. What are the sovereign rights of a nation? When are other peoples or nations allowed to interfer with their affairs? Or as some may say there are no nations just the world and the citizens of the world. I am looking to see whar people have to say. view post


The sovereign rights of a nation. posted 21 December 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionThe sovereign rights of a nation. by gierra, Sorcerer-of-Rank

i should know more about this, but i don't. recently, our PM declared that the quebecois are a nation within a united canada. honestly, i have no idea what that means or how it really changes anything.

i don;t really have much else to add. view post


The sovereign rights of a nation. posted 29 December 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionThe sovereign rights of a nation. by paddyenglish, Candidate

That really is a rather loaded question.....on the really basic level no one nation (if for the sake of argument we believe in the idea of nationhood) has a right to inflict dominance over another......though as can be seen throughout history this is not always the solution......
A few questions for examples, if we as a more powerful nation see a people being murdered wholesale by there government or armed forces do we not have a right to interfere?
when a majority of poeple are persecuting people in a country should we not try and help them?
If a country cannot cope with the strains put upon it by natural disaster should we not give aid?

Now a few historical examples to illustrate these.

During WW2 oriental members of the USA were put in consentration camps and perihad from mainstream society.
Britain is the only nation on Earth to have effected total genocide of an entire nationality of people.
The slave trade may have been around for thausands of years but the European nations made it into an international money maker.
The only country to use weapons of mass destruction on a foreign land were the Americans.
There have been more wars and death caused by the Christian religion than any other in the entirity of recorded history.

My point although a little convoluted, is this, there may be a need at times to interfere with other nations soveiregnty, though the decision for this is a moral one and should be made by those with a clear concience......i.e not really any nation or government i can readilly think of......we've all been a bit shitty to each other in the past.....putting it very lightly view post


The sovereign rights of a nation. posted 30 December 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionThe sovereign rights of a nation. by Peter, Auditor

A few questions for examples, if we as a more powerful nation see a people being murdered wholesale by there government or armed forces do we not have a right to interfere?
when a majority of poeple are persecuting people in a country should we not try and help them?
If a country cannot cope with the strains put upon it by natural disaster should we not give aid?


National Sovereignty acting as a barrier to any of this seems to me to be patently absurd. Even if Nationhood etc. is accepted that doesn't stop individuals having rights and insofar as individual's rights are most basic (at the very least we will think they are more basic than Nation's rights) then there simply is no question about intervention or not. However the same goes for assertion of National Interest. Even if we admit such a concept has a place at all in decision-making, we ought to think that it is subservient to Individual's rights.

During WW2 oriental members of the USA were put in consentration camps and perihad from mainstream society.
Britain is the only nation on Earth to have effected total genocide of an entire nationality of people.
The slave trade may have been around for thausands of years but the European nations made it into an international money maker.
The only country to use weapons of mass destruction on a foreign land were the Americans.
There have been more wars and death caused by the Christian religion than any other in the entirity of recorded history.


Of course the US concentration camps were probably not quite the same as the German ones and there certainly were no death camps.

Which nation (sorry this isn't meant to appear as a challenge to your claim, I see no reason to disbelieve it, I merely want to know where, when and who. If it wasn't read as being aggressive, please don't feel I am being patronising, I find it difficult to read intention in text often and would rather appear obvious and clumsy than rude and aggressive)?

Slavery was pretty commercial under the Arabic slave caravans, but much less efficient. The West industrialised it, but the principles behind it are not much different, unlike how they are different from the Ancient World etc.

In defence of the US, they have been the only country to have Nuclear Weapons and be in the position they were in, namely war with a determined, industrialised enemy. That said I can't and don't condone their use.

Christian Wars causing more deaths is principally caused by the fact that the Christian World industrialised first and were hence the first to reach industrial methods of killing. When slaughter on a mass scale has been possible for non-Christians, they have embraced it. Christianity is unlikely to be a significant causal factor in number of war deaths.

My point although a little convoluted, is this, there may be a need at times to interfere with other nations soveiregnty, though the decision for this is a moral one and should be made by those with a clear concience......i.e not really any nation or government i can readilly think of......we've all been a bit shitty to each other in the past.....putting it very lightly


This sounds very reasonable, but shouldn't something be done nonetheless sometimes? This is a real question, I don't know. If our government is not qualified to intervene, should we allow it to do so when we believe it to be right to do so? No obvious answer suggests itself to me. view post


The sovereign rights of a nation. posted 05 January 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionThe sovereign rights of a nation. by paddyenglish, Candidate

hey there
first off it was an aboriganal island people near Australia in the 19th century

It was Christian european nations that invented the concentration camps, the Spanish in South America during colonial times and the British in Africa being two big examples of same.
My point about the Christain religion being the biggest cause of all wars is a well documented historical fact, going back a lot further than industrialisation just take the example of the crusades, the colonisation of the Americas, the invasion of the Indian territories, ad infinitum.
industrilisation meant that wars among other Christian nations became more common and more about economics than actual faith.

and finally i have no idea either as to when or how intervention is just or how it should be justified , like most educated people that don't believe everything the government tells them I can see when these interventions are wrong sometimes before the fact but more often that not after the true consequences of these missions become aparent, both on a moral and political level......just look at the instability in Iraq that both Britain and the US have to answer for or Afghanistan. view post


The sovereign rights of a nation. posted 05 January 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionThe sovereign rights of a nation. by Harrol, Moderator

Well about religion. The Middle East and Europe warred long before Christianity. Examples Rome and Carthage, Rome and Parthia, Rome and Egypt. How about the wars betweem Greece and Persia. The Hun invasions and the Mongol invasions. Persia's invasion of India, the Ottoman conquests which were all over the world except the New World. Religion is normally useed to justify a war but it normally does not cause a war. view post


The sovereign rights of a nation. posted 05 January 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionThe sovereign rights of a nation. by paddyenglish, Candidate

ok i think this may be getting more on to the point of which religion has caused the most wars but......
Christianity is a new religion in many respects compared to many world beliefs but i am certain that it has been used for a reason (possibly as a justification after fact in some cases but not as many as some people may think) for more armed conflicts in the recorded history of the world between two or more nations than any other religion, I must stress here in recorded history......
In addition to this the power of the Catholic church pre reformation cannot not be undermined......before the 15th Century Kings of Europe would walk barefoot through the snow to chastise themselves before the ruling pope, and going to war without the permission of the Vatican was not something they did lightly.
However I'm not trying to say here that other religions dont and have not caused wars and massive forms of expansion and conquest at periods in time, just that the Christians, as far as modern day historians know have done it more.......
But let's face it we are all shitty to our neighbours, and if we cant be to them we start shitting on our own. view post


The sovereign rights of a nation. posted 05 January 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionThe sovereign rights of a nation. by Harrol, Moderator

There is little debate as to the power of the Church in the Middle Ages. It was the premier power of European society. My cynical view of war tells me gain is always the true motivator. As Scott likes to point out when wars get hard religion gives the conviction to those fighting to continue. view post


The sovereign rights of a nation. posted 16 July 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionThe sovereign rights of a nation. by xatantius, Candidate

National sovereignty is the reason why international law is so ineffective, as the UN believes every nation has the right to govern itself and make its own laws, even if they violate the Declaration of Human Rights. This seems to be a pretty stupid concept to me on moral grounds, but it does have pragmatic uses as well. If the UN invaded every country violating human rights we'd have World War 3 on our hands. The United States has violated national sovereignty on numerous occasions (Korea, Vietnam Iraq) , often under the pretext of restoring individual human rights to oppressed minorities. Of course, whether or not that was the actual reason for going to war becomes a moot point, but it provides the US with a good excuse to invade other countries.
So national sovereignty seems, to me, to be somewhat outdated, as it neither reflects the values of most societies and can be overrun anyway by anyone powerful enough. It's mainly in place to stop small third world countries destroying each other, with absolutely no effect. view post


The sovereign rights of a nation. posted 19 July 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionThe sovereign rights of a nation. by Jamara, Auditor

Hmmm, sovereign rights of a nation. . . I'm not really sure. Personally, I think that can on;y be answered by the culture of each individual nation. Now, the sovereign rights of the people is an easy question, read the American Declaration of Independce. As to the second part of question, involving when are other nations allowed to interfere, that's another easy answer, when they have the bigger dicks. view post


The sovereign rights of a nation. posted 19 July 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionThe sovereign rights of a nation. by Harrol, Moderator

True enough Jamara when one has more power they can impose at will it seems. I heard a quote one time to the effect that large nations are pimps and small nations are their whores. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown