|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| {{TOC|right}} | | {{TOC|right}} |
| A '''sovereign state''' is a name for a country where the sovereignty, or supreme ruling power, is universally recognised. The [[United Nations]] member states must be sovereign states.<ref>[http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml United Nations Member states]</ref> States exist that have disputed sovereignty recognised by a limited group of countries, or have limited but not full international recognition. Many [[country|countries]] or [[nations]] are not classed as sovereign states; if they are of disputed government or boundaries, they may be called [[quasi-state]]s. | | A '''sovereign state''' is a name for a country where the sovereignty, or supreme ruling power, is universally recognised. The [[United Nations]] member states must be sovereign states.<ref>[http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml United Nations Member states]</ref> States exist that have disputed sovereignty recognised by a limited group of countries, or have limited but not full international recognition. Many [[country|countries]] or [[nations]] are not classed as sovereign states; if they are of disputed government or boundaries, they may be called [[quasi-state]]s. |
| ==Legal theory==
| |
| The idea of sovereignty, free from outside intervention in its domestic affairs, was established in the 17th century by the Treaty of Westphalia<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/united-nations-in-washington-dc/sovereignty-the-legacy-of-the-treaty-of-westphalia-to-international-relations Cleophas Tsokodayi: ''Sovereignty - the legacy of the Treaty of Westphalia to international relations'', Examiner.cm August 16th, 2010]</ref> in 1918, and was endorsed by the Covenant of the [[League of Nations]]<ref>[http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp ''The Covenant of the League of Nations'', Yale Law School]</ref> and by Article 2 of the Charter of the [[United Nations]]<ref>[http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml ''Charter of the United Nations'']</ref> in 1947 with the phrase:
| |
| :"''Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state...''".
| |
| - but in both cases the implied prohibition against intervention was qualified by the approval of collective action to deter aggression.
| |
| ==Intervention==
| |
| There have since been scores of interventions in the domestic affairs in sovereign states, and the question of when to intervene has become a major issue in the conduct of [[international relations]].
| |
| ==International organizations and national sovereignty==
| |
| Some national groups believe that international organizations, such as the [[United Nations]], threaten sovereignty.
| |
| ===United States===
| |
| One such group is Concerned Women for America, shich is alarmed by ratification of international treaties or the consideration, by courts, of international law, on the theory that such ratification or consideration would override the U.S. Constitution. They strongly opposed the confirmation of [[Harold Koh]] as Legal Adviser to the [[U.S. State Department]], who indeed does believe in consideration of [[international law]]. <ref>{{citation
| |
| | title = Senate Vote Threatens American Sovereignty: Concerned Women for America Urges Senate to Oppose Harold Koh
| |
| | date = 24 June 2009
| |
| | publisher = Concerned Women for America
| |
| | url = http://www.cwfa.org/articles/17217/MEDIA/nation/index.htm}}</ref> CWA's positions, however, seem to equate advice and interpretation with transferring authority to the United Nations — which has no enforcement mechanism beyond those agreed-to by its sovereign member states. In the [[Korean War]] and [[Gulf War]], there were UN resolutions supporting military action, but the forces remained under national command.
| |
|
| |
|
| A matter of particular concern is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. According to T. Jeremy Gunn, Director of the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, and a Senior Fellow in Religion and Human Rights at Emory University School of Law, sees the opposition by CWA and others as not about human rights or constitutional law per se, but <blockquote>a cultural war over the perceived role of parents. While we can question the
| |
| excessiveness of their rhetoric and the inconsistencies of their arguments, it is
| |
| important also to try to identify the underlying values that prompt their war
| |
| metaphors and battle imagery...First, they have in mind what we might call an “idealized, conventional family” that
| |
| leads them to ignore almost completely the plight of children who do not fit
| |
| within this traditional family. Second, there appears to be an underlying fear
| |
| that if children are allowed rights of expression and access to information, that
| |
| they, as parents, will lose their children. They thus approach the question not
| |
| from the perspective of the world as it comes to vulnerable children, but as
| |
| parents who are attempting to shore up an image of an idealized, conventional
| |
| family where two heterosexual parents are raising children in conformity with
| |
| the parental ideals of religion and right behavior. The CRC opponents are
| |
| unconcerned that, for vast numbers of children in the world, the problem is not
| |
| the threat that the United Nations will interfere in the relationship between
| |
| parent and child, but that children do"<ref name=>{{citation
| |
| | publisher = Center for the Study of Law and Religion, [[Emory University]]
| |
| | url = http://cslr.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/media/PDFs/Journal_Articles_and_Book_Chapters/20.EILR.Gunn.Religious_Right_and_Opposition_to_ratification.pdf
| |
| | title = The Religious Right and the Opposition to U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child
| |
| | author = T. Jeremy Gunn
| |
| | year = 2006
| |
| | volume = 20
| |
| }}, pp. 127-128</ref></blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| [[Wayne LaPierre]], of the [[National Rifle Association]], saw [[United Nations]] discussion of an [[Arms Control Treaty]] as an attack on national sovereignty and the Second Amendment. He quoted [[John Bolton]], who was not confirmed as [[U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations]] under the [[George W. Bush Administration]] but had spoken against earlier drafts as interim representative, <blockquote>The [Obama] Administration is trying to act as if this is really just a treaty about international trade between nations, but there's no doubt — as was the case back over a decade ago —that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.</blockquote>
| |
| LaPierre wrote, <blockquote>Details of the Obama/Clinton-endorsed treaty — which has not yet been finalized — will surely include international monitoring and control of every aspect of firearm commerce and ownership in the United States. <ref name=NRA-2010-02>{{citation
| |
| | journal = America's First Freedom, National Rifle Association
| |
| | title = The First Step in Trampling Our Rights
| |
| | author = [[Wayne LaPierre]]
| |
| | date = February 2010
| |
| | pages = 8, 55}}</ref></blockquote>
| |
| He argued that "literally all of the international gun confiscation groups couch their renewed U.N. treaty effort in terms of what they call 'human rights'. But in the [[newspeak]] lexicon of the U.N., 'human rights' doesn't mean the right to self-defense as we know it."
| |
|
| |
| [[U.S. Secretary of State]] [[Hillary Clinton]] stated the position, in 2009, <blockquote>On a national basis, the United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the “gold standard” of export controls for arms transfers.<ref name=HRC-2009-12-14>{{citation
| |
| | title = U.S. Support for the Arms Trade Treaty
| |
| | author = [[Hillary Clinton]]
| |
| | date = 14 October 2009
| |
| | publisher = [[U.S. Department of State]]
| |
| | url = http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/10/130573.htm}}</ref></blockquote> without calling for additional restrictions. LaPierre, however, argued that she "did not mention the Second Amendment (i.e., "right to form militias and bear arms") or U.S. sovereignty. Her silence on those seminal elements of our freedom, stands in stark contrast to the audacious defense of American liberty by President [[George W. Bush]] under [[Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security]] John Bolton...[who said in July 2001] "we do not support measures that prohibit civilian possession of small arms...the United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures abrogating the constitutional right to bear arms."<ref name=NRA-2010-02 />
| |
|
| |
|
| ==References== | | ==References== |
| <references /> | | <references />[[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]] |
