The Idea of Sovereignty

[PoD Gunner]

A thing that puzzles me in this debate is the following: in a present and a near future of increasing interdependence, all international organizations assuming responsibilities and mandates that affect our life in different aspects and degrees by influencing the direct jurisdiction of nation-states, it would seem logic that these institutions operate according to a principle that is, up to this moment, the best form of representativity that mankind has managed to set-up - that of democracy. Such a democratic and transparent guiding principle what international decision-making is concerend would be a must if these global factors are to play a positive part in ensuring a climate of peace and security on the international scene. But, as far as I can see, we are moving on to a higher level, while we still have not managed to cover a satisfying degree of democratic management as far as diverse issues regarding the life of nation-states are concerned, and there are plenty of examples in the recent history. The UN as the international forum of policy-making or the ICC as an international gremium of world justice are still rather distant succeses as far as I can see.
If you look at human history, internationalsim, globalism or multiculturalism were never dialogues between equals, but rather have been enacted in the name of those identified as 'vicitims' or 'disadvantaged' (real or made-up), and the same policies have been later blamed specifically on the same. Instead of instating a balance, the result was that of pushing such groups of individuals or states in a marginal position on the international stage and of the policy-making process while the dominant continued on monopolizing the big-decisions for their own interests, and relied on 'approved' or 'recognized' interlocutors for political horse-trading on behalf of groups or peoples they were not representative of.

On the other hand, the positive result of the above was the emergence of a vibrant civil society, concerned with progressive policies, scanning and criticising the big-scene and pushing decision factors to place more and more of the national or international policy-making in the unpredictable but fair hands of democratic process.

I sometimes have the impression that the rather simplistic but easy-to-understand situation prior to the big changes of the '90s has given way to a context very hard or almost impossible to oversee and manage, and that most of the international policies follow blind trails. I wonder if we are indeed heading for chaos. Are we really replacing the rule of force with the rule of law, or is it just a cosy game where, in fact, the involved partners are by far not abiding by the same principles?

[New History lovers]

The International Criminal Court is a good start.  It is not viable in its current form and MUST be changed at some point, but it is a good start.

Unfortunately, though I support US entry into it, my view on Constitutional law would say that it is unconstitutional for the United States to accept the jurisdiction of anything, government, court, or legislature, as having full jurisdiction over the United States, and for the United States to join the ICC would require a Constitutional Amendment, as would the United States participating in a world government or strengthened United Nations.  It is unconstitutional for Congress to give up the sovereignty of the United States without the consent of the states in the form of a Constitutional amendment, requring 3/4 of the states to approve.  Granted, this would not be impossible, but how the hell are we to get thirty-eight out of fifty states to agree to such a thing?  Unlikely, in my opinion.

Also, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has established, as of 1812, that the Bill of Rights applies to foreigners in the territories or under the authority of the United States, and spying on Americans without a warrant, well, I just have this to say:

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that this applies to wiretapping and spying.

But, I digress.

[The Empire]

What about the parts that tries to place foreign nationals IN THEIR OWN NATIONS under it's jurisdiction then?
I'd say that's extremely close to a declaration of war against the whole world.

[Gulliver]

Unconstitutional? The President has the constitutionally stated power to form treaties with the advise and approval  of two-thirds of those members of the Senate present at the time. What's more, foreign policy is also constitutionally the domain of the federal government alone. There's nothing unconstitutional about it that I can see.

Anyway, perhaps one day in the future, we will see the federal semi-presidential republic that is the United Nations of Earth coexisting peacefully with the Holy See of Vatican City. One can hope...

[Eientei]

Unfortunately, though I support US entry into it, my view on Constitutional law would say that it is unconstitutional for the United States to accept the jurisdiction of anything, government, court, or legislature, as having full jurisdiction over the United States, and for the United States to join the ICC would require a Constitutional Amendment, as would the United States participating in a world government or strengthened United Nations.  It is unconstitutional for Congress to give up the sovereignty of the United States without the consent of the states in the form of a Constitutional amendment, requring 3/4 of the states to approve.  Granted, this would not be impossible, but how the hell are we to get thirty-eight out of fifty states to agree to such a thing?  Unlikely, in my opinion.

Whenever the United States signs a treaty or a convention, it generally adds an "understanding" to its signature, explaining that the United States Constitution takes precedent over the treaty in any cases that the two might conflict.  The US has always had that exception to cover its sovereignty.  One of the problems with the ICC is that the treaty establishing it forbids any reservations or understandings as an addition to any state's signature.  President Clinton signed the Statue back when it was up for consideration anyway, and I think the US should have stayed with it in order to have influence on the shaping of the court.

What about the parts that tries to place foreign nationals IN THEIR OWN NATIONS under it's jurisdiction then?
I'd say that's extremely close to a declaration of war against the whole world.

Those parts are really the essence of the ICC.  Take Ratko Mladic, a Bosnian Serb general charged with crimes against humanity by the international tribunal dealing with crimes committed during the former Yugoslavia civil war.  He's believed to be in Serbia and is basically protected from facing any court of law.  Since the ICC is designed to charge people believed to have committed great crimes against humanity, genocide and the like, it would be pointless if the court didn't give itself jurisdiction over people like Mladic (a different, temporary court has charged Mladic, but the idea is the same.)  That's where the ICC runs headfirst into sovereignty issues, though.  The actual process of extradition is a problem if the state is unwilling to give up the person charged, but that's something for the international lawyers, ambassadors, etc to work out.

[The Empire]

What about the parts that tries to place foreign nationals IN THEIR OWN NATIONS under it's jurisdiction then?
I'd say that's extremely close to a declaration of war against the whole world.

Those parts are really the essence of the ICC.  Take Ratko Mladic, a Bosnian Serb general charged with crimes against humanity by the international tribunal dealing with crimes committed during the former Yugoslavia civil war.  He's believed to be in Serbia and is basically protected from facing any court of law.  Since the ICC is designed to charge people believed to have committed great crimes against humanity, genocide and the like, it would be pointless if the court didn't give itself jurisdiction over people like Mladic (a different, temporary court has charged Mladic, but the idea is the same.)  That's where the ICC runs headfirst into sovereignty issues, though.  The actual process of extradition is a problem if the state is unwilling to give up the person charged, but that's something for the international lawyers, ambassadors, etc to work out.

Errrmm.. I think I should have clarified myself, that sentence was NOT referring to the ICC but to the US "patriot act"

[Eientei]

What about the parts that tries to place foreign nationals IN THEIR OWN NATIONS under it's jurisdiction then?
I'd say that's extremely close to a declaration of war against the whole world.

Those parts are really the essence of the ICC.  Take Ratko Mladic, a Bosnian Serb general charged with crimes against humanity by the international tribunal dealing with crimes committed during the former Yugoslavia civil war.  He's believed to be in Serbia and is basically protected from facing any court of law.  Since the ICC is designed to charge people believed to have committed great crimes against humanity, genocide and the like, it would be pointless if the court didn't give itself jurisdiction over people like Mladic (a different, temporary court has charged Mladic, but the idea is the same.)  That's where the ICC runs headfirst into sovereignty issues, though.  The actual process of extradition is a problem if the state is unwilling to give up the person charged, but that's something for the international lawyers, ambassadors, etc to work out.

Errrmm.. I think I should have clarified myself, that sentence was NOT referring to the ICC but to the US "patriot act"

Oh, sorry.  Yeah, the Patriot Act is pretty much a stain on the country in almost all its aspects.  I guess there's a real difference between the two documents in that sense - the Patriot Act is a unilateral document that more or less disregards international standards that the US has agreed upon over the decades, while the ICC is a court with at least some operating procedure and relies on a consensus among the nations.

[Delfos]

all pro-globalisation here?

[Khablan]

Truthfully, I don't view globalization as something that one can be for or against.  Actually, that's not terribly accurate.  What I mean is that it doesn't matter whether one is in favor of it or not.  It's a fact of life - it's happening whether anyone wants it or not.  It has its advantages and disadvantages, and one can only hope that the good will outweigh the bad in the end.