In post 101 you wrote: "States don’t have “rights.” They have powers."
If a right is described as a power it is still a right. If states have powers which are descriptions of rights, then states have rights.
If you're defining a State as a ruling regime (which I'm not sure I would), the ruling regime (State) has a right to rule (with the consent of those ruled) which right may be described as a power but even so defined is still a right, therefore states have rights.
I think it is dangerous (conceptually) not to make a distinction between the rights of individuals and the powers of a state. The rights of a person and the powers of a state are very different ideas. I try not confuse the two.
You question referring to “states” as “ruling regimes.” I honestly do not know what to call them if not that. In the sense that the Founding generation used the term “government,” that is in the sense of “government by the consent of the governed,” I know of no ruling regime that can properly be called a “government.” Of course, in a political context a Chuck Schumer would agree with the sentiment that government be conducted “by the consent of the governed.” But his comportment, his manner of speaking, his very bearing cries out that he thinks of himself as a ruler, not a “governor.” The same can be said of The Kenyon Pretender, and of nearly every other politician. Perhaps you would care to hazard to name a few public figures who do not think of themselves as “rulers,” just as you might wish to name a few governments that are conducted genuinely by the “consent of the government.” I leave that task to you. I cannot.
Likewise, if there are some who would essay to make no marked distinction between the “rights” of individuals and the “powers” of a state (or ruling regime), then please proceed in good health by all means. Vaya con Dios, or, in Hebrew, לכי עם אלוהים.