Bogus Sovereignty

Why does the world allow some counries to abuse their own people, attack others, and endanger the world?

Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia and others have no legitimate elected government and their actions endanger the world.

They should have their alleged sovereignty rejected by every civilized nation on earth.

Why indeed.

Maybe we should ask U.S. Supreme Court "Justices" Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Breyer. They love to use foreign law in interpreting U.S. law, and they have obviously learned much from President Mugabe.

I'm sure that they are studying the situation in Zimbabwe very carefully.

Mugabe's government has obviously supplied them with ample "new" ideas--notably their infamous Kelo Eminent Domain Decision, which was obviously lifted right out of Mugabe's Thinktank and Zimbabwe's national law for application in the U.S.

No telling what new ideas they will glean from Mugabe's reaction to present events.

When a country abuses its own people, it is rarely held to account by forces outside its borders, because the institutions that exist that could do such an action would be endangered themselves by the act. If I am a leader of a country and I deny your sovereignty, then that opens up the possibility that you can deny mine. Respecting soverienty is held up as a high minded ideal in international organizations, yet mostly that just allows a plantation mentality to exist.

There is only one world leader who does support the idea of intervention, and that is Pope Benedict, in his speach to the UN:

In a major speech to the U.N. General Assembly, the pope also said the international community sometimes had the duty to intervene when a country could not protect its own people from "grave and sustained violations of human rights."

The international community must be "capable of responding to the demands of the human family through binding international rules," said the 81-year-old pope, who spoke after meeting privately with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

[...]

In an apparent reference to the conflict in the Sudanese region of Darfur, the pope said every state had the "primary duty" to protect its citizens from human rights violations and humanitarian crises but outside intervention was sometimes justified.

"If states are unable to guarantee such protection, the international community must intervene with the juridical means provided in the United Nations Charter and in other international instruments," he said.

Mostly though, we are on our own, and have to protect our own rights from the abuses of our own governments. This is what the second amendment is for.

Rightly said, Vince. Though if the offending sovereign nation was in violation of treaties it has signed or other contractual agreements, the offended nation has a right to remedy.

Of course, if several nations wanted to force the issue with a nation that was uncomitted on issues of human rights, freedoms, etc., they can do it by conquest, though it's best to let the 'king' live.

Why does the world allow some counries to abuse their own people, attack others, and endanger the world?

Because we have no more authority inside their borders than they have in ours?

Try:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 US Constituion

and:

Law of Nations

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.