a

[The Snake Brotherhood]

.

[The Snake Brotherhood]

I take it you lot were intimidated by the name of the author, or something

[Aelosia]

I find the ideas extremely interesting. I was debating earlier this year with people from 13 different countries about sovereingnity, and we all agreed it is a fading concept. As for "fading", we determined it is not going to happen in the next 100 years, as a matter of fact.

[The Snake Brotherhood]

I'm fascinated by think-tanks like yours. How can I join?

[Aelosia]

I'm fascinated by think-tanks like yours. How can I join?

Oh, in this case, just check the japanese SWY PROGRAM. Google it to see if your country participates.

[Dododecapod]

I think he's largely right: Globalisation Theory does require an erosion of state sovereignty. I also think the author lacks a full understanding of what sovereignty is and means - to assume that sovereignty EVER provided protection of one state against another, stronger state indicates a naivety that hardly goes well with his position.

I also think this erosion of sovereignty is a serious threat to human rights, accountable governance and rule of law. Political power, like energy or matter in physics, can neither be created nor destroyed within a political framework - only transferred. Thus, the erosion of sovereignty indicates possession of power is leaving the nation-state and entering the control of supranational bodies - and this is NOT a good thing, since those bodies are unelected, uncontrolled bureaucracies, accountable to no one and all too willing to violate national law within their "mandate". Don't believe me? Consider the Ethiopian Civil War. The Red Cross, Medicins Sans Frontieres and UNICEF all operated bringing "disaster relief" to the peoples of Eritrea and Tigre - in direct violation of Ethiopian law. Ethiopia was attempting to starve the rebels out - it is largely because of the bodies listed above that this didn't work. It can therefore be said that those organizations were directly responsible for the carving up of a sovereign state into three, much weaker, nations.

Globalisation of trade is a good thing, since it brings some of the benefit of trade to the countries that traditionally got none. Globalisation of government aids no one but the bureaucrats.

[The Snake Brotherhood]

Re: Ethiopia: This seems, to me, to reinforce what has always been true, namely that sovereignty extends as far as one can enforce it. Sovereignty as a doctrine has always been more power-based than principle-based. see Georgia v. Russia, where the US vehemently stated that this was a sovereignty violation, but did not feel the need to step in to defend the principle of sovereignty. Alternately, you can watch the US raiding into Pakistan with unmanned drones, making arguable sovereignty violations to defend its own interests.

I'd agree that sovereignty is a good thing insofar as it reinforces local control, but that said, sovereignty has its downsides. The idea that the laws of another country are sacrosanct can be just as injurious to human and civil rights as refusing to recognize those laws at all. It's all about who's exercising the power.

[Greed and Death]

American Sovereignty is worth fighting a war with all the rest of the world over.

[Barringtonia]

I would prefer sovereign states but a universal currency, passport system and, though I don't particular insist on this, language.

Having said that, I'd also prefer sovereign states no larger than about 30 million people. I just think the bureaucracy and diversity beyond that point means a government becomes too unwieldy and by consequence too encroaching. I could not back that up if I tried other than pure gut feeling, a Blink if you will.

Would there be a world where those states would contribute to a global armed force with a mandate to maintain peace and not create one of their own other than a police force for internal security?

Alas, tensions in terms of resources means that, as sorry a situation as it is, war can often be the only real means of resolving those disputes. No solution is likely to be seen as fair by all so either one needs a dominant class of states that bully their way in a supra-national government or it will likely disintegrate anyway.

[Lackadaisical2]

I think he's largely right: Globalisation Theory does require an erosion of state sovereignty. I also think the author lacks a full understanding of what sovereignty is and means - to assume that sovereignty EVER provided protection of one state against another, stronger state indicates a naivety that hardly goes well with his position.

Its true that he doesn't look very smart by claiming that America's actions were somehow an aberration in the history of sovereign states.

I also think this erosion of sovereignty is a serious threat to human rights, accountable governance and rule of law. Political power, like energy or matter in physics, can neither be created nor destroyed within a political framework - only transferred. Thus, the erosion of sovereignty indicates possession of power is leaving the nation-state and entering the control of supranational bodies - and this is NOT a good thing, since those bodies are unelected, uncontrolled bureaucracies, accountable to no one and all too willing to violate national law within their "mandate".

It could go either way, good or bad.

Don't believe me? Consider the Ethiopian Civil War. The Red Cross, Medicins Sans Frontieres and UNICEF all operated bringing "disaster relief" to the peoples of Eritrea and Tigre - in direct violation of Ethiopian law. Ethiopia was attempting to starve the rebels out - it is largely because of the bodies listed above that this didn't work. It can therefore be said that those organizations were directly responsible for the carving up of a sovereign state into three, much weaker, nations.

Globalisation of trade is a good thing, since it brings some of the benefit of trade to the countries that traditionally got none. Globalisation of government aids no one but the bureaucrats.

Hmm. I wouldn't say no one but the bureaucrats.

[Barringtonia]

The issues in this world can arguably be said to stem from the fact that America has not properly taken on its role as a global empire. After the fall of the USSR, given history, the USA should have stepped up rather than down and pursued a global strategy rather than a petty feud with Iraq.

Naill Ferguson is an interesting read on this subject and although neo-cons are a boogie word these days, to entirely dismiss their concept of projected power is naive.

Then again, it's a question of whether one feels organic growth in cooperation, despite the lengthy time taken, is better than enforced cooperation - do we want Rome or the EU?

[Dododecapod]

The issues in this world can arguably be said to stem from the fact that America has not properly taken on its role as a global empire. After the fall of the USSR, given history, the USA should have stepped up rather than down and pursued a global strategy rather than a petty feud with Iraq.

Naill Ferguson is an interesting read on this subject and although neo-cons are a boogie word these days, to entirely dismiss their concept of projected power is naive.

Then again, it's a question of whether one feels organic growth in cooperation, despite the lengthy time taken, is better than enforced cooperation - do we want Rome or the EU?

If those were the only two choices, I'd take Rome. They actually made decisions and competently ran what they held.

I don't believe those are the only choices, thankfully. A situation analogous to the mid-19th century Europe would be better, with the powerful nations establishing policy and the lesser nations either obeying it or getting hammered - it's not perfect, but it kept the casualties down, and power in the hands of those competent to wield it.