National Sovereignty and the Universal Good

[SWolf]

I agree, the UN is woefully ineffective but do you know why? Contrary to what you state the UN does not have its own troops or its own anything. It is entirely dependant on the Security Council comprised of the five powers that won the war and their interests: the U.S., Russia (successor state to the Soviet Union), Great Britain, France and China.

they have their own troops. un.org/en/peacekeeping/issues/military.shtml

There is no UN “authority” or “government” above the level of the major powers themselves. The UN is completely subservient to the world powers and can do nothing if one of them exercises their veto.

Why is this the case?

Would a fully democratic U.N. be better? What would stop all the poor nations from coming together and confiscating other nation’s wealth?

Imagine a world government, democratically elected according to the
principle of one-man-one-vote on a worldwide scale. What would the
probable outcome of an election be? Most likely, we would get a Chinese-Indian
coalition government. And what would this government
most likely decide to do in order to satisfy its supporters and be
reelected? The govemmentwould probably find that the so-called Western
world had far too much wealth and the rest of the world, in particular
China and India, far too little, and that a systematic wealth and
income redistribution would be necessary.l Or imagine that in your own
country the right to vote were expanded to seven year olds. While the
government would not likely be staffed of children, its policies would most
definitely reflect the “legitimate concerns” of children to have "adequate
and “equal” access to “free” french fries, lemonade, and videos.2 - Hoppe

Would this be better? Because this is what would happen. Democracy, especially in the world stage, is a very destructive force.

Because in 1945 the Allies didn’t listen to Pope Pius XII and invest a “society of peoples” with "supreme power" and “real and effective authority over the member states” (while still respecting their sovereign right to make laws for their own particular goods at the national level).

The U.N. states abortion is a human right. Should they be able to impose that on all member states? Should they be able to use the threat of force to do so?

Instead they created a purely delegated international organisation in which power resides in the nation states without a “higher authority” super partes above their own particular goods to direct them towards the universal good.

The UN is, and has always been, ineffective for this reason. No one listened to the Church’s proposal and they still do not.

Thanks be to God. The Church’s proposal would give our enemies the power to near destroy us.

 

[Vouthon]

Can they impose their will without a nation’s consent?

Since the state has to secure the common good of its citizens, it is fully entitled to fulfil this task freely without interference from another state which has no competence. Yet this national good is a particular good and therefore subordinate to the universal good does not entitle the state to be equally independent of the authority responsible for the higher universal good of the collective as a whole. In areas where the “global authority” has powers adequate to its mission, the nation-state is not entitled to question them, since the international authority holds these powers not through the voluntary delegation of the member states (as with the UN) but by natural law, by the very nature of its mission.

This does not, however, mean that States are expected to serve the Authority unconditionally or without consent. They must first submit to the Authority and determine the scope of its powers by consent, in collaboration with the other equally sovereign states, through treaties. The Authority must likewise be strictly limited and circumscribed by the principle of solidarity. It has no right to trespass on a power that is reserved solely to the national level and is intended to fulfil a particular good on the part of a given nation-state by its legitimate government. The Authority must be at the service of the member states and their collective interest, which is why it has to be “above” all of their particular interests and so have effective, real powers of its own at the global level rather than being merely a delegated institution without any hierarchical authority over the States, as with the purely horizontal decision-making of the UN.

Read:

This is a complex and delicate process. A supranational Authority in this arena should have a realistic structure and be set up gradually….It is a matter of an Authority with a global reach that cannot be imposed by force, coercion or violence, but should be the outcome of a free and shared agreement and a reflection of the permanent and historic needs of the world common good. It ought to arise from a process of progressive maturation of consciences and advances in freedoms as well as awareness of growing responsibilities…Consent should engage an ever greater number of countries that adhere with conviction, through a sincere dialogue that values the minority opinions rather than marginalizing them…

What is valid on the national level is also valid on the global level. A person is not made to serve authority unconditionally. Rather, it is the task of authority to be at the service of the person, consistent with the pre-eminent value of human dignity. Likewise, governments should not serve the world Authority unconditionally. Instead, it is the world Authority that should put itself at the service of the various member countries, according to the principle of subsidiarity. Among the ways it should do this is by creating the socio-economic, political and legal conditions essential for the existence of markets that are efficient and efficacious precisely because they are not over-protected by paternalistic national policies and not weakened by systematic deficits in public finances and of the gross national products – indeed, such policies and deficits actually hamper the markets themselves in acting on the world stage as open and competitive institutions.

In the tradition of the Church’s Magisterium which Benedict XVI has vigorously embraced(16),** the principle of subsidiarity should regulate relations between the State and local communities and between public and private institutions, not excluding the monetary and financial institutions. Likewise, on a higher level, it ought to govern the relationships between a possible future global public Authority and regional and national institutions. This principle guarantees both democratic legitimacy and the efficacy of the decisions of those called to make them**. It allows respect for the freedom of people, individually and in communities, and allows them at the same time to take responsibility for the objectives and duties that pertain to them.

According to the logic of subsidiarity, the higher Authority offers its subsidium, that is, its aid, only when individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them(17). Thanks to the principle of solidarity, a lasting and fruitful relationship would build up between global civil society and a world public Authority as States, intermediate bodies, various institutions – including economic and financial ones – and citizens make their decisions with a view to the global common good, which transcends national goods.

 

[Vouthon]

they have their own troops. un.org/en/peacekeeping/issues/military.shtml

That is not army but a peace-keeping force. Private organisations have their own forces. Who commands this force? There is no UN government or President with the power to authorize it. The decision must be made by the Five Powers who comprise the Security Council. Not the UN, see what the article notes further down:

Why does the UN not have a standing reserve?

It takes considerable time to deploy troops and we are often asked why we do not have a standing reserve.

The UN can only deploy military personnel when there is a UN Security Council resolution authorizing them to do so. The Security Council will say how many military personnel are required, and then UN Headquarters will liaise with the Member States to identify personnel and deploy them. This can take time – perhaps more than six months from the date of the resolution.

 

[Vouthon]

The U.N. states abortion is a human right. Should they be able to impose that on all member states? Should they be able to use the threat of force to do so?

You keep referring to the UN, when I’ve told you multiple times that the “global political authority” the Church refers to does not exist yet. It is not the UN, although the Magisterium has suggested that we use the UN as the starting point, on account of its universally recognised constitution, to gradually create the “real League of Nations” through reforming the imperfect UN over time.

The “global political authority” referred to by the Church is demanded by natural law. The UN is not.

Read this from the 1937 document:

1. It is not the task of ethical science to lay down the constitution of this true League of Nations or to enumerate its features and describe its intricate workings . It is in no way competent to determine the actual forms which the completed work will take; this problem pertains rather .to social and juridical science, to political wisdom and to experience. The science of Ethics contents itself with establishing the essential features of an organization of international life which is most in har* mony with the designs of Divine Providence. It knows that its realization is distant, that nations will only get near to it by degrees, and it therefore does not look to any immediate fulfilment. But it demands that at least all the loyal and sincere aspirations and tendencies of all individuals, nations and governments should go to promote the fulfilment of this international order, which is alone in entire conformity with the nature of man and the will of God.

 

[SWolf]

Since the state has to secure the common good of its citizens, it is fully entitled to fulfil this task freely without interference from another state which has no competence. Yet this national good is a particular good and therefore subordinate to the universal good does not entitle the state to be equally independent of the authority responsible for the higher universal good of the collective as a whole. In areas where the “global authority” has powers adequate to its mission, the nation-state is not entitled to question them, since the international authority holds these powers not through the voluntary delegation of the member states (as with the UN) but by natural law, by the very nature of its mission.

This does not, however, mean that States are expected to serve the Authority unconditionally or without consent. They must first submit to the Authority and determine the scope of its powers by consent, in collaboration with the other equally sovereign states, through treaties. The Authority must likewise be strictly limited and circumscribed by the principle of solidarity. It has no right to trespass on a power that is reserved solely to the national level and is intended to fulfil a particular good on the part of a given nation-state by its legitimate government. The Authority must be at the service of the member states and their collective interest, which is why it has to be “above” all of their particular interests and so have effective, real powers of its own at the global level rather than being merely a delegated institution without any hierarchical authority over the States, as with the purely horizontal decision-making of the UN.

Read:

These are a lot of words that don’t answer a simple question. I’ll ask again.

If the World Government says that, under it’s authority, it has the right to state Abortion is a human right, and a nation refuses to comply, can they use force to impose their will?

If a nation decides a World Authority is breaking the principle of subsidiarity, delegating too many powers to itself, and refusing to work for their collective interest, can the nation secede from the World Body?

These are simple questions.

 

[dmar198]

Thanks be to God. The Church’s proposal would give our enemies the power to near destroy us.

Sounds like you think you have more wisdom than the Church and all the recent popes on at least one issue.

 

[SWolf]

You keep referring to the UN, when I’ve told you multiple times that the “global political authority” the Church refers to does not exist yet. It is not the UN, although the Magisterium has suggested that we use the UN as the starting point, on account of its universally recognised constitution, to gradually create the “real League of Nations” through reforming the imperfect UN over time.

The “global political authority” referred to by the Church is demanded by natural law. The UN is not.

Read this from the 1937 document:

The U.N. is the closest thing we have, and I’ve already shown why a truly democratic “global political authority” would be a disaster.

Also, a global political authority can take the form of the WTO, NATO, etc. These organizations do their jobs effectively while never usurping national sovereignty. You have failed to make the case of why a democratic world authority that could usurp national sovereignty would have a better outcome. All the evidence points to the contrary.

 

[SWolf]

Vouthon;13354111**:

That is not army but a peace-keeping force.

Private organisations have their own forces. Who commands this force? There is no UN government or President with the power to authorize it. The decision must be made by the Five Powers who comprise the Security Council. Not the UN, see what the article notes further down:

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

“Peacekeeping”

thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/21090-sex-abuse-by-un-peace-troops-becoming-global-scandal

 

[Landon_Caeli]

I don’t know. No-one but yourself is asking about indigenous tribes.

There is no reason why a reservation could not be wrapped around such groups and just left alone. Indigenous tribes are not an argument against globalism.

ICXC NIKA

Lets be clear. We’re not talking about Europe or the West, we’re talking about everyone. Now you claim there can be exemptions, which the Church does not claim, and didn’t claim when the conquistadors assimilated into indiginous cultures and changed them from within.

I’m out. I think most Catholics are out.

 

[Vouthon]

These are a lot of words that don’t answer a simple question. I’ll ask again.

If the World Government says that, under it’s authority, it has the right to state Abortion is a human right, and a nation refuses to comply, can they use force to impose their will?

I would say “no,” since abortion is a controversial issue and there is no universally recognized agreement upon time limits or indeed cultural or religious approaches to this issue. Do you really expect the Islamic world, which would have equal contribution to the global political authority as the West, not to mention conservative African nations and other Catholic countries, to consent to the creation of a global authority that would have the right to enforce a single understanding of the divisive issue of abortion onto the member states?

The Authority, as the Church states, must respect cultural and religious differences. Enforcing a uniform approach to abortion would therefore contravene its powers, subject it to “particular goods” (namely of factions within the Western world) and it would no longer be impartial.

So the answer to your question is “no”. To endorse and enforce with threat of sanction a universally binding understanding of abortion as a “human right” would not be a proper exercise of its authority and would not be in its power to do so, since this would render it “partial” to the particular goods of only a few nations and their liberal cultures rather than working in the common interests of the collective as a whole.

If a nation decides a World Authority is breaking the principle of subsidiarity, delegating too many powers to itself, and refusing to work for their collective interest, can the nation secede from the World Body?

These are simple questions.

If it transgresses its authority, then the nations are right to rebuke and seek legal redress against it to restore the status quo. As to the question of whether they have a right to secede, that would be a question for the constitutional framers of a hypothetical World Authority to determine.

Do you really think that any state would wish to secede from a Union in which every other country in the world was a participant? There is a reason that despite its ineffectiveness no major nation has pulled out of the UN.

As you know from the American Civil War, this is not a simple question and is in fact a very vexed one. The Union in the American Civil War did not recognize the Southerners right to secede, so there is no uniformity in this respect.

I would say though, that nations have a right to self-determination and if it does transgress its authority then perhaps under this exceptional circumstance the framers of the constitution could recognize a right to secede. However a right to secede could be used as a flimsy threat or excuse by member states to reject anything they don’t want to follow from the Authority. This is not on, since the Authority deserves to be respected when it is exercising its due competence internationally just as the States deserve to have their sovereign rights within their own borders upheld. The Authority must be a strong and effective as well as guided by subsidiarity and limited, so this is really a question for future international lawyers to find the correct balance.

 

[Landon_Caeli]

Dear Landon,

I do not recall saying anything about making the world Catholic

The Vatican explicitly stated in that 2011 document:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20111024_nota_en.html#3._An_Authority_over_Globalization

This is not a “global uniformity” that is being called for. The resulting global order is expected to be a “synthesis” formed through the interaction and contribution of different cultures and civilizations engaged in a common cause.

The global political authority is envisaged to be impartial with respect to culture and stand above all particular goods, enabling each country to pursue its own “particular goods” at the local or national level, while directing them towards collaboration with each other where the common good is concerned.

So there is absolutely nothing here about imposing our ways on anybody else.

Then the objective is already occuring. There is already communication between nations, so there need not be one single governing authority… We don’t need a King of the World.

 

[Vouthon]

The U.N. is the closest thing we have, and I’ve already shown why a truly democratic “global political authority” would be a disaster.

Also, a global political authority can take the form of the WTO, NATO, etc. These organizations do their jobs effectively while never usurping national sovereignty. You have failed to make the case of why a democratic world authority that could usurp national sovereignty would have a better outcome. All the evidence points to the contrary.

If you think that we are dealing effectively with international crises using our current international system, then I would say you have your head in the sand.

We have an intractable civil wars in Syria and Yemen, the biggest migration crisis since WWII, an impotent Security Council that cannot act in concert because of the disagreements between Russia and the West, a crisis in Ukraine caused by a Russian annexation of Crimea, economic mismanagement that we are still trying to recover from, widespread unemployment, environmental degradation, a chaos throughout the Arab world…

I could go on but needless to say the system we have is not working, such that Pope Francis has argued that we are presently seeing “a piecemeal WWIII”:

bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29190890

You must be the only person the planet who still thinks that the system created in 1945 is working today.

 

[SWolf]

I would say “no,” since abortion is a controversial issue and there is no universally recognized agreement upon time limits or indeed cultural or religious approaches to this issue.

Why should this matter? Is morality determined by universally recognized agreement of nations? This is incoherent.

Do you really expect the Islamic world, which would have equal contribution to the global political authority as the West, not to mention conservative African nations and other Catholic countries, to consent to the creation of a global authority that would have the right to enforce a single understanding of the divisive issue of abortion onto the member states?

They grant themselves these powers over time. Governments always have “scope creep” in their mission.

The Authority, as the Church states, must respect cultural and religious differences. Enforcing a uniform approach to abortion would therefore contravene its powers, subject it to “particular goods” (namely of factions within the Western world) and it would no longer be impartial.

So the answer to your question is “no”. To endorse and enforce with threat of sanction a universally binding understanding of abortion as a “human right” would not be a proper exercise of its authority and would not be in its power to do so, since this would render it “partial” to the particular goods of only a few nations and their liberal cultures rather than working in the common interests of the collective as a whole.

What if they decide to anyways? Say those lawyers with their degrees in international law say it’s okay. Can the nation fight back militarily?

If it transgresses its authority, then the nations are right to rebuke and seek legal redress against it to restore the status quo. As to the question of whether they have a right to secede, that would be a question for the constitutional framers of a hypothetical World Authority to determine.

Nonsense. The World Authority is a biased actor. It’s like going to court when the plaintiff is the wife of the judge.

Do you really think that any state would wish to secede from a Union in which every other country in the world was a participant?

Yes.

As you know from the American Civil War, this is not a simple question and is in fact a very vexed one. The Union in the American Civil War did not recognize the Southerners right to secede, so there is no uniformity in this respect.

Yes. The 600,000 people died so the South could not secede. The price with a global authority would be at least 10 times more. Some peace…

I would say though, that nations have a right to self-determination and if it does transgress its authority then perhaps under this exceptional circumstance the framers of the constitution could recognize a right to secede.

How about, “this isn’t working out… bye” Why does it have to be more complicated than that? There are plenty of international bodies doing great work that is in no way coercive.

However a right to secede could be used as a flimsy threat or excuse by member states to reject anything they don’t want to follow from the Authority.

And keeps the authority from usurping a nation’s authority.

This is not on, since the Authority deserves to be respected when it is exercising its due competence internationally just as the States deserve to have their sovereign rights within their own borders upheld. The Authority must be a strong and effective as well as guided by subsidiarity and limited, so this is really a question for future international lawyers to find the correct balance.

No. It’s done by mutual consent. Remove the right to secede to some extreme factor, you are destroying subsidiarity and giving the World Authority no checks and balances.

 

[SWolf]

If you think that we are dealing effectively with international crises using our current international system, then I would say you have your head in the sand.

We have an intractable civil wars in Syria and Yemen, the biggest migration crisis since WWII, an impotent Security Council that cannot act in concert because of the disagreements between Russia and the West, a crisis in Ukraine caused by a Russian annexation of Crimea, economic mismanagement that we are still trying to recover from, widespread unemployment, environmental degradation, a chaos throughout the Arab world…

I could go on but needless to say the system we have is not working, such that Pope Francis has argued that we are presently seeing “a piecemeal WWIII”:

bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29190890

You must be the only person the planet who still thinks that the system created in 1945 is working today.

How many major trade wars do you see? Seems the WTO and other trade orgs are doing a good job. Unfortunately, every nation has a fiat money system, which is the core of widespread corruption.

 

[Vouthon]

Then the objective is already occuring. There is already communication between nations, so there need not be one single governing authority… We don’t need a King of the World.

The issue is that yes, the world is growing more interdependent but without a corresponding authority to control the process. As a result, we have anarchy.

The forces now in motion appear to be leading toward a global society without a dominant structure of cooperation and direction — a polyarchy in which nation-states, sub-national groups and supranational organisations find themselves in competition.

It is like expecting children, of equal mental ability and strength, to behave properly towards each other without a guardian to watch over them and act in the interests of every child. If left to themselves, the individual children will follow their own particular whims and do as they please.

Catholic Social Teaching does not believe in an anarchic world order left to the whims of absolutely sovereign state entities. Every society needs an authority to oversee it. The international society is not exempted.

 

[GEddie]

Lets be clear. We’re not talking about Europe or the West, we’re talking about everyone. Now you claim there can be exemptions, which the Church does not claim, and didn’t claim when the conquistadors assimilated into indiginous cultures and changed them from within.

I’m out. I think most Catholics are out.

I don’t think so.

I never mentioned Europe or the West, and only mentioned indigenous tribes because you did so first.

Most indigenous tribes, except for American Indians, Russian Inuits, or Australian Aboriginals, do not live in “Europe and the West.” For most of those, it is too late to preserve the original culture.

TMM, the only compelling reasons to preserve indigenous culture is as a source of anthropological knowledge. That can be done without a separate sovereign state, is all I meant to say.

Most cultural entities do not have a sovereign state.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vouthon]

Why should this matter? Is morality determined by universally recognized agreement of nations? This is incoherent.

No, it is determined by natural law. I thought, however, that you were asking me a legal and political question about how the powers of a global authority.

What if they decide to anyways? Say those lawyers with their degrees in international law say it’s okay. Can the nation fight back militarily?

I’m explaining to you that the true political authority would not have the power, under law, to do so.

Nonsense. The World Authority is a biased actor. It’s like going to court when the plaintiff is the wife of the judge.

The one envisaged by the Church is not a biased actor.

How about, “this isn’t working out… bye” Why does it have to be more complicated than that? There are plenty of international bodies doing great work that is in no way coercive.

But they have no direct authority over nations. The world order we have right now is controlled and directed by national interests. A nation can simply ignore any international organization it wants at present. The only viable response to such actions is for other nations to impose sanctions. A strong world power can flout almost any international law it wants at present with little consequences.

And keeps the authority from usurping a nation’s authority.

A true world political authority does not usurp a nation’s legitimate authority any way.

No. It’s done by mutual consent. Remove the right to secede to some extreme factor, you are destroying subsidiarity and giving the World Authority no checks and balances.

Its a complicated question, as we can see from national examples (i.e. the US). You are reducing a very complicated issue down to a simplistic set of assumptions.

 

[SWolf]

No, it is determined by natural law. I thought, however, that you were asking me a legal and political question about how the powers of a global authority.

Then if abortion is recognized as a human right by 99.9% of nations, it still has no right to impose it on the single nation that opposes it.

I’m explaining to you that the true political authority would not have the power, under law, to do so.

Who determines the “true” political authority? This strikes me as “No true scotsman”

The one envisaged by the Church is not a biased actor.

Ummm, ok. Does it have any basis in reality. or is it as real as a square circle?

But they have no direct authority over nations. The world order we have right now is controlled and directed by national interests. A nation can simply ignore any international organization it wants at present. The only viable response to such actions is for other nations to impose sanctions. A strong world power can flout almost any international law it wants at present with little consequences.

I already gave examples of organizations that are doing a decent job without usurping national sovereignty.

A true world political authority does not usurp a nation’s legitimate authority any way.

No true scotsman.

Its a complicated question, as we can see from national examples (i.e. the US). You are reducing a very complicated issue down to a simplistic set of assumptions.

It’s not complicated. You are trying to complicate and obfuscate because you do not like the logical conclusion of the right of secession.

 

[Vouthon]

I already gave examples of organizations that are doing a decent job without usurping national sovereignty.

And I have provided examples of why I consider the present international order to be defective and no longer fit for purpose. As has your own Church and mine.

It’s not complicated. You are trying to complicate and obfuscate because you do not like the logical conclusion of the right of secession.

A secession from any sovereign polity or legally recognised body is complicated by its very nature. That’s why the U.S. fought a war over it and Britain is presently negotiating a referendum on its EU membership, which is taking considerable time as our Prime Minister tries to re-negotiate the terms of our membership to give us opt-outs. I am Scottish and voted in last’s year independence referendum over here, so I do have some first-hand knowledge of how convoluted and complex the process is when you have to consider economics, law and politics - not to mention the social dynamics as well. It isn’t simple. I disagree with you on that.

 

[Theo520]

I’ve seen many threads recently on the internet advocating the need for a new world order and global govt.

While greater cooperation among countries is were we are heading, and it’s good, a centralized global govt holds no appeal. Competition among countries and states is what is driving innovation, plus the UN have shown themselves to be highly ineffective and corrupt.