all sovereignty, all the time

For your perusal: a collection of classic posts on national sovereignty, originally created for the March/April resolution of 2007, but now appropriate for the January/February resolution of 2008.

For aff or neg. Enjoy.

I discuss how Simon Caney's conception of "cosmopolitan justice" supports giving priority to human rights over national sovereignty in the context of international law.

And then I give time to the alternate view by Margaret Moore. Sovereignty grounds autonomy and respects diversity.

Jerry Pubantz's "Constructing Reason: Human Rights and the Democratization of the United Nations" shows that the UN's mission to promote human rights isn't just a dream of western liberal elites. Useful for anyone trying to block "critical theory."

Anyone arguing for "human rights" had better define them carefully.

Stuart Elden's "Contingent Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and the Sanctity of Borders" not only describes the UN's commitment to sovereignty, but offers four potentially interactive and different definitions of the term. A must-read. Sovereignty isn't simple.

Ekaterina Kuznetsova's "Limit Sovereignty if the State Abuses It" describes a more cosmopolitan view of international law called "Humanitarian Law."

Also, William C. Gay explains why statism is "warist.", an attack on sovereigntist views.

The SEP's articles on sovereignty and world government offer good background and potential Neg objections to violations of sovereignty, respectively.

Jürgen Habermas makes an appearance, talking about global values and imperialism.

Is sovereignty obsolete?

Does the World Court (a body similar to the ICC) respect sovereignty?

Does respecting sovereignty save lives?

Can sovereignty and rights be balanced?