Politically, the nation-state will always be the highest form of socialization and the psychological framework that most individuals actually identify themselves with—Americans, Zambians, Russians, Kenyan. The nation-state and the theoretical framework envisioned by Thomas Hobbes and other political theorists still holds and for many International realists, such as myself, seem to hold sway and have complete hegemony over other nucleus forms of identification. Even our news reports to Russia having done A or the United States having done B. However, of particular interest is maintaining what is a legal entitlement that nations seem to have and something that should be universally be held such as human rights. In other words, is ‘national sovereignty’ truly a basis for allowing some of the most flagrant abuse of human rights or total waste of country resources by uncouth rulers a legitimate basis for not intervening?

On an economic front, the notion of “national sovereignty” is as facetious as saying that all the money in the New York Stock Exchange is purely that of Americans. Obviously the rate at which capital moves around the world gives new meaning to the notion of “sovereignty.’ Modern day capitalism is an animal that is brutish, unchained, and beyond any sort of regulation that would in fact be so tremendous that the flow of goods and services (capital, labor etc) would be scientifically controlled. Capital enters markets such as China, even without the Chinese government having full regulatory awareness of the capital 9(a traveler to china might just have money and travel to china, which is form of capital transportation insofar as the money is foreign). In fact, goods and services, with globalization, are being transported at a rate that would otherwise have been impossible in earlier years; some even try to rephrase (in politics) the maxim “all politics is local” to ‘all politics is global.”

Obviously the global nature of politics and economics is very much conspicuous; but the legal question (which can also be moral) is whether there can be events in which the “international community” can suspend the notion of “sovereignty” for more “objective” ideas such as human rights. Obviously, politics can never do what economics has managed to do in for as “sovereignty” is more of a political issue than it is an economic issue. Human rights, as relative as they have been argued by cultural relativists are obviously very real and objective!!! The dignity of each individual needs to be respected by the government and the rest of the world. It would, honestly, take a person of less than average to understand that there is a standard of human life and certain acts, however culturally relative, are simply barbaric and uncivilized!!! I do not refrain, here, in censuring some individuals in the progressive movement who would argue that respect for other cultures would warrant what legally some people would consider total barbarism; almost becoming criminal!!! In other words, though we intend to objectively say that not one specific culture is the “true” culture, we should at the least attempt to rationally argue that, though it is a cultural relativism, the subjugation of women in some countries is just wrong, having prescribed roles bordering on slavery is just wrong, and other absurdities of which many individuals are quick to justify by saying that “it is our culture.” I find no reason why the “international community” having established a legal mandate (United Nations) shouldn’t create a forum that would legally disregard issues of sovereignty for a ‘higher” cause! Though the United Nations has had its obvious short-comings, it still represents an idea that can rightly be followed through and actually be respected, and that is a creating of an international community with different levels of consciousness but related in their humanity.

Obviously, it would be difficult for nations to actually just disregard political sovereignty because some of the actions by an aggregated group of internationalist might have hidden interests 9 political economic, and social). However, the basic argument is that there should at least be a legal framework, adopted by countries in which they would agree when their sovereignty can be tarnished to solve certain ills within that country—obviously this is assuming that the “international community” is more than capable to solve the problems. Indeed, some of the ideas raise obviously lack the thoroughness and structured argument of international lawyers who would be more versed in international law. However, it seems more progressive and rather intelligent that past history should teach us that at one point we would need to actually have a discussion like the one being raised; because it is the highest of all crimes, in my own view, to allow what generally would be considered and actually loudly be claimed as mass genocide (Sudan) to hide under the umbrella of state sovereignty—allowing that to happen, especially when premised under territorial integrity, is madness: and as a result, though we promise ourselves as human beings that “never again,” we will see some events from start to end emulate genocide and the “international community,” because of some anachronistic political theory will refrain from acting!!! The “international community” needs to be given power because the aggregation of voices like in United Nations with clear objectives and mandates that take into account past failures can surely act very responsible!!!!!!!