One of the problems is the dreadful ambiguity in the use of the term "peers" when talking about artificial "persons" such as states. First, they are really not persons, and cannot per se have a relationship. The people who comprise the actual rulers, bureaucrats, or whatever can have a relationship mediated through the organizations.
Second, states are not, in fact, all created equal. We have to reconcile personal autonomy with the legitimacy of government. We recognize consent of the governed as the principle of legitimacy in this age, as formally demonstrated through a constitution and free elections. Any government that does not rest on that foundation is rightly viewed with suspicion. If, in addition, the government behaves with particular oppressiveness towards its citizens, then it is a tyranny simply. Pragmatically we have agreed to treat the "government on the ground" as legitimate, but that does not mean we can or should, ultimately, regard it as a peer. |
