You make some good points. I don't know if it makes sense to say that "Countries have rights". I would probably say the citizens of a country that has signed a treaty are legally entitled to whatever rights are provided in the treaty, but that's just semantics.
As for countries having rights to their natural resources, I don't know anything about the law in that matter, so have nothing other than your quote, which I guess is from the UN. I was more discussing a moral point of view - mine specifically, not what is laid out in UN charters.
the right not to be invaded is only a de jure right, and not a de facto right
It seems ALL of these country rights are de jure unless some powerful forces decide they are de facto.
If you wish to preserve the autonomy of your own state, and the rights you would wish it to exercise, then you had better preserve the rights and sovereignty of other states.
Why? Tibet preserved the rights and sovereignity of its neighbors, and now Tibet is gone. If you want to preserve the autonomy of your own state you had better discourage others from taking it away. Not invading a neighbor is no guarantee the neighbor won't invade you.
The concept of "ok" just doesn't apply here. I'm talking about legal matters, and international law, and your talking about opinions and what is "ok".
That's exactly right. No one said Saudi women being denied the right to drive was against international law. I said it's wrong, as in morally wrong. I didn't know we were stuck on discussing what is and is not acceptable according to the UN charter and Geneva Convention.
Do we care whether or not the Saudis think what we do in America is "ok"? I hope not. I certainly don't.
I do. I welcome outsiders criticisms and recommendations for improvement. If they think there is something we are doing wrong and that there is a better way to live, please tell us and we will try it out, and then either stick to our old way or adopt their suggestion if it actually is preferable. That's progress. |
