Sovereigntism in a Nutshell

http://opiniojuris.org/2010/12/21/sovereigntism-in-a-nutshell/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+opiniojurisfeed+(Opinio+Juris)
.

by Peter Spiro

From a new pamphlet, Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America? Merry Christmas from the folks at the Heritage Foundation:


[T]oday, our sovereignty faces new threats. International organizations and courts seek to reshape the international system. Nations are to give up their sovereignty and be governed by a “global consensus.” Independent, sovereign nations will be replaced by “transnational” organizations that reject national sovereignty.


The demand that the United States bow to this “global consensus” does not respect American sovereignty. The offenses the Founders complained of in the Declaration of Independence now have an international flavor. This new project is filled with examples of institutions, courts, and “taxes” that violate the spirit of the Declaration:


• In 1998 the International Criminal Court was established. It is empowered to subject American soldiers to criminal prosecution in Holland for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Founders rejected trying Americans outside American courts.

• In Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2010, an international conference drafted a global treaty to regulate energy use in the United States. An international bureaucracy would monitorcompliance with the treaty’s terms. The Founders rejected subjecting Americans to “a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution.”

• In recent years, international organizations and foreign leaders have proposed “international taxes” on airline tickets and financial transactions—taxes that would be borne by American citizens and businesses. The revenues collected would be spent by unaccountable international organizations. The Founders rejected taxation without representation.


Hang on to your wallets, the international taxman cometh! This is clearly intended for mass distribution, at a level that even school children might understand. I think this is a waning sentiment unlikely to descend to the next generation, as even conservatives find something to like about international law, but so deeply entrenched a mindset won’t go easily