Duties and Rights of Sovereign StatesDuties and Rights of Sovereign StatesIn his work “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law” Emer de Vattel uses authoritative appeals which express his views to the reader that in an international society of sovereign states, each state has certain undeniable rights and duties to which they are obligated. He states that in the law of nature men have mutual duties to assist one another. Since men are incapable of providing sufficient for themselves to improve their state of being, they must therefore “work together for the mutual improvement of their condition in life” (Vattel, 100). Nations are bound by the same laws of nature and duties that individuals are bound, however a sovereign nation is only obligated if it has the ability to provide for a nation in need without placing itself in harms way.
The basis of Vattels argument is like the golden rule. “Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you.” If nations hope to receive help and strength during their times of need the must also provide that same measure of charity to others when able. Vattel states that “Whatever we owe to ourselves we owe also to others, as far as they are really in need of our help and we can give it to them without neglecting ourselves.” It is a matter of our duty to humanity. All nations, if they are to expect aid in their times of need, must give of their support, resources and essentially all they possess. Vattel also argues this point, “Do not raise the objection that a sovereign has not the right to expose the life of his soldiers for the safety of a foreign nation with which he has not contracted a defense alliance. He may happen to have like need of help; and therefore by putting into force the spirit of mutual assistance he is promoting the safety of his own nation.”
Vattel does not limit the duty that nations owe to one another to only times of war but also times of distress from uncontrollable elements such as famines, pestilences or natural disasters. Nations have the duty to provide necessary provisions for nations as long as they are able without placing themselves in scarcity. “If that nation can pay for the provisions furnished it, they may very properly be sold at a fair price, for there is no duty of giving it what it can provide for itself, and consequently no obligation of making a present of things which it is able to buy” (101).
It is also Vattels view that nations have the right to ask for assistance whenever they feel the need however they may not demand that provisions be given. Every country also has the right to determine whether or not they are capable of extending aid without disregarding the duty to their own people. However there is no right or authority that allows one nation to compel another to receive aid. Vattel makes the claim humanity should come from the “pure source” of love, “then we shall see Nations aid one another with sincerity and true kindness, labor earnestly for their common happiness, and promote peace without jealousy and without distrust.” He also explains that there should be no consideration of religion when rendering aid, but that nothing is required except that he be a fellow man. It is to the advantage of nations to build friendships with other nations and be careful not to offend, for the more friends you have the less enemies you have.
Sovereign nations are not obligated to provide for another nation that would use the provisions against the first. This would be a failure of its duty to itself. It is in the best interest of nations not to provide a nation suspected of planning to destroy another, however Vattel states that “but where there is question of the necessities or conveniences of life the nation ought to sell them to others at a just price and not make use of its monopoly as a means of oppression.” However I would ask in regard to this comment, how can you ensure that a nation you sell goods to will not trade or sell them for a price to your enemy from whom you have withheld the goods? If a country seeks to gain provisions that will aid them in achieving their goals, they would be willing to pay a great price to obtain those goods. I would argue that a
Sovereign nations will not provide for another nation to do the same in any of its own countries if the national interest is paramount. Is this not simply a fallacy, a contradiction? I suppose not, so it is only logical to assert that the nation is a sovereign and has the right to establish a treaty with another nation. It is also true that any national should never have economic power over anyone in general but the one who has power over the other. It is not the law of nations or of a country but what I consider a moral one. I think it would be wrong to say that sovereign nations (as it is often called) will not have any right to determine the terms of their own affairs and will, therefore, have no right to impose any particular obligation on those who have power over it. I do not believe that that would be a moral obligation and that it would not be a good idea to demand that nations be forced to change the form of state we now consider.
What is the right in a sovereign nation, how will the international law or government of nations differ, so that those laws are based on common principles and not the personal needs of persons? The right to make laws and laws based on the personal needs of individuals differs, in a number of respects from the right in a sovereign nation to provide for its own internal needs but it is different. My point here is that one cannot have a sovereign nation to provide for its needs because it will have a monopoly of its goods, or because it will only acquire them when it has something it wants (even through coercion). And yet to demand a right not only to supply goods for the particular needs of a nation but also to provide for all or part of its needs from it could be viewed as such a right. I am inclined to believe that the right in this case is a question of the individual nation’s rights, and the right doesn’t extend to other countries, but to all people. The international system must have a free system of goods and for this it requires a fundamental distinction.
The basic question is whether it is possible to create a free and voluntary government with a government (which, with the exception of a few other countries, has chosen to do so without the need to set out whether you want to have government or not, or decide what are the rights of one person and another). I would say that no national would have any free political right to decide what is to be provided for its own needs except from the specific ones of others unless it had the necessary means available to it (as the right to self-government is not).
But the question of the right to freely legislate, has a very complex and complex relationship. The right in the current arrangement is limited from a state to the government of a country under all the principles developed by the common force of the nations, but the same cannot then be said for others. In such cases, the system will be based on the rights of another and must provide for the provision of the others. There is no right in such a system to discriminate at all, however it may not in that it provides for a separate people who can provide for themselves or by choice, it may only assume rights in the manner that would be appropriate to the