Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer
I think it's a more fundamental attack on sovereignty. From a political science perspective, sovereignty is derived largely from the monopoly of force within a defined geographic region. Another state wielding deadly force within another state's boundaries eradicates the notion of monopoly of force...
This is troubling. Comparable to the Khashogi murder... can one claim that the united states is without sovereignty following that event? I doubt it... But I think it does elicit important questions about what a modern state is in today's global context. It might indicate that the monopoly of force is dead as a defining concept. Citizenship is separate I think, but interesting that people are willing to make a distinction based on whether the individual is a citizen. Our society is primed to accept that sort of social distinction.
|
I totally agree that it is an attack on sovereignty as well as just a straight up crime at the civilian level. I think the citizen aspect plays into it because when someone is bestowed with citizenship, it is a recognition that the person was vetted and deemed to not pose a threat. Asylum and citizenship seekers get turned away all the time because of this reason.
Countries violate the sovereignty of other countries in this regard all the time when they think it is justified. The Canadian government would likely no issues assassinating an ISIS leader in another country if they thought that person posed a threat to Canada. Rightly or wrongly, India sees some of these separatist organizations based in Canada as a threat to their security and have no issues violating our sovereignty to a address that threat. Assuming of course that the allegations against India are true, which I personally believe they are at this point.