Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

This topic came up in my recent posts during discussions of the “Global Framework for Tobacco Control” and HiAP (Health in All Policies) cited as an example of how to get national (countries) and local (states or territories in the USA, or presumably provinces in Canada, Australia, or elsewhere, i.e., sub-national political divisions) to implement a policy and laws to go with it, at the lower (lower than planetary) levels.

This post, Changing (the) World, Changing (the) Words: Sovereignty, Circumscribing Sovereignty versus Global ‘Citizenship’ (the Unmentionable: then who is the Global ‘Sovereign’?). References: (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7MB” started Oct. 14, 2017, published Nov. 24), came from  HiAP (HEALTH, not LAW*, in All Policies) Coordinated from Afar, Applied Locally, including throughout the USA (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-7LY”, published Oct. 24, 2017). That title added to tags as “Originating Post.”  This post in its concept also relates to a post published Oct. 26, (“Health as an Asset” “Thought Leadership” and the Chatham House Rule: ) and with extended “Foreword” section added later (but still pre-publication) and minor post-publication updates for clarity is about 8,500 words.

I am increasingly realizing how, for example, “tobacco cessation laws” and changes to the very health departments around the USA can be and have been initiated FIRST at the global level by NGOs and related organizations.  This has been given a “health” focus for justification.

See also financial standardization at the global level: My recent “Happening Now” post also references the processes in place as I write, and fairly recently (since the 2008 economic crisis) to standardize the system of “Legal Entity Identifiers” and to better monitor if not control “shadow banking activity,” meaning not necessarily illegal activity, but “bank-like activities” not under direct regulation by, for example, bodies like the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission). This is the economic, trading, finance, money sector with major implications for whether it will be completed and if so, how complete, and how well run.

The conversation (so to speak) below started on that HiAP (“HEALTH not LAW”) post with a hypothetical question I posed, and having noticed my own breezing right past the question of “sovereignty” when it came to global citizenship, I put on the brakes, looked it up in my favorite etymological dictionary. [“A map of the wheel-ruts of the English language”] and started looking for historical usages of the word. [“sovereign” in OED also includes other definitions using the word; see next two images:]

(ETMYonline.com, “Sovereign“)Note usage: “tax (n.): early 14c. obligatory contrib. levied by a sovereign or government.“)

search results for “sovereign” at ETMYonline.com

And, under “hegemony,” linked from the same “OE” search results for “sovereign,” (emphases added):

hegemon (n.)

1897, originally with reference to the position of Great Britain in the world, from Greek hegemon “an authority, leader, sovereign” (see hegemony).

hegemony (n.)

1560s, “preponderance, dominance, leadership,” originally of predominance of one city state or another in Greek history; [[Obviously, over the others..//LGH.]] from Greek hegemonia “leadership, a leading the way, a going first;” also “the authority or sovereignty of one city-state over a number of others,” as Athens in Attica, Thebes in Boeotia; from hegemon “leader, an authority, commander, sovereign,” from hegeisthai “to lead,” perhaps originally “to track down,” from PIE *sag-eyo-, from root *sag- “to seek out, track down, trace” (see seek). In reference to modern situations from 1850, at first of Prussia in relation to other German states.

Right away, you can see the usage is asserting “sovereignty” in opposition to something or some other authority.  This is where the concept of global citizenship as a tactic to minimize and place on a lower level “national sovereignty” (the laws of nation to which their citizens are subject) to some other source falls short of the language of reason, i.e., it wishes to take the positive connotations of one term, and omit the negative ones of the corollary term, while apparently not getting caught at it, which on closer look seems more like force by subterfuge than, overall, concern for the common good.

The more momentum and force is obtained through subterfuge, the less effort it causes those obtaining it, and apparently the less necessary it becomes to even pretend to legitimacy. This increasing quality unchecked will simply continue to saturate the economy and public institutions.  There are many parallels to mistakenly getting into a close or committed relationship with an abuser, batterer or in short, sociopath, from which exit is a serious and costly fight.  The basic lesson is, don’t enter into it by consent in the first place; know who one is dealing with.  And, know the wider context in which he or she  operates, including “with whom.”

Without something sovereign, it seems there can be no “citizenship.”  In the language used exalting global citizenship — I’ve added just a taste and reminder of this within a “Foreword” section below — the silence, or attempt to substitute the global “we” “us” or even “the planet” “earth” (etc.) — leaves an major information not just gap, but a chasm where credibility of the terminology does not exist.  Just exactly who do the leading advocates of “global is good, nationalism is bad per se, (by definition),” say is sovereign; and does that match who actions indicate some believe are already sovereign over the earth itself, and especially of its people?  Is it WHO, the World Health Organization, or the UN, or a collection of NON-government organizations?  And if these are NON-government, then how can they represent those global citizens being governed..

See also, published just days before “HiAP (Health Not LAW)”…

“Health as an Asset” “Thought Leadership” and the Chatham House Rule:** A Section Unearthed from My “Smoking Control/Tobacco Litigation” Post and Reposted Here, in light of Current Congressional Events, and in light of Senator Flake’s (2014) Commentary Before the CFR citing to 9/11 and the Iraq War Commended (?) for Unifying the United States. [case-sensitive short-link ending “-7QH.”  Re-posted  (bottom half) and written (top half) Oct. 25-26, 2017].[Published Oct. 26, 2017] (**the Chatham House Rule is basically anonymity of speaker within group conferences whose results may be published.  See post for more.)  About half that title added to tags as “Originating Concept Post.”

Examples of the language “global citizenship” language entrenched in institutions but without the corresponding discussion of the related concept, “sovereignty” alongside it.

When citizenship is to be re-imagined (it comes up below) and that citizenship is to be global, this entails a change of sovereign entity to which the citizens subscribe, and under whose laws they are to exist, and whose infrastructures they will be supporting with life energies and using, likely, that nation’s central banks currency, too, as well as its registration standards for corporations, for-profit and not-for-profit, and so forth.

I’m including a substantial “Foreword” with two “for example” sections to make the point that we are constantly being primed institutionally and business wise for “globalization + global citizenships” as a great, a “21st Century,” value”  (1) Common Core and Globalization, (2) Rutgers and Globalization or even the (as previously published) Tobacco Framework also in that context, but the related concept rarely discussed in the “Global Citizenship as a Positive Value” promotions and publications.  But this point was neither the inspiration for the post, nor its main point. They are there for examples, and added information, but they are not the “why” for this  post.

Also, in talking about Rutgers example below (which was not part of the original spin-off post, just an introduction to it), I’m in no way against “study abroad” programs or bringing international students here to study either.  That can and should continue happening.

But does it require going nuts over the “global citizenship” and “integrating it into the curriculum across 30 colleges and a biomedical research center” and granting awards for doing this — as Rutgers has?  [Documented below]Not really.  And IF one is going to talk “global citizenship,” then the question comes up, and should be handled in the same circles and on the same publications: “So, who’s “sovereign” (who’s on top?) of the whole “let us now globalize all” culture?  It isn’t, so I gather those behind the globalization are MUCH more interested in achieving it (their business and transformational goals) and not a fair or balanced presentation of the rationale behind them.

If we’re going global from cradle-to-career, where’s the corresponding discussion on switching allegiances and sovereignties?  You won’t find it in the examples given below.  The process is incremental and designed (so it seems) to alleviate violent protests over the erosion of the national, political jurisdictions. Among the countries that I say has the most to lose in that situation is the United States.  We’re large, we’re a developed country, we already support WHO and so forth.  Smaller countries, less developed countries, and those without constitutions that protect the public, and at least on paper, could handle major corruption, have a lot to gain. (See Thanksgiving-Day published post referencing the G20 and standardizing economic systems and business identifiers for better trade…).

Foreword — Other (than “HiAP”) Examples:

The common phrase “global citizenship” apparently is now to be engrained into the US Education system, it seems at PreK-12 and university levels both.  The Dean of Global Education at University of Oregon’s College of Education explains how in a global economy, business really does follow the lowest wages, so the least likely to profit from this are American students.  And other references.

(1) Globalizing a US PreK-12 Public Education (some Common Core debates, and featuring another Opportunist 501©3 Org. promoting the Transformation Tools)

Washington Post, 2013, The Answer Sheet posted by Valerie Strauss, Article by Yang Zhao, “Five Key Questions About Common Core.”  The Q&A makes sense on its own, but take a look at the author’s affiliations:

…Yong Zhao, presidential chair and associate dean for global education at the University of Oregon’s College of Education, where he also serves as the director of the Center for Advanced Technology in Education. He is a fellow of the International Academy for Education. Until December 2010, he was director of both the Center for Teaching and Technology and the U.S.-China Center for Research on Educational Excellence at Michigan State University, as well as the executive director of the Confucius Institute/Institute for Chinese Teacher Education.

First two paragraphs, written apparently right before “Common Core” was fully rolled out:

If you are reading this, you know the world didn’t end in 2012. But the world of American education may end in 2014, when the Common Core is scheduled to march into thousands of schools in the United States and end a “chaotic, fragmented, unequal, obsolete, and failing” system that has accompanied the rise of a nation with the largest economy, most scientific discoveries and technological inventions, best universities, and largest collection of Nobel laureates in the world today. In place will be a new world of education where all American children are exposed to the same content, delivered by highly standardized teachers, watched over by their equally standardized principals, and monitored by governments armed with sophisticated data tools.

Young Zhao on Common Core in 2012. … Notice reference to originators the NGA and the Council of Chief School Officers. Also comparison to some “wonder drug.”

This is the last year to ensure that happens: parents and school boards have to be convinced to remove any lasting resistance; teachers have to be fully trained so they can be turned on automatically when 2014 arrives; school leaders have to be readied so they can identify and incentivize good Common Core practices and exterminate bad ones; and data systems have to be developed so they can be deployed anytime. As American schools pour their resources into products, programs, and services to be Common Core ready in 2013, please keep in mind that the Common Core is a bet on the future of our children. While I have written about the Common Core many times before (e.g., Common Core vs Common Sense, Common Core National Curriculum Standards). I wanted to ask all of us to ask again if the new world of education ushered in by the Common Core will be better than the old one scheduled to end in a year

(Common Core vs. Common Sense link above, same author, June 17, 2012; it got 68 comments, too. Above image):

There are more articles pro/con “Common Core,” some of it complaining that it’s not emphasizing globalization and global citizenship enough. Just a few samples:  “Teach Globally, Think Locally — What’s Missing from The Common Core” (Sep. 25, 2014 in “Cognoscenti” at an NPR (Boston-focused) radio station “WBUR,” by Eric Silverman, a professor at Wheelock College.).  Under the title and opening (large) photo:

Educational leaders in the Boston metropolitan area can be proud this academic year. With pupils in Boston Public Schools hailing from more than 100 countries and the fastest growing foreign student population in higher education in the nation, few places in the country match the diversity of our student body, from pre-K to post-grad. But the growing internationalization of our classrooms and communities is not reflected in the public school curriculum. And the Common Core, adopted by Massachusetts in 2010, offers no indication that this will change.

Orig. Article “Teach Locally, Think Globally…” Sept. 2014 Eric Silverman, here.

Orig. Article “Teach Locally, Think Globally…” Sept. 2014 Eric Silverman, here

A list of “P21” Model states (Interactive on website, not here, dark blue = those states), where “P21” is “Partnership for 21st Century Learning (formerly “Skills”), a D.C. nonprofit.”

Posted Nov. 2013 at EAGNews (where “EAG” – Educational Action Group, which (looked up) is a MI-based, small, 2007ff 501©3 and ©4 nonprofit combo. However, the article points out where the software companies (incl. Bill Gates’ Microsoft) stands to profit in the standardization. It also is where I got the “P21.com” reference and decided to include in this post. CLICK HERE FOR the SHORT ARTICLE

The “P21.org” image, continued — it’s obviously “cradle-to-career” focused and for “Partners” lists basically a number of software- / computer firms (and one, I don’t recognize, and it doesn’t elaborate upon, “SAP”) + the US Dept. of Education, and two individuals.

Some labeling issues in this part of P21 founders. Government is included under “organizations” and “Orgs” includes mix of for-profit (more frequently called “businesses” or “corporations”) and a tax-exempt foundation (named after a major business), and just for good measure, the NEA (a major professional association) and one (“SAP”) they simply didn’t bother to identify. [It’s based in Germany, since the 1970s, and is huge.  See timeline!]] Some on the list have an “Inc.” but most do not. Good grief — these people want to prepare students?? // Needless to say, the website doesn’t feature its own financials, or EIN# as a nonprofit and its basic presentation regarding itself is sketchy.

Since 2002, P21 has been working with states and communities** to reinvigorate learning to ensure 21st century readiness for every student. Based on this work, P21 believes there are seven strategies for a successful statewide initiative:

**States, translated:  state governments.  “Communities” is vague, and may mean more local school district, but most likely means community foundations or nonprofits with more local focus.  With no context, the word literally means next to nothing, however, which is the brilliance of the concept — it could mean almost anything.

1. High-profile leadership: State leaders at the highest level, including the governor, chief state school officer, legislators, educators, business leaders and influential citizens, must make the case for 21st century readiness. ***
2. Broad consensus and a shared vision: States should create an active coalition of business, education, non-profit and community organizations, and parents to develop broad consensus and a shared vision on how to fuse the 3Rs and 4Cs.
3. Ongoing professional development: States should support administrators and teachers with ongoing professional development.
4. Fuse the 3Rs and 4Cs: As the United States continues to compete in a global economy that demands innovation, our education system must keep up. Many states allow students to earn a high school diploma with eighth or tenth grade knowledge and skills (or less). Higher standards are essential.
5. 21st century assessments: There is a growing, worldwide interest in creating modern assessments. In 2005, P21 released Assessment of 21st Century Skills: A Landscape, a thorough survey of international efforts to modernize assessments. We are currently working on spurring research and development of next level assessments of 21st century skills.
6. An effective communications strategy: Planning and implementing a successful statewide initiative requires a multi-faceted effort and collaboration among many constituencies.
7. An aggressive implementation strategy: In every state, some schools and educators are prioritizing 21st century readiness for every student. States should showcase existing models of success for others to learn from and build on; they should also reach out to potential partners.

***[[SURE — parents would “NEVER” think of this on their own…The case that appears to be made here is for a specific menu of products and services, i.e., businesses]]]

Nonprofit P21.org, from a 2014 pdf on website, “RE-IMAGINING CITIZENSHIP…”

Nonprofit P21.org (with — see Forms 990 — related subcontractors) “framework for state action” language borrowed from WHO…

My Response: Where, besides almost any MLM marketing scheme, with certifications and residual income to the founders and those closer to the top, has this basic model showed up before?  Or any business that depends on affiliate marketing to increase revenues?  [[I checked Forms 990, and P21.org does report affiliate revenues (one year, $268K) and expenses (the same year, closer t $68K)]]. Oh yes, and for even better marketing, get the state-level government do it; and for implementation, naturally, target the public schools, too. They are, after all, one of THE largest specialty business “niches” around…  P21 started out as “Skills” then changed the name to “Learning..”

Another example (taking advantage of Common Core, American Curriculum Schools overseas (Dubai), and of course the digital age:  Form a company, start an on-line “resource center” and, of course, organize conferences:

MENA = Middle East North Africa. This Oct. 2015 conference in Dubai was directed at American Curriculum Schools and apparently organized by a Dubai-based company “KDSL” (Know Do See Learn USA is the underlying company). Co-Founder (2007) of KDSL’s academic background (per company website labeled ” ©2010 on footer): He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Education and a Master of Education degree in Curriculum and Teaching from Michigan State University (USA). Currently, he is a member of the Association for the Advancement of International Education (AAIE) and studying in their Institute for International School Leadership

(2)  Global Centers At Public (State) Universities

Rutgers GAIA (only est. 2011, now goes by “Rutgers Global”)

I’ve discussed before (and possibly in the parent post to this one) how, for example, Rutgers University established an “International Institute for Peace” as a UNESCO outreach post, and is improving its image, presumably, through “GAIA” Centers for Global Advancement and International Affairs, now I see called simply “Rutgers Global.”  It seeks to “develop the global citizenship” in students and internationalizes campus and surrounding communities (click embedded image to read more similar verbiage):

“Rutgers Global—formerly known as the Rutgers Centers for Global Advancement and International Affairs (GAIA Centers)—is your destination for the tools and resources you need to advance your global or international experience at Rutgers.” [viewed Nov. 24, 2017]

Rutgers Global—formerly known as the Rutgers Centers for Global Advancement and International Affairs (GAIA Centers)—is your destination for the tools and resources you need to advance your global or international experience at Rutgers. Rutgers Global provides Rutgers community members with the opportunities, programs, resources, and services they need to advance their global experience: study abroad, funding opportunities for international research, visa and immigration processing for international students and scholars, international student academic support, and cross-cultural events and discussions.

The history page, for once in a university center, actually says when “GAIA Centers” started (2011 — about simultaneous with the UNESCO status or at least IIP, as I recall).  For some reason it starts with the chartering of Rutgers pre-USA War for Independence, and church-associated, although no international students until the 1860s and didn’t send students to study abroad until the 1960s..

“Rutgers Global [“global.Rutgers.edu”](formerly “GAIA”) History page, bottom (main text area).

About Gaia

Rutgers was chartered in 1766 as Queen’s College, a private institution affiliated with the Dutch Reformed Church. Queen’s College was renamed Rutgers College in 1825 after philanthropist Colonel Henry Rutgers, a Revolutionary War hero and son of colonists from the Netherlands.

The university’s seal and motto were inspired by those from Utrecht University in the Netherlands. The fourth Rutgers president, John H. Livingston, a student of the ministry at Utrecht University and a key player in establishing Dutch theological education in colonial America, suggested the design in the 1820s.

[[ONLY…]] In the mid-19th century, Rutgers expanded its academic profile to include the sciences and expanded its student body by welcoming its first international students.

Aside from Dutch missionaries living in the land, Japan experienced a 200-year isolationist period that came to an abrupt end in the 1850s after a U.S. fleet navigated into its ports. As a result, Japan’s renewed interest in western activities was born, and in 1866, Rutgers welcomed its first Japanese students,  the Yokoi brothers, following the recommendation their  teacher  and  Dutch  missionary, Guido Verbeck.

[[200 years after founding]] Rutgers continued to achieve many milestones over the next century, and its international student population grew from just a handful to a few hundred— and the university began to not only receive students, but send them abroad. In 1966–1967, the “Junior Year Abroad” program was launched, and the first students went to Tours, France, to study abroad.

Two hundred and fifty years after its charter date, Rutgers spans over 30 schools and colleges across three university locations and a biomedical division, each with globalization integrated into its mission.**

The two-word phrase “global citizenship” implies the existence of a global sovereign community supreme above all others, making sovereign states basically dissident, upstarts, rebels, and a problem.

Where there are “States” the concept of “citizenship” can be defined.  It can be argued on (obviously the US is engaged in major argumentation on definitions, limits, and enforcement of citizenship for this “State” as it’s referred to in UN Terms — the USA is a member state of both the UN and of WHO). In general, however, the concept is understood — and arguments are about who qualifies.

However, any fair or meaningful use of language implies that, by comparison “global citizenship” unless a meaningless metaphor or badly-constructed phrase, implies a supreme or sovereign (if citizenship is to be coerced, either hard-coercion, or soft-coercion over time as I’ve been documenting) over ALL nation states — because for most of us, it is humanly impossible to leave “the globe,” although it might be possible and obviously is for people to become refugees, migrate, immigrate, emigrate and LEAVE one state to enter another, with questions of legally or illegally involved in the movement.

But no one, really, can afford to leave the planet and populate another place — at least not presently, and not in any significant numbers. So the assumption that there should be some sort of replacement for the nations/”States” at the global level, involving involuntary (because we live on the planet — and not somewhere else, which is impossible) citizenship with duties to submit to governing bodies, is “off.”  The conflict between these two concepts has direction — and that direction, overall, is away from the nation-state concept.  

Yet in application, it’s expected that the most developed nations will voluntarily continue exerting force and control over their respective citizens to direct resources towards the establishment of a global controlling “body politic” whose entire basis for existing is that the “body politics” involving citizenship leads to war and are “bad” and that, really, the global reigning paradigm isn’t one — it’s not a political body. Other terms are devised.

I’d been discussing a hypothetical blatant admission that a phrase now in common use (in governing bodies), “Health in All Policies,” could’ve been better introduced as what it was, attempts to circumscribe, bypass, and get around the concept of the sovereign state itself.  My tone is sarcastic, but used another common phrase these days, promoted as a good value, except among some people and groups who say it’s a bad value, i.e., that globalism is bad. It seems the current U.S. President is functioning as a lightening rod to ignite some fires in that pro/con debate.

Suggest — review that section on the “HiAP” post, or at least these screenprints from this for context of this short post.  I simply want to raise the concept that the term has historical precedents, and should not become a “dirty word” in general usage.  LANGUAGE is a technology, it is leverage, and I even caught myself flipping off the term “global citizenship” while responding (in some alarm) to the HiAP as evidence of WHO’s ability (context: Tobacco Cessation) to get countries and even states within a country, to pass laws matching ITS will versus the people’s demands.  AND, if we are to remain free, we must remain also the ability to think and talk independently from “shrink-wrapped, pre-fab” concepts fed us through a controlled media!

Again, the concept of GLOBAL allegiance was to overcome NATIONAL/TERRITORIAL sovereignty — but it implies then a global sovereign.  But who wants to admit that this elevation of one person, or just a very few people, to “world-ruler” status is implicit in the undermining of national sovereignties (nations, and their laws) by contrasting it with “global” purposes?

#1 of 3 from “HiAP” FamilyCourtMatters.org post.

The term “sovereign” is good in some circles, bad in others, but there is no question that as a political idea, it has existed for centuries and been the basis of subjection of the many to either an individual sovereign or a collectively expressed one. The word “citizen” I’ve used repeatedly in reference to “of the United States” in this blog because I talk so much about nonprofits, and about our system of taxation which creates a caste system between that (those corporate or human being “persons”) which are taxed and those which are not. In general, adult human being “persons” are considered subject to taxes unless they are determined to qualify as exempt, typically, through being too poor to tax.

#2 of 3

It almost slipped past my own notice that a global citizenship implies a global “sovereign” body, but most discussions using the term don’t reference which one. Perhaps a closer consideration of, “well then, who would it be?” —in THIS life, not the “hereafter,” immortal one, practically speaking, that is.  Some world religions have already identified (not that there’s always internal agreement on it either), who’ll be in charge of the “globe” (the earth, this planet) — I guess excluding any other possibly colonized planets in this or some other solar system.  And up until 2012 there was another living human being besides the Pope who claimed himself qualified (the late Rev. Sun Myung Moon as the Second Messiah — to finish what the first one screwed up…).  But apart from that — pre-immortality…Now…

#3 of 3

If there’s a global citizenship with duties and the power to coerce, and/or tax (which is a form of coercion) for the global good, then is there a sovereign individual, or “body politic” (secular) ruling such a sovereign body?  And if so, how, in the history and “implementation” of ideas, is any such concept just not another religion?

Supposedly we will all just get along together somehow, with enough excellent mediation by, say, the U.N. or some other body, with help from the World Health Organization (and its subsidiary regional organizations, such as “Pan American Health Organization” or “PAHO.”) Major corporations also tend to organize regionally, as I keep showing, and so do federal agencies under the US Government, and so do nonprofits.  I found a new network not too long ago, “Network for Health,” and I’ve already posted showing a May 2017 conference launching the “Global Network for Health” to continue pushing “HiAP” Implementation, institutionalizing it.

 National sovereignty, and concern about it by any nation’s citizens, especially for the U.S.A., bad.  Global citizenship, good and necessary for world peace.**  Leave the complex thinking — including about your families and children’s educations, public schools, housing, transportation or energy infrastructure, etc.  — up to the experts, and go back to work funding them.

**In the talk of “global citizenship,” then who or what is the “sovereign” entity — the globe?  Who translates, speaks for, or is prime minister of “the globe” or the planet? Is this really different than a religion claiming a single person, in a sovereign city (the Vatican City) speaks for the invisible God and/or Jesus Christ, as the personal representative on earth?  I didn’t even catch the difference in my own hypothetical  at first —  talk of citizenship ONLY without reference to under who or what, omits the word “sovereign.”

To discuss this much further gets into the history of the modern states (in Europe, emerging from the Middle Ages), I see, the “Peace of Westphalia (1647) ending the Thirty Years’ War, which overlapped with the Martin Luther (not “King, Jr.) and the Reformation.

Sovereignty (from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)  First published Sat May 31, 2003; substantive revision Fri Mar 25, 2016

|| Or, SEP’s recommended cite:
Philpott, Daniel, “Sovereignty”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/sovereignty/.

Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of political authority. Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions — the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. The state is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied. An assemblage of states forms a sovereign states system.

The history of sovereignty can be understood through two broad movements, manifested in both practical institutions and political thought. The first is the development of a system of sovereign states, culminating at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Contemporaneously, sovereignty became prominent in political thought through the writings of Machiavelli, Luther, Bodin, and Hobbes. The second movement is the circumscription of the sovereign state, which began in practice after World War II and has since continued through European integration and the growth and strengthening of laws and practices to protect human rights. The most prominent corresponding political thought occurs in the writings of critics of sovereignty like Bertrand de Jouvenel and Jacques Maritain.

Understanding that the concept of “sovereignty,” basically meaning “supreme reign” (the question being, “over what?” and “whose?” and the typical answer up to a certain point, being “territorially.”) came out of religious wars where the Catholic Church/Holy Roman Empire (etc.) claimed both spiritual AND temporal authority. Luther, in challenging these said, No, the Church is a spiritual body, united across time and space, and let the princes and kings have their own sovereignty — without intervention as to properties, possessions, etc. — by the Church, in their territories.  (Meanwhile, the kings, princes, etc. would have rule over the temporal churches within their realms…. I’m summarizing after a very short read…).

In other words, the concept of unified, sovereign state, indebted or controlled to no one else within its territory — and presumably subjects or citizens under it — came out of the dichotomy between “spiritual” [eternal, immortal, etc.] and “temporal” from earlier times as a concept:

1. A Definition of Sovereignty (from same source)…

In his classic, The King’s Two Bodies (1957), medievalist Ernst Kantorowicz describes a profound transformation in the concept of political authority over the course of the Middle Ages. The change began when the concept of the body of Christ evolved into a notion of two bodies — one, the corpus naturale, the consecrated host on the altar, the other, the corpus mysticum, the social body of the church with its attendant administrative structure. This latter notion — of a collective social organization having an enduring, mystical essence — would come to be transferred to political entities, the body politic. Kantorowicz then describes the emergence, in the late Middle Ages, of the concept of the king’s two bodies, vivified in Shakespeare’s Richard II and applicable to the early modern body politic. Whereas the king’s natural, mortal body would pass away with his death, he was also thought to have an enduring, supernatural one that could not be destroyed, even by assassination, for it represented the mystical dignity and justice of the body politic. The modern polity that emerged dominant in early modern Europe manifested the qualities of the collectivity that Kantorowicz described — a single, unified one, confined within territorial borders, possessing a single set of interests, ruled by an authority that was bundled into a single entity and held supremacy in advancing the interests of the polity. Though in early modern times, kings would hold this authority, later practitioners of it would include the people ruling through a constitution, nations, the Communist Party, dictators, juntas, and theocracies. The modern polity is known as the state, and the fundamental characteristic of authority within it, sovereignty.

Peace of Westphalia 1647 – Post World War II 1947 is only 300 years…in the meantime, here come “the united States of America”…. out of the thirteen colonies…. I had to go to Wikipedia for “Westphalia” very roughly translated as “Northwestern Germany”….

It was at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 that Europe consolidated its long transition from the Middle Ages to a world of sovereign states. According to historian J.R. Strayer, Britain and France looked a lot like sovereign states by around 1300, their kings possessing supremacy within bounded territories. But as late as the beginning of the Reformation in 1517, Europe remained distant from Westphalia. It was just around then that a great reversal in historical momentum occurred when Charles V of Spain ascended to the throne, uniting Castile, Aragon and the Netherlands, at the same time becoming Holy Roman Emperor, gaining prerogatives over lands in Central Europe, while taking on the role of enforcer of the Catholic Church’s still significant temporal prerogatives inside the Empire, especially its enforcement of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. But within the Empire, Charles V was not sovereign, either, for princes and nobles there retained prerogatives over which he exercised no control. In 1555, a system of sovereign states gained important ground in the Peace of Augsburg, whose formula cuius regio, eius religio, allowed German princes to enforce their own faith within their territory. But Augsburg was unstable. Manifold contests over the settlement’s provisions resulted in constant wars, culminating finally in the Thirty Years War, which did not end until 1648, at the Peace of Westphalia.

Wikipedia, Peace of Westphalia, references not just conclusion of the Thirty Years War (Catholics v. Protestants) but also of EIGHTY Years War, for Dutch independence from Spain, and a turning point in modern political relationships, encouraging more “don’t interfere” standard within “sovereign entities…”

Wiki, Peace of Westphalia

The Peace of Westphalia established the precedent of peaces established by diplomatic congress,^[4][5] and a new system of political order in central Europe, later called Westphalian sovereignty, based upon the concept of co-existing sovereign states. Inter-state aggression was to be held in check by a balance of power. A norm was established against interference in another state’s domestic affairs. As European influence spread across the globe, these Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.^[6]

 

The Treaty of Westphalia from “Historytoday.com” by Richard Cavendish :

The Westphalia area of north-western Germany gave its name to the treaty that ended the Thirty Years’ War, one of the most destructive conflicts in the history of Europe.

The war or series of connected wars began in 1618, when the Austrian Habsburgs tried to impose Roman Catholicism on their Protestant subjects in Bohemia. It pitted Protestant against Catholic, the Holy Roman Empire against France, the German princes and princelings against the emperor and each other, and France against the Habsburgs of Spain. The Swedes, the Danes, the Poles, the Russians, the Dutch and the Swiss were all dragged in or dived in. Commercial interests and rivalries played a part, as did religion and power politics.

 

From the same Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I looked up “Citizenship” and found an article from 2006 “substantively revised 2016.” After a brief definition, and contrasting the earlier debates as of “citizen” versus “subject” (they are not the same, I say!), it also raises the topic described above as “circumspection of sovereignty” in relationship to “globalization” and human rights. Coincidentally, I see its first publication was, to the date (I’m writing Oct. 14, 2014, Sat.; this post except for this discussion, was otherwise completed Fri. Oct. 13 — making the original article (encyclopedia entry) exactly eleven years old, and written “post-9/11 and Iraq war” and mid-U.S. President George W. Bush administration:

CitizenshipFirst published Fri Oct 13, 2006; substantive revision Mon Jul 17, 2017

SEP-recommended cite:
Leydet, Dominique, “Citizenship”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/citizenship/&gt;.

 

A citizen is a member of a political community who enjoys the rights and assumes the duties of membership. This broad definition is discernible, with minor variations, in the works of contemporary authors as well as in the entry “citoyen” in Diderot’s and d’Alembert’sEncyclopédie [1753].[1] Notwithstanding this common starting-point and certain shared references,[2] the differences between 18th century discussions and contemporary debates are significant. The encyclopédiste’s main preoccupation, understandable for one living in a monarchy, was the relationship between the concepts ‘citizen’ and ‘subject’. Were they the same (as Hobbes asserted) or contradictory (as a reading of Aristotle suggested)?[3] This issue is less central today as we tend to take for granted that a liberal democratic regime is the appropriate starting-point for our reflections. {{?? Not sure I agree..}} This does not mean, however, that the concept has become uncontroversial. After a long period of relative calm, there has been a dramatic upsurge in philosophical interest in citizenship since the early 1990s.[4]

Two broad challenges have led theorists to re-examine the concept: first, the need to acknowledge the internal diversity of contemporary liberal democracies; second, the pressures wrought by globalization on the territorial, sovereign state. We will focus on each of these two challenges, examining how they prompted new discussions and disagreements.

Another resource summarizing the concepts historically, I just found it (11/23/2017, while looking to move this post promptly down the publication pipeline…).  I haven’t read the entire link, just skimming. I’m including it because it’s short enough, references historical events, and defines terms as well as names certain authors.  I’m also including an image or two from the same. (Date of Article is Sept. 26, 2013):

Banner of “Eruditio” publication(?) of World Academy of Art and Science.” For 11/23/2017 post.

http://eruditio.worldacademy.org/issue-3/article/evolution-sovereignty ARTICLE | SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 |

BY WINSTON P. NAGAN, GARRY JACOBS   Get Full Text in PDF

 (I feel like I’ve been here, looking up the “World Academy of Art & Science” years before, but do not remember the context).

Click image to enlarge. from “Eruditio/World Academy…” (<==Click link for the article)

The image above comes after references to: Bodin, Hobbes, and Grotius. Moving forward to the 20th century, from the same source (emphases added):

9. Modest Retreat from International Sovereign Absolutism

During WWI, two statesmen emerged with ideas about how sovereign absolutism could be limited and thereby prevent a repetition of global war: President Woodrow Wilson and Field Marshall Smuts of South Africa. Wilson remained in Europe for a considerable time after the war negotiating the formation of an organization of global import charged with maintaining peace and security, which eventually led to the founding of the League of Nations. In the fine print of the League Covenant, we see the resilience of Austin’s ideas of sovereign absolutism, international law and the state. The Covenant codified a rule upon which all decisions were to be made unanimously. No binding decision could be made if a single sovereign objected. This meant that if a member of the League engaged in acts of aggression, it could effectively veto any action by the League. During this period, Europe witnessed the emergence of totalitarian style states in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy, as well as a form of totalitarian rule in the Empire of Japan. These states made aggressive claims to freedom of action in the international sphere, implicitly asserting their sovereign right to aggression for the purpose of world conquest. One expression of this form of absolutism was the notion that war could be an exercise in total destruction.

During WWII, serious thought was given to the development of an international law that would provide a stronger institutional framework for limiting sovereign absolutism. This led to the drafting of the Atlantic Charter in 1941 as a policy statement, which formed the basis for the UN Charter ratified in 1945. Parallel to these developments, international tribunals were created to try leaders of the aggressor states for international war crimes. These tribunals (Nuremburg and Tokyo) provided a significant legal restraint on sovereignty. The tribunals maintained that the notion of sovereignty was merely an abstraction from reality. Those making decisions leading to international aggression could be held responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity….

Click image to enlarge. from “Eruditio/World Academy…” (<==Click link for the article)

And one more quote, more current (from same source), image and quote both, bringing up topics covered in the post I just published Thanksgiving Day, 2017, referencing the G20 and international finance systems and controls, including Legal Entity Identifiers….

We are constantly being drilled about deficit, lack of resources for governmental budgets, and the consequent need for public/private partnerships to fill in the gap in services, or provide a safety net.  Therefore I think this reference to the incredible global hundred-trillion-dollar surpluses since 1980 to be interesting.

13. Bringing Law & Order to the Global Wild West 

There are also other forces at work that are as great in magnitude and compelling in power as those already mentioned. One such is the rapid accumulation of surplus global financial assets,** which have grown from $12 trillion in 1980 to about $225 trillion today, equivalent to almost four times global GDP.

**What is a “global financial asset”?  Not quite defined here, but consider it anyhow!  Also, the sentence referencing “accumulation” strategically declines to identify “by whom…” It appears to refer to the “global financial markets.”

Rising levels of prosperity globally combined with rapid development of international financial systems has enabled global financial markets to acquire an enormous power that far exceeds the capacity of national governments and central banks to regulate. Although technically the control and regulation of finance is under the sovereign authority of the nation state, the unbridled growth of the financial sector internationally lies beyond the capacity of individual nations to contain or control. Non-state actors managing greater financial resources than those controlled by all but a few central banks act freely in the sparsely regulated international arena, where a legal and regulatory vacuum leaves ample room for excessive concentration and blatant abuse of power. These developments point to the urgency of enhancing global regulatory accountability to ensure that the global economy is not again brought to the brink of collapse.

This Wild West frontier of international finance is the result of social and economic power processes that have outgrown the existing international political and legal framework. In response there have been piecemeal efforts to extend authority from the national to the international level by the G20, Bank of International Settlements, the Third Basel Accord imposing voluntary standards on international banking, and other regulatory mechanisms. But in the absence of a global centralized legal authority and constitutive process, these piecemeal measures are far from adequate to control the forces they seek to contain. Viewed from an evolutionary perspective, it is evident that the requisite power can only be fully harnessed and positively directed by emergence of a global constitutive financial authority. Current efforts to derive the necessary authority from the consent of national governments based on the values of the prevailing market economy − even when their actions threaten the stability of the entire global economy – are doomed to fail and repetition of crises is inevitable until the necessary power is ceded by sovereign states.

Things ceded might be regained if conditions for ceding them are broken — but not if the power is so concentrated that doing so would result in death or destruction of those who ceded the power.  This is a slippery ground, but one that obviously some would like to see in place — the “Let’s face it folks, it’s TOO BIG for single nations to control, so give up the farce that it can be, and set up a “global constitutive authority.”

If “national governments” and “sovereign states” interchangeable terms, as “obtaining consent from” and “sovereign states ceding” which are similar process except for the direction of the action (I obtain “consent for authority” when you “cede power” to me) that last sentence basically reads:

Efforts to get national governments to give their consent to the “necessary authority” are doomed to fail.

Therefore, let us have the sovereign states cede the necessary power.

It’s double-talk with actors (subjects) and recipient of actions (direct objects) obviously somewhere off-stage, not making their identities and presence known, at least in this presentation…. Anyhow I encourage all to consider this topic and keep a hand on the pulse of the movement towards official OR unofficial world government subjecting countries’ own legislative processes to becoming representatives of that “NWO,” and removing popular voice further and further from actual representation (numerically speaking, by distance, by privacy of meetings, by lack of identifiable “chain of command” and failure to resolve where, when it comes to the USA (my perspective, obviously — I live here and have all my adult life and most of my childhood too), there is a clear conflict of interest between the global and the “domestic.”

Again, this might be better untangled if the financial statements (CAFRs) were read and discussed, voluntarily, by individuals who are self-motivated and find the time for it.  Walter Burien was at one point working towards a software for getting them all on-line (as I recall, and that’s about a year ago; see CAFR1.com or just ask him for more information), or someone else might be able to do this.  They aren’t being coughed up voluntarily at all points, and if we simply do not have even a COUNT, let alone a SUMMARY snapshot in time of where we stand in some coherent format, then who can withstand the ongoing deception when it comes to “budget” versus total assets, and forced bankruptcies of cities, with assets being sold off to others near and far, etc.

WAAS (A Calif Corp w Int’l Fellows) Board Chair (Winston Nagan, FL) + Gary Jacobs (CEO) authors of Evolutn Sovr’ty articl I quoted

WAAS (A Calif Corp w Int’l Fellows) Board Chair (Winston Nagan, FL) + Gary Jacobs (CEO) authors of Evolutn Sovr’ty articl I quoted

I felt I should better document who or where is The World Academy of Art and Science (although the main message of this post is for people to start looking into and deeply considering the history (various applications) of the term “sovereignty”and understand that it’s not a dirty word, despite the characterizations (or actions) of people so characterized.  And that it goes with the concept of “Global Citizenship” and “globalization” while every time the positive and politically more correct usage of this is distributed, press-released, or (as in Rutgers) engrained into next-generations’ educations and universities, that “sovereignty” is involved in the background — and may also have been the original target, end-game, or purpose behind the progressive activities moving in this direction.

---

So, the “WAAS” sub-menu leads to a Fall, 2017 Conference (just held, presumably) on “EDUCATION FOR THE FUTURE” in which the first conference was held in 2013 at UCBerkeley.  Those who couldn’t make it to Rome for the second one, tough luck, I guess, better luck next time!  website: http://wunicon.org/rome/#organizers

Also, its Wiki notes it started in 1960 in Geneva, but incorporated in 2011 in California (that’s an untold story, I’m sure), lists its Fellows, and states its mission (A New Paradigm for Human Development, etc.)…Also the “WUC” (World University Consortium, images below reference) it says was formed in 2013 in California.  I’m not looking either one up for this post.  Easy enough to do assuming they registered….

…Originally established in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1960,^[5] in 2011 WAAS incorporated as a non-profit organization in the State of California, USA. The Academy maintains offices in Napa, California; Zagreb, Croatia; Bucharest, Romania; and Pondicherry, India. It has a special division for South Eastern Europe.

---

Programs[edit]: {(my quoted list here omits the last three initiatives)}:

The central objective of the Academy’s activities is to develop ideas, strategies and initiatives to promote a New Paradigm of Human Development appropriate to the needs of the 21st Century. WAAS’ current programing focuses on addressing challenges in the fields of democracy, economy and employment, ecology, education, global governance and rule of law, nuclear disarmament, peace and international security, scientific and technological development and application.

Current programs of the Academy include specific initiatives focusing on

• Abolition of Nuclear Weapons—formulation of legal, public policy and social strategies for complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
• Global Employment Challenge—strategies to achieve full employment and to evolve a theory and global model for employment.
• New Economic Theory—formulation of a human-centered theory of economics
• Global Higher Education–conceptualization and design of a truly global, world-class system of higher education accessible and affordable to people everywhere.
• Evolution of Individuality—the role of formed individuals in guiding the development of creative intellectual and social processes as evidenced by creative artists, original thinkers, business and social entrepreneurs, discoverers, inventors and political leaders
• [etc…]

---

Hmm… “formed individuals” — that’s an interesting concept.  Who forms them — the fellows? What are “unformed individuals”? (If there’s one, there has to be the other, right?….)

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

Footnote 1: How does Rutgers Domestic Track Record towards women and minorities measure up with the Ivy Leagues and almost-Ivies, such as Bowdoin College in Maine?

We already know the general track record of Ivy League (and the “almost-Ivy” Bowdoin College in Maine, which pre-dates the state of Maine, and whose famous 1970s college undergraduates Stanley Druckenmiller became a famous hedge-fund success, working for George Soros (and his own investment firm), and Geoffrey Canada, famous for his work with the Harlem Children’s Zone (Druckenmiller also involved).  Both gentlemen were and I think one still is, active on the board of Robin Hood Foundation (which is an upcoming post) as well as (Mr. Canada) one of its spinoff entities, “Single Stop USA, Inc.” with the goal of enrolling as many people as possible in as many government benefits as possible, and streamlining the process.  I remember looking at the “HCZ” Forms 990 and realizing that a key to understanding the famous nonprofit (used as a model in other places, such as Minneapolis) was where its assets were being held.  On seeing similar personnel in charge of the Robin Hood Foundation, the pattern for the latter started making more sense.

That’s why I looked at Bowdoin College, because both men Druckenmiller (white) and Canada (African-American) were undergraduates together in the early 1970s, around the time that college, and Harvard, and others, started allowing women to be enrolled as undergraduates, breaking down that barrier nearly 200 years (!!) after the nation’s founding, and about 50 years after women in the USA first obtained suffrage (right to even vote!)….

 

Footnote 2:  More from Rutgers Global website (on how hard it’s working along those lines).  The first four bullets are what wouldn’t fit in the accompanying image.

• 

  Global.Rutgers.edu sub-menu. Notice the formerly “GAIA” Seed grants near the bottom. (https://global.rutgers.edu/global-programs-opportunities/funding-opportunities/gaia-grants

  About 70,000 Rutgers students

• Nearly 40 faculty in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine
• Ranked among the world’s top 50 universities (Center for World University Rankings)
• Eighth oldest institution of higher learning in the United States [these bullets continued on the image…]