“In a speech to a joint session of Congress this morning, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Congress that there was “no time to lose” in the fight against global warming. ‘We need an agreement at the climate conference in December in Copenhagen,’ she said.
‘That requires the readiness of all countries to accept binding international commitments’[your emphasis].
Your argument or position makes no sense to me.
You seem to assume that a sovereign nation compromises, violates or contradicts its sovereignty by making binding agreements with other nations.
Is this a correct reading of your position?
If so, it makes no sense. Sovereignty has no intrinsic value. It’s like intelligence, if it is never used to solve a problem or accomplish a task, it is worthless.
The only value sovereignty has is that it satisfies a precondition for doing things such as entering into binding contracts.
Consider the concept of personal sovereignty or individual autonomy. "Each person enjoys, over himself and his powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that he has not contracted to supply."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownershipSuppose I take a job -- I commit myself to show up to work at 8:00 a.m. everyday. Only a sovereign person who controls his own actions can make such a commitment. No employer would make an agreement with a potential employee who was not a sovereign individual with the freedom to faithfully fulfill his obligations.
The only value individual sovereignty has is that satisfies an essential pre-condition for dong the things you want to do.
Your assumption that making a commitment violates one's sovereignty is non-sense. Sovereignty is a logical pre-condition for making a commitment. Sovereignty does not logically preclude, contradict or conflict with binding agreements.
Columbus Townhall > Forum > Politics > National > Science and Environment (Moderators: Peter, CTH Public Relations)
Topic: End of national sovereignity?
