Thanks for the link.P F Tinmore, et al,
I think you might be confused.
But sovereignty has very little to do with the Kind of Government; and more to do with the entity that exercises authority over a group of people that are collectively united.
What if that government was imposed by force with the disapproval of the vast majority of the people?(COMMENT)Makes no difference if the majority approves or not. There is a list of "Countries Ruled by Dictatorship." They are all sovereign. Whether the people want it or not, sovereignty is held by Kim Jong-Il in North Korea every bit as much as the Grand Ayatollah, Commander-in-Chief of Iran and Supreme Leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Make no mistake, they are both sovereign nations.(COMMENT)But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.
Customary and International law generally recognizes only two competing theories of state recognition, with the “declaratory” view most often seen and is a very near opposite to the more favored “constitutive” view.
The Circumscription of the Sovereign State: Theory and Practice
It looks like to me that you are describing a new kind of "sovereignty" called "true sovereignty." I have seen people that are locked onto the idea that single forms of government:
• The declaratory theory looks to the purported state’s assertion of its sovereignty within the territory it exclusively controls to determine if it can access the international plane.
• The constitutive theory in that it holds that recognition is almost irrelevant because states have little to no discretion in determining whether an entity constitutes a state.
But this is generally true only (with trepidation I say this) in case of a "Democracy, a Republic, and in governments that incorporate the theory by Constitution." In about a quarter of the world, the sovereignty is held by the "Executive" or in some cases by the "Royal Court." As a Regional example being released from under the Mandate" "On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan:"
• powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people (Chapter 11: Sovereignty)
TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN. London, 22nd March, 1946
His Majesty The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India , and His Highness The Ainir of Trans-Jordan;
ARTICLE 1.
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.
Here we see an example in fact, and still valid today. where the Mandatory extends recognition that the Emir is the "sovereign of Trans-Jordan."
Most Respectfully,
R
Rousseau, far different from Bodin or Hobbes, saw the collective people within a state as the sovereign, ruling through their general will. In constitutional government, it is the people ruling through a body of law that is sovereign. That is the version that commands legitimacy most commonly in the world today.
That is similar to my previous post that you have not refuted.
The error you make is using a cut and paste snippet, out of context, and imagining it serves to bolster an argument.
As it applies to your invention of Pal'istan, you need reminding that this invented place was not a state and there was no form of representative government that ruled through their (the people / people's) general will.
Secondly, the "version" you ascribe to obviously complicates the notion of sovereignty as applied to the two competing Pal'istans (hamas'istan and fatah'istan). "Collective people within a state as the sovereign, ruling through their general will", is a bit of a stretch with regard to the Arab-Moslem terrorist dictatorships of Hamas and Fatah. There are practical matters to consider when attempting to add the label "state" to either Gaza or the West Bank and even far greater unresolved issues when attempting to apply the "... ruling through their general will", label.
Terms such as democracy, representative governments and the governed 'ruling through their general will tend to lose association to their intrinsic meaning when applied to armed Islamic terrorist encampments. It's difficult to make a case for a population ruling through their collective will when that populace has no voice in representative elections.
When was it that the Arabs-Moslems in either Gaza'istan or Fatah'istan were allowed by the ruling dictators to vote in elections?Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237
Notice that they said Palestinian people. They did not say government. They did not say state.
And the Jews were palestinian people weren't they, or are you going to deny them this right as well. While you ignore the fact that the Jews were palestinians and had the advantage of the LoN international law granting them land you will fall on your face. Also while you ignore the outside influence brought to bear on the arab muslims by hamas and fatah you will never see the reality. Now the arab muslims already have national independence and sovereignty in Jordan, and blew it by attempting a take over, the same in Lebanon which saw many massacred by the ones they illtreated