Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 01:12:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1100 times
|
| |
|
|
Snipped much away.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> Being legitimate means that Saddam *was* the ruler of Iraq - and we, by
> recognizing his government, had no right to undermine his rule. The only body
> that had that power is the UN.
However, is there a distinction between recognising the reality of a strongman
being in power through force, and recognising the legitimacy of his rule?
I'm just asking. But I suspect that many countries, operating in the real world
rather than the ideal one, do tend to deal with other governments without
necessarily addressing whether they are legitimate.
As for the UN, I can't recall nearly as many cases of the UN stating that a
government was legitimate (dejure governance) as I can recall reports of coups
(defacto governance).
Note that this is a very slippery slope to go down. For example I don't
recognise the dejure legitimacy of my own government, yet I choose to go along
with it because they have a lot of guns. I never recognised the legitimacy of
the Soviet Union's government either.
Is that making any sense?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
