No, as codified by certain non-derogable principles in Law.Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
What Man does shall dictate the direction he either leads, or chooses to be led by. It remains vested by his consent, enlightened, or otherwise.
Law comes before politics, politics and the state, both being creatures of law, are predicated upon the consent of man.
As previously mentioned:
Like Hobbes and Locke, Vattel also argued that "liberty and independence belong to man by his very nature, and ... they can not be taken from him without his consent." Id.
As he noted later, "States are composed of men, their policies are determined by men, and these men are subject to the natural law under whatever capacity they act." Id. at 4.
31. As was further noted by UNESCO in the 1947 Memorandum and Question-naire, supra note 29:
The world of man is at a critical stage in its political, social and economic evolution. If it is to proceed further on the path towards unity, it must develop a common set of ideas and principles. One of those is a common formulation of the rights of man. This common formulation must by some means recon-cile the various divergent or opposing formulations now in existence. It must further be sufficiently definite to have real significance both as an inspirationand as a guide to practice, but also sufficiently general and flexible to apply toall men, and to be capable of modification to suit peoples at different stages of social and political development while yet retaining significance for them andtheir aspirations.Id. at 255.32. Article 1.
27. As Quincy Wright noted shortly after the completion of the UDHR:
The universal maintenance of human rights may create conditions in which these relations between groups may become one of co-operation and the ex-pectation of peace. The rules of international law, which have defined the relations of State to State, must develop to meet this new situation. [...]
The rights of States must be considered relative to the rights of individuals. Both the State and the individual must be considered as subjects of world law and the sovereignty of the State must be regarded not as absolute, but as a competence defined by that law. Such development, however, implies that the world com-munity is sufficiently organised and sufficiently powerful to assure the security of States under law.
Are there a non-derogable principles reserved designed to faclitate immunization from foreign interference, and a separation from the world, whilst peacefully coexisting, I would say, yes.
Reply With Quote