✡ There have been 2 things that have been bothering me, 2 gaps in my understanding of the world that I need some input on. I would like to hear what you have to say, or if you know something else I can read, or study. Forgive my sort of stream of consciousness…
What was the transition point that made Jews, for lack of a better word, acceptable? I will explain: I was watching something on PBS this weekend about a major fire in Rome under the rule of Nero. The redux is that the Christians caused the fire as part of there apocalyptic vision of the destruction of the whore of Babylon with its 7 heads (aka Rome). The narrator made a statement something like: the Christians were distinguishable amongst the many hundreds or so cults in Rome at that time by the strict adherence to a moral code. I started to think about how all religions somehow move from cult to acceptable at some point, but how? Numbers? Political connections? Sociological factors? Money? I think we all could make a long list. Given: Jews have been driven out of so many places in so many eras for so many different reasons and our numbers have never been that large in comparison to the locals (I searched for an example to the contrary and couldn’t find one, if you know of one, please let me know) what caused us to me even slightly acceptable? The transitional link from Jews to Christians via Jesus? The shared texts? Why were we rarely relegated to cult status? Maybe I am asking the wrong question, if you think so help me shape it. Jews certainly seem cultish: special garb, special schools, special language, special eating rules, and so on… If anything the Christians were shrewd in courting an emperor (Constantine?) to convert and thereby cementing their transition from cult to, well, religion. Perhaps I am being too legalistic, but all definitions have some point, at which, they are maximized, like a connotation normal distribution.
What is the notion of Sovereignty? I have examples I ponder: England, Spain and Israel. I tend to go back only a few hundred years, to around the time of the enlightenment, mostly because of the emergence of the rule of law, but also because history was recorded more diligently. Moreover, and more importantly, because we are all educated in the time since then.
There is a time in the history of England and Spain where whomever was strongest was the sovereign. But then came the enlightenment and the notion of rule of law. In Spain’s case the transition of sovereignty occurred in the 1970′s much more recently than Israel and even more recently than England – and of course American Independence.
England: the King (Geo III) gave up all of his land; um most of the world, and it became the Crown Estate, which essentially is now under the control of the government, including all revenue. The King maintained some private land, and transitioned power the the Parliament. There were a series of laws, acts, and otherwise, that codified (no singular document, mind you) the “Constitutional Monarchy” – William Pitt, etc… there is a great deal to discuss in the details here. But the biggest question is why did the King WILLINGLY give this all up? And why, if the Queen remains LEGALLY the sovereign of England the all the United Kingdom, can she not simply change her mind? What would stop her? How LEGALLY could she be stopped? I am troubled by the reply of “well the king signed it all over…”, well he is the King, he could take it back!
Spain: Mid 1970′s, most of you will recall, Franco died and JCdB took power. He created the modern democratic state of Spain. HE willingly gave up most of the royal holdings and put them in the patrimonial nacional. The only major piece of real estate he kept was Toledo, where generations of Kings and Women who birthed kings are buried, but it is still administered by the PN. He even left the Palacio Real to the state, and only goes there for ceremonial purposes. He does, however, maintain much more power than the regents in England. I forget exactly what it is: I think he has some kind of veto power or tiebreaker power. I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_transition_to_democracy today and it is clear that the king simply used the law to wrangle democracy into power – essentially using the fasle democracy of Franco as a real democracy and voting into law new laws pushing Spain into modernity. Because of all this was done inside the law, it seems to be much more authentic and irreversible.
In America, it seems like, we kicked out the British, we were recognized by France, and just started calling ourselves a nation. Because no one stopped us, we turned de facto to de jure and never looked back. Peace treaties aside, what is the UK sued us in world court for back taxes or to recover lost property? National bonds, international loans, etc… are all in question. Civil code applies to all citizens of the nation, but not all nations of the world?
Israel: No need to recap this in detail. There appears to be 2 major forces at work: The plan to purchase a nation through the Jewish National Fund and the wrangling of the Mandate. The end result seems to be similar to the creation of America: the British were kicked out, the neighbors were occasionally truculent, but subverted, and through time and international recognition the state persisted. Tell me how manifest destiny and Zionism are different!?!?! Even today the land ownership laws in Israel are strange to me, as if virtualized, as if ownership is impossible in a legally defendable position (think title insurance here in the US) because the state itself has no legal right to the land, so therefore how can an individual in that state. This leads to another question: when sovereignty is changed, what if you are a landowner who is against the change? I asked this question to a lawyer of Columbia Univ once, because Columbia owned land before the creation of the nation. What happened to businesses and land contracts created under one sovereignty under the next? Were there early court decisions to this end?
Zimbabwe is another example that makes me wonder – the land returns to the Africans from the Colonial owners. This simply cannot be legal. How about Chavez in Venezuela? Yikes.
There seems to be enough here for a college class: historical international law, not such course can be found at CU, Rutgers, or NYU – I looked.