What does it mean today in Nationstates? To attempt to answer that, we first have to (very briefly) define and understand what we mean by the word generally, then what we mean by it in Nationstates specifically. Then we have to find out what it has meant in Nationstates in the past, all before we can even begin to try to answer that question.
But, before that, why should we care? Its just a word right? Well, yes. But its one of the most competed for words in NS Gameplay parlance. Its not just a question of controversy or different interpretations, its that completely opposing groups, have repeatedly tried to simultaneously claim the term as representative of their cause. That seems like its worthy of some discussion.
Sovereignty in RL
The word sovereignty comes from the French souveraineté, and is allegedly ultimately derived from the latin term superānus. Ultimately sovereignty refers to a form of supreme power and the method in which it is exercised. The Supreme Power in a State could, and often was, a Monarch, and thus they exercised Sovereignty.
But then one can question from where is such Sovereignty derived - what is its legitimacy? By what right does a Government exercise authority? It can be debated what the legitimacy of the sovereign power is derived from, and over the ages it has been. Within a state sovereignty could be traditionally derived from the divine right of kings, but as time went on theories of a social contract between the state and its people developed. Ultimately it could be argued that sovereignty derives from a plurality of sources exercised by various groups and interests in a society. We shall herein refer to the question of sovereignty within a State as the issue of internal sovereignty.
Therefore, the relationship between different states which are sovereign in themselves, can be referred to as a matter of external sovereignty. This could be in the form of a Westphalian idea of sovereignty, which is the principle of that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of external powers, amongst other things. But it can refer to any interaction between sovereign states. Questions of rights to self-determination and non-interference can then arise. But essentially, to exercise complete sovereignty a State cannot be controlled by the will of an external power.
In conclusion, Encyclopædia Britannica describes Sovereignty as one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law and says it is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government and of independence and democracy.
Sovereignty in NS
Now, with an hour to go before my Lecture I am wondering why did I take on a subject that is already controversial and difficult in RL, and that is further obfuscated by the complications of Nationstates terminology. Lets start by clarifying that terminology so we are all talking in the same terms.
The first thing is that we must equivocate the term Region with that of a Nation-state, for the purposes of Gameplay specifically, as that is the fundamental basis on which our roleplay exists, so the matter of External Sovereignty or National Sovereignty becomes a question of Regional Sovereignty. It is that term that will be the primary focus of this discussion, because it is the interpretation of regional sovereignty that is the basis for conflict between different Gameplay factions; such as Raiders, Defenders, Independents and Others.
Secondly, the question of internal sovereignty, encompassing social contract theory, democracy, and all that, in the internal political roleplays that decide Regional forms of Government can be called Political Sovereignty. This is for the most part not directly relevant to regional sovereignty, but sometimes the political legitimacy of a Region can become a reason for denying it full Regional Sovereignty, so it isnt entirely disassociated.
Thirdly, we must make reference to the relationship between the World Assembly and Nations of Nationstates, essentially a matter outside of Gameplay, but obviously within Nationstates, and I think itd be rude to not mention them. The World Assembly has often been broadly categorised in terms of a conflict between IntFeds and NatSovs. NatSov stands for National Sovereigntists, and is basically referring to the rights of Nations at an individual level to govern themselves, with regards to the General Assembly roleplay specifically. We shall thus recognise their ownership of the term National Sovereignty - to refer to the interactions between individual nations, within the framework of the World Assembly.
So who owns the term Regional Sovereignty? Lets have a quick trawl through some of its uses by Gameplay regions or organisations during my time in Nationstates.
One of the first significant uses I know of is by The Union of Sovereigns (2004) - a multilateral alliance founded around the basis of a mutual defence pact by the Pacific, New Sparrow, and the USSR. Later Gatesville, the German Empire and Ireland joined.
We have to be careful, when we talk about the word Sovereigns in relation to Regional Sovereignty - because it doesnt always have to mean that. One could talk about an regional alliance of Sovereigns in the sense of Political Sovereignty, ie. that of an alliance of regions which have Individuals exercising Sovereign power in their Regions - basically, an Alliance of Monarchist Regions.
But the preamble of the Union of Sovereigns, as well as the diversity of political sovereignty exercised by the regions involved, makes it totally unambiguous that they are referring specifically to Regional Sovereignty in the Union:
Union of Sovereigns did many relevant things in Nationstates, but to me, the greatest impact they had was coming to the aide of Great Britain and Ireland, which had achieved a Protectorate status of the Union, during the Battle of Palestine. This was the 3rd largest (non-GCR) military battle in Nationstates history. In this battle, the Union of Sovereigns (and GB&I) was pitched against the ADN and RLA, the predominant Defender organisations of the day. They lost, 84-102, but did their idea of Sovereignty die?We, the signatories of this, the Union of Sovereigns Charter (hereafter referred to as The Union), state our devotion to the principles of regional sovereignty. Through the adoption of this Charter we announce to all the NationStates world that our nations and regions vow to protect the sovereign rights of each member state to govern their lands as they see fit, to protect those lands against outside aggressors and to support one another against all adversaries.
Their opponents at the time, defenders, were probably hoping it would. They didnt use sovereignty particularly often in their language, and it was a theme that was fairly peripheral to both the ADN and RLA. The ADN charter (Article V, Section 4) did mention sovereignty, but it was in a fairly negative sense;
However the notion of regional sovereignty - and the idea that it was a Defender cause, did enter the parlance of the times, for instance in responding to a 2004 interview with Francos Spain, Eurosoviets of the ADN and RLA, said:Invading regions for the purposes of conquest. Conquest is defined as the occupation of a region with the intention of extending its sovereignty over that region. Allying or supporting Enemies of the ADN
However, the Founderless Regions Alliance (FRA) officially embraced the term in its Charter. The FRA was founded in 2006 by the regions Jethnea, Global Right Alliance and North Pacific, and had up to 20 member regions at its peak. The FRA became the largest and longest-running defender alliance in NationStates. The Charter of the Founderless Regions Alliance mentions Sovereignty in the opening sentence.For the benefit of FS, I will deal with this once and once alone. That the ADN has no regard for those we defend is simply rubbish. If we had no regard for the sovereignty of other regions, then we would simply allow invaders to run rampant across that sovereignty. We don't. In fact it is BECAUSE of our regard for sovereignty that we protect neutral regions from the greatest of threats to their sovereignty; the raider/invader alliances that scour the innocent regions of the world. Where we might defend a region, having telegrammed the founder or native delegate and made clear why we are there, enquiring if they have any problems with this, invaders arrive, boot, recruit and leave; parasites.
So there it is, the principle of sovereignty across all regions. A clear attempt to invoke a notion of Regional Sovereignty in relation to Defenderism. In its description on the Embassy page FRA also said our Rangers are regularly out protecting the sovereignty of founderless regions, a notable recent example being Belgium.The Founderless Regions Alliance is an organization founded upon the principles of sovereignty and freedom of all regions in NationStates.
Thus the notion of infringement of a breach of Sovereignty through the invasion of a founderless region is thus put forwards. This wasnt just a fleeting fancy either. It became a core concept in Defender public relations.
If we jump forwards to the UDL, their recruitment message included the following:
Native sovereignty was a Unibotism, a phrase he invented to emphasise the defender prioritisation of natives in relation to the question of sovereignty. He also used it in the FRA going back to 2011.We aim to reconnect defenderism with NationStates natives, to earn their trust and their respect and be --hopefully-- recognized as a benevolent body of people that are here to assist natives with the security, protection and promotion of native sovereignty in their regions at their request.
From 2007-9 a series of two fairly short lived multilateral alliances were created including regions such as Europeia, GB&I, TNI, the LKE, EoE and TLK. This was the Congress of Sovereigns and then the Sovereign Regions Alliance Treaty Organisation. Unquestionably, the former was evoking primarily the Monarchist nature of the regions involved in its reference to Sovereigns, but the latter included regions that were politically Republics, like Europeia, and
These multilateral alliances ended up in conflict with the Defender sphere. In 2007 the Congress is Sovereigns (TNI, GB&I, LKE and EoE) along with Catlandtopia, fought the Defender organisations (FRA, ADN, TITO) in Marxist Leninist Party, winning 89-82. And then arguably the largest (non-GCR) NS military battle of all time took place in 2008 between SRATO (TNI, GB&I, LKE, Europeia) and its raider allies, and Defenders (TITO, ADN, FRA et al)- in Rajahland - which ended in a 120-108 victory for the Defenders.
It was this same broad sphere of Regions, their beliefs, and their Foreign Affairs strategies, that went on to play a role in the establishment of Independence as a major Gameplay position. The concept proved widely popular and soon spread to a wider sphere of regions, and GCRs began to tag themselves as independent. Unibot, by then a global figurehead of the Defender sphere, through the dominance of the UDL, attacked Independence in his 2013 essay Paradise Found.
HEM, Founder of Europeia, wrote an article Debunking Defenderism in 2012 where he attacked Defenders attempts to take ownership of the term sovereignty, and pointed out the hypocracy of this in view of their actions:
Things came to even more of a head in August 2014, as the ideological struggle between Independence and Defenderism intensified, as the influence of Defender Orgs waned, and the individuals involved in them sought to influence GCRs to keep their ideology alive. Europeia invited The South Pacific, where Unibot (and Glen-Rhodes) were known to be pushing a Defender agenda, to jointly host an Independence Convention.They believe they can talk about sovereignty, and then infiltrate another region's forums.
They believe they can talk about morality, and then spread nefarious comments and dialogue against invaders.
They believe they can talk about purity, and then usurp delegacies, invade feeders, remove native delegates, destroy invader-built communities.
Yes defenders, you believe you can...But guess what..?
You can't.
2 days later, Lazarus launched, nominally through Funkadelia, Feux and Wintermoot - a conference called the Regional Sovereignty Conference. In the Press briefing it referred to both independence and regional sovereignty twice. It was a blatant attempt to undermine the Independence Convention, and caused a diplomatic row between TSP and Europeia, much to Glen-Rhodes delight.
The RSC conference was attended by 10,000 Islands, Ainur, Aura Hyperia, Commonwealth of Free Nations, Global Right Alliance, Lazarus, Mystria, Renegade Islands Alliance, Spiritus, Taijitu, The Pacific, The Rejected Realms, The South Pacific, The United Union, The West Pacific, United Defenders League, Warzone Australia and Wintreath. Mainly but not entirely defender or defender leaning regions.
Defenders saw an opportunity to use this conference to produce a new overarching Treaty that would effectively prohibit raiding. Unibot dominated the drafting of the proposal, authoring over ⅔ of the clauses, as seen by this spreadsheet of negiotiations; https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... F3X4_dt4o/
But there were voices of dissent. A certain individual stated:
Unibot reacted angrily;The idea of 'ethics' and 'morals' within the NS construct are simply a matter of viewpoint. Some will cry that dictatorship is 'morally wrong' while others will cry that false democracy based upon an offsite community is equally wrong. Some believe that the invading of regions promotes activity in what to many is a somewhat stagnant collection of ones and zeroes.
Ethics and morality have nothing to do with it. The imposition of these supposed ideals upon the NS world have done far more, in my opinion, to crush the idea of self-determination amongst regions than a few petty invader groups.
And then later;You have actually spent this entire post deflecting the discussion on the morality of subjugation.
The entire pretense of this debate has been that morality is simply "platitudes" to your "objectivity". The moment someone dared to suggest that possibly, you are just morally shallow, you've descended into an ambiguous rejection of morality as you arrogantly intellectualize your own moral infantilism.
Eventually, through a combination of his incompetence, growing unpopularity, extremism, and passive resistence from regions like The Pacific and The West Pacific, that didnt subscribe to the Defenderist ideology of Unibot - the conference unravelled. The proposals were watered down more and more until they werent achieving the objectives of the Defender ideologues in control of the Conference, and eventually it became a worthless document. Unibot raged and said it is everyone elses fault.I am neither upset, nor sad, nor plagiarizing anyone. Your attempt at baiting me however is a bit on the pathetic side.
The problem with how you are baiting is, well, I am accusing you of being an arrogant sociopath who would need a colonoscopy to find his doctorate - and you've done everything to prove those accusations as such. You believe I would be insulted with the idea of my academic prowess being associated with Wikimedia, which tells us more about your superiority complex than it does about me.
The public Closing Statement on 25th September from Funkadelia alleged In the face of an adversarial and fractured diplomatic landscape, it seems that true and respectful discourse is rarely used as of late. If this conference cannot be considered a complete success, it should still be considered a victory for those of us who still place faith in such diplomatic discourse and hope to see more of it in the future. A number of delegates probably wondered whether they had attended the same conference he did.
Meanwhile, Europeia, having full access to the proceedings of the Conference through my sources, rescheduled its planned Independence Convention, to begin following the conclusion of the Regional Sovereignty Conference. It began on September 23rd, and signing of the Independent Manifesto occurred in October by representatives from Europeia, Balder, Osiris, LKE, Equilism, TNP, TNI, Albion, TWP, Ainur and KoGB.
The Independent manifesto explicitly referred to sovereignty:
With the decline of the UDL, only the FRA remained. The FRA in its regional publication Norfolk and Chance made a last ditch attempt to invoke regional sovereignty in the liberation of Asia presumably through ex-UDL author Tim;II. An Independent region rejects the Raider/Defender dichotomy and does not take a position in the middle of the spectrum. An Independent region instead identifies separate, more complex and nuanced, interests for their community, which do not fit in the Raider/Defender dichotomy, such as: maximizing regional activity and stability; increasing the regions influence and impact in the interregional stage; developing strong ties with like-minded communities and regions; and protecting the sovereignty of friendly and aligned regions.
Sovereignty was mentioned as a key theme in the 4th Monarchist Communique, referring tot the "sovereignty of game-created and user-created Independent and raider-aligned regions" specifically. The statement was signed by LKE, Balder, Osiris, Albion, KoA, KoGB, UKN and UK. Specifically it was brought up in reference to the breaches of it by ideological defenders such as The Order of the Grey Wardens.This past Major Update, sovereignty struck a major victory against those who would wish to subvert it for their own gains, with the liberation of Asia from a particularly nasty bird species known as The Black Hawks....
The total numbers by the invading forces reached the mid-40's by the end of the operation, with more opponents of sovereignty streaming in right till the end....
Finally, there is thanks necessary for all those organizations involved: The FRA Rangers, the Lazarene Liberation Army, the North Pacific Army, the Rejected Realms Army, the Renegade Islands Alliance Special Forces, the Spiritus Defense Force, the Taijitu Citizen's Militia, the Ten Thousand Islands Treaty Organization, the United Defenders League, the Wintreath Hvitt Riddaral, as well as a number of unaffiliated advocates of sovereignty all participated in the liberation, and were each key to the success of it.
Asia may be free now, but many other regions still suffer from the plague of those who wish to violate sovereignty, or are at risk of suffering. The only way this can be stopped is through cooperation and widespread participation, from all those who are invested in the protection of regional sovereignty.
But it was in the July 2016, GCR Sovereignty Accords, that regional sovereignty, in an eerily similar sense to that of the 2004 Union of Sovereigns, returned.
Of course, it was no coincidence. The GCRSA was authored by Ivan Moldavi, the same player that was Founder of New Sparrow in the Union of Sovereigns. The same player who stood up to Unibot when he attempted to enforce his interpretation of the term Regional Sovereignty. He is thus an influence on defining what sovereignty means today.We, the signatories of this, the GCR Sovereignty Accords (hereinafter the Accords), state our devotion to the principles of regional sovereignty within the GCR community. Through the adoption of these Accords we declare that our nations and regions vow to protect the sovereign rights of each member state to govern their lands as they see fit, to protect those lands against outside aggressors, and to support one another against all adversaries.
To a long line of independent regions, Regional Sovereignty in Nationstates, means - broadly speaking, freedom from overarching Defender organisations that exercise sovereignty on behalf of their constituent member regions to enforce their idea of what is legitimate abroad and what isnt.
To defenders they can cling to the dying and debunked Defenderist scriptures of Unibot et al, where regional sovereignty applies only to failed states.
The real point is, if you support the concept of Independence, your region can define the future of Regional Sovereignty in NS Gameplay. You don't have to follow anyone else's interpretation of it, that's the whole point of it.