Next Friday at the Ideas Cafe, we are discussing the power of the state in controlling its citizens.
This topic was suggested by Rafi based on a recent incident of a Canadian who served jail sentence in Thailand. Upon returning to Canada, the Canadian authorities said they may be pursuing charges for actions that the person committed overseas and had served time for.
Admittedly, it is for child pornography for which there is no excuse. However, should our government have jurisdiction of what we do while overseas? It is always in these cases that civil liberties can be trespassed because of the nature of the crime but the question remains.
Should they punish us again for something that we already serve time for?
What if a US citizen do something like using pot in Amsterdam which is legal there but not legal in the US? Should they be punished after returning to the US?
There was recently a rush for US citizens overseas to denounce their US citizenship because the US internal revenue service said all US citizens overseas are liable for US income taxes even though they may not have lived in the US for many years.
What are the obligations of the citizens of a state while out of the borders of the state?
What are the obligations of the state to its citizens overseas?
Can a Canadian citizens living generations overseas still enjoy protection from Canada?
What about voting rights?
A lot of countries agree with each other to tax residents instead of citizens. So taxation and social benefits are based on where one resides rather than one's citizenship. Is that the right way to go? What happens when the resident and citizen states are in some kind of political or military conflict?
The origin of the state is explained by Thomas Hobbes as a social contract for the citizens to co-operate with each other by mutually giving up the liberties that other citizens also give up and submit ourselves to the rules of the collective state to enforce these rules.
Does this apply when we are outside the physical borders of the state?
Are we entering a new social contract when we enter the physical borders of another state?
Is our social contract with our state forever until we denounce our citizenship?
Hello Fellow Bloggers,
ReplyDeleteIsn't it fair to suggest that internet or media that contains pornography needs international or special consideration, as it goes beyound the borders of the State?
My concern with Hobbes social contract is whether all peoples have the capcity to know what these contracts are, in terms of liberties. Landed immigrants, travelers or temporary workers may not share the same insights into the culture of the State, or lack privilige of the states rules. This is often the case with people who work temporarily in Canada where they aren't aware of their rights and don't share the same rights as Citizens do.
I think liberty is meant for individuals not States or Social Contracts. So that the State can offer protection not of Liberty, but of the person, regardless of their liberties.
Liberty hasn't been adequately defined, here and elsewhere. If my liberty is being protected that seems like corperate protection where I don't really have any individual liberty, as I am acting as an entity. Hobbes' theory needs a counsel, but that's like a board of directors, and still I don't see how thats liberty when a persons liberty is defined by its efforts towards the State.
I think all crimes need to be dealt with on case by case matters. So individuals can be held accountable. Often States, Boards, Counsels, Governing Liberties, Corperations, are removed from the actions of their employees and no body is held accountable, if crimes or complaints occur. Maybe the idea of pornography is liberating for some, but it could be seriously offensive to others. But its not illegal to be offensive. But pornography seems to do more then just offend. The content of the pornography and other specifics could make it a crime. There must be just cause to charge a person for pornography.
So my concern is with people being like minded as a criteria for liberation. As it cannot be culturally, or legally defined. Its a persons own liberty that needs to be had and respected. And that's what needs to be protected and considered on a case by case basis.
I reference Hobbes' notion of social contract to remind ourselves why we as citizens, willingly limit our individual liberty and subject ourselves to the rule of the state we are in. It is to benefit from the cooperation with our fellow citizens with the state as the overseer of the contracts we have with other citizens.
DeleteAre we still operating under these contracts when we are outside the physical boundaries of the state?
We can have an interesting discussion about what constitutes pornography and who should decide but for now we are not discussing the nature of the crime but the idea that someone can be asked to serve twice for his crime, pay taxes to two states, or punished for what was legal where the act was performed.
Do we enter into another social contract when we are in another country while still carry the one from the place we left behind?
For immigrants, there is the conscious act of declaring allegiance to the state they are to become a member of. For those born into the state, the consent to the social contract is implicit as proposed by Hobbes and explains the legitimacy for the state (or the monarch, in his case)
By questioning the authority of the state and the origins and reasons for this authority perhaps we can shine some light as to whether some of these action by the state can be justified?
This is a very complicated topic. There are classes of laws which address concerns and problems. Often there is international law and bilateral agreements too. Then there is the issue of citizenship. Is there a developing norm of international citizenship? Are some virtues required?
ReplyDelete"Confucius said, 'If an individual can practice five things anywhere in the world, he is a man of humanity.' 'May I ask what these things are?' said Zizhang. Confucius replied, 'Reverence, generosity, truthfulness, diligence, and kindness. If a person acts with reverence, he will not be insulted. If he is generous, he will win over the people. If he is truthful, he will be trusted by people. If he is diligent he will have great achievements. If he is kind, he will be able to influence others'" (from "The Ends of Globalization" edited by Don Kalb, Marco van der Land, Richard Staring, Bart van Steenbergen, and Nico Wilterdink (2000, p. 47).
Sun Tzu's five virtues for a general are: wisdom, sincerity, humanity, courage, and strictness. Are we going in the direction of international citizenship with lists of virtues?
As for double jeopardy, I thought it was a established principle of international law that people don't suffer twice for the same crime -- unless perhaps it can be shown that he or she was treated especially leniently in a jurisdiction such that the exercise of justice is called into question. Appeals must be limited nonetheless.
The rules of evidence, complicated as they already are, may not be able to remain viable in various internationalist settings. That's all for now. CL
This brings up further questions. Who has standing in international courts? Can international law be enforced in domestic courts? Can Generals and other military officers be subject to their occupying country's laws? Is there an international civil society gradually developing? Are there various kinds of extra-national legal jurisdictions such as international waters? CL
ReplyDeleteLaws only works if there is an enforcing body (the state or monarch). International law lacks such a policeman and each country claim their own sovereignty over their territory (and their citizens?).
DeleteIf a country can pick and choose the judgment from international law and object to it on sovereignty grounds, then there is no teeth to international law. If not, then there is no sovereignty.
The angst within the European Union of citizens objecting to EU standards in their daily lives is a good example of the difficulty. Here even though the European states have agreed to be bound into a union, objection and jurisdiction issues continues. (and they are only talking about standard work practices)
Double jeopardy is the issue here as to who has the primary jurisdiction unless we think that we should punish someone over and over again for the same act. What about prisoner's rights?
I agree its senseless to punish if a prisoner has done time they should have that recognized.
Deletehope everyone had a good meeting...
i may be visiting Vancouver and will try to make it to the Cafe met.
Have a good weekend!
VTS
International laws are for humans not governing bodies. Many humans don't have or know their rights. If human beings were acting according to liberty and not contracts they'd probably not do something offensive simply because they were away from that State and Contract. As for the person who committs the same crime in various states they should be tried in all the states they committed crimes, shouldn't they? Laws need not punish for a crimes that they havn't been convicted of in other states. Laws aren't about retribution afterall and who would benefit from such judgements?
ReplyDelete