This seems to be a definitive statement of shared purpose to resist the devolution of national soverignty to the WHO: “The Parties will continue to develop cooperation in the field of ensuring the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population in order to counter the threats of epidemics, and will jointly oppose attempts at th…
This seems to be a definitive statement of shared purpose to resist the devolution of national soverignty to the WHO:
“The Parties will continue to develop cooperation in the field of ensuring the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population in order to counter the threats of epidemics, and will jointly oppose attempts at the platforms of international organizations to adopt legally binding mechanisms that limit the sovereignty of countries in the field of prevention and control of infectious diseases, prevention and response to biological threats.”
Not nit-picking, but... hell, of course I'm nit-picking. I like nit-picking.
Surely, if the WHO acquires a nation's national sovereignty, this is centralising power, not decentralising. Therefore, this is not a devolution of national sovereignty. Frankly, I don't know what the correct word is but it sure aint devolution. Devolution occurs when the power of an elite is neutralised and then spread out over the many, or everyone, as in actual democracy. Abe Lincoln proposed total devolution with his recommendation to reject representationalism and adopt "Government of the people, by the people and for the people".
Chuckle. We all seem to be out of practice on the subject of democracy, which is hardly surprising as there is none of this stuff around anywhere. I am sensitive on the subbject having written books about it, earning the worlds smallest audience.
This seems to be a definitive statement of shared purpose to resist the devolution of national soverignty to the WHO:
“The Parties will continue to develop cooperation in the field of ensuring the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population in order to counter the threats of epidemics, and will jointly oppose attempts at the platforms of international organizations to adopt legally binding mechanisms that limit the sovereignty of countries in the field of prevention and control of infectious diseases, prevention and response to biological threats.”
Not nit-picking, but... hell, of course I'm nit-picking. I like nit-picking.
Surely, if the WHO acquires a nation's national sovereignty, this is centralising power, not decentralising. Therefore, this is not a devolution of national sovereignty. Frankly, I don't know what the correct word is but it sure aint devolution. Devolution occurs when the power of an elite is neutralised and then spread out over the many, or everyone, as in actual democracy. Abe Lincoln proposed total devolution with his recommendation to reject representationalism and adopt "Government of the people, by the people and for the people".
Notice the quotation marks. This was lifted from the blog post.
I agree that when national sovereignty is usurped by a global entity that it is not "devolved".
Other terms than "usurped" might also serve, without being incorrect.
Chuckle. We all seem to be out of practice on the subject of democracy, which is hardly surprising as there is none of this stuff around anywhere. I am sensitive on the subbject having written books about it, earning the worlds smallest audience.