Plato, the Ancient Greeks and the idea of Sovereignty

We could fairly say that political life started the day two people had an opinion with regards kind of issue; therefore, almost at mankind’s inset. However, we agree with Barker that the “[p]olitical thought begins with the Greeks”. [1] Indeed, it is with them when the notions and institutions are analysed, simple and more complex concepts exposed and reviewed.

Specifically, they did not have a dedicated theory about the idea of sovereignty but they developed the conceptualisation of State and its implications so we in fact are able to at least have hints about their thoughts in regards also to sovereignty.

PREVIOIUS POST ON ANCIENT GREEKS AND THE IDEA OF SOVEREIGNTY

Plato sets up the basis from where the Greek philosophers and thinkers (even the modern ones) depart. Firstly, we will mention his definition of one of the key concepts here. Plato understands that we are in presence of a State “when we have got hold of enough people to satisfy our many varied needs, we have assembled quite a large number of partners and helpers together to live in one place […]”.[2]

He summarised with his conceptualisation all the elements we consider nowadays essential for the existence of a State: population, territory, government. Note that law is not mentioned but will be present throughout his work.

From here on we will focus our attention on three of his dialogues since they are the one related to the State, the law and sovereignty: The Republic, Politicus or Statesman and the Laws.

We agree with Baker again when he says: “[…] starting from an ethical point of view, and from the conception of the State as a moral association, Greek thought always postulated a solidarity which is foreign to most modern thinking. […] To modern thinker the mission of the State is negative: its function is the removal of hindrances (rather than the application of a stimulus) to the moral life”. [3] It is a fact, in Ancient Greece the origin of the State is explained as a necessity: “Men were ‘political animals’[…]”.[4] They are still part of a species that need the others to fulfil their needs.

Plato starts from the idea of individuals living alone and then congregated together in very small groups of three or four people. As it could be easily foreseen, people have various necessities (food, shelter, etc.). He observes here “[…] the origin of the state. It originates, as we have seen, from our needs”. [5] He goes even further with his theory proposing the idea of labour division: “[…] no two of us are born exactly alike. We have different natural aptitudes, which fit us for different jobs”. [6]

If we are still unsure whether he is using the concept as we use it nowadays, he highlights it again: “So do we do better to exercise one skill or to try to practise several? To stick to one, he said”. [7]

The next predictable consequences of these small groups of people living together will be the procreation and the formation of families. And having several families within a certain territory, they will start having relationships of different nature with each other in order to cover mutual needs, that is to say “[t]he next stage is when several families amalgamate and form larger communities”. [8]

Larger communities will have to satisfy larger needs. It would be inefficient for all people to perform the same tasks. The Ancient Greeks had already found a solution: “[…] every man should fulfil a single specific function already appears, in the shape of division of labour, in the first rudiments of the State. […] The desires for food and warmth and shelter cannot be properly satisfied, except by means of common action. The State first find its binding force in human need […] until it reaches the measure of an adult State”. [9] They go even further and consider of absolute necessity for the foundation of the new state the selection of the citizens and distributing the land. [10]

It results interesting indeed that they are developing, even at theoretical level, what modern thinkers consider two of the basic elements of any give State: population and territory. They are even realistic and leaving behind an only theoretical approach think about second class of needs any population may normally have: “Give them the ordinary comforts, he replied. Let them recline in comfort on couches and eat off tables, and have the sort of food we have today.  That is when a simple group of families or small and rudimentary society becomes a civilization. And that is the main objective in Plato’s work: “[…] We are to study not only the origins of society, but also society when it enjoys the luxuries of civilization”. [11]

More families, a larger community imply a larger variety of needs to be covered. The Greek response is once again both, practical and realistic: “We shall have to enlarge our state again. Our healthy state is no longer big enough; its size must be enlarged to make room for a multitude of occupations none of which is concerned with necessaries”. [12]

The notion of sovereignty is shaping. People have dominium over a certain territory but “the territory which was formerly enough to support [them] will now be too small”. [13] Additionaly, “[m]en are not content with the supply of the merest “necessaries”: they need satisfaction of their desires for refinement. […] a larger territory is necessary to support the larger population”. [14]

Before reviewing the consequences of the necessity with regards a larger territory, we will focus our attention next time on another element that is part of a sovereign State and the Ancient Greeks considered too: the government.

---

[1] Barker, Ernest, Greek political theory: Plato and his predecessors, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1951, p. 1.

[2] Plato, The Republic, translated by D. Lee, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 58.

[3] Barker, Ernest, Greek political theory: Plato and his predecessors, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1951, p. 7.

[4] Barker, Ernest, Greek political theory: Plato and his predecessors, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1951, p. 17.

[5] Plato, The Republic, translated by D. Lee, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 59.

[6] Plato, The Republic, translated by D. Lee, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 59.

[7] Plato, The Republic, translated by D. Lee, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 60.

[8] Plato, The Laws, translated by T. J. Saunders, Penguin Books, 1976, p. 124.

[9] Barker, Ernest, Greek political theory: Plato and his predecessors, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1951, p. 165.

[10] Plato, The Laws, translated by T. J. Saunders, Penguin Books, 1976, pp. 201/219.

[11] Plato, The Republic, translated by D. Lee, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 63.

[12] Plato, The Republic, translated by D. Lee, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 64.

[13] Plato, The Republic, translated by D. Lee, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 64.

[14] Barker, Ernest, Greek political theory: Plato and his predecessors, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1951, p. 167.

Ancient Greece and the idea of sovereignty

Κυριαρχία or sovereignty? Did the classic Greeks have a conception about what sovereignty was? Did they define, analyze, and study it?

If we revised at a glance their literature, we would answer in a negative way. However, if we went deeper into our research and analyzed the concept within their theoretical frame, we would find out a different outcome.

We can establish without hesitation two theoretical phenomena in their literature.  On the one hand and as in the later centuries (like in the Middle Ages) the word κυριαρχία was used by the Greek writers with another connotation. The word was there, the denotation was different from the one we use nowadays. We shall show how a thinker like Herodotus shows the usage of it in several historical episodes. On the other hand, we have philosophers that developed whole theorizations about politics, politics science, ethics and State and actually highlight the importance of the notion of sovereign and sovereignty without using the same name to frame is modern theorist do. We shall focus our attention on two of the leading figures on the issue: Plato and Aristotle.

Sovereignty within the general literature. Herodotus.

In The History (or Histories)[1] Herodotus writes in 440 B.C. (estimated) his and some others memories about events happened in Greece and the world as it was known at that time. Although some scholars still argue that the books that integrate The History have mistaken historical references and the presence of religious and mythological episodes, it is undoubtedly one of the firsts (if not the first) historical accounts of all human being times.

In relation to our project we have simply gone through the Books that form The Histories searching for the word Κυριαρχία or sovereignty. The outcome of our approach can be found below (under “Appendix”).

What results interesting to us is that the word sovereignty is used with a similar meaning as the one we currently use in political science but in a completely different context: individual relation. And what makes this finding more unusual is that the same pattern is followed by the literature in the Middle Ages as we shall see.

At that time the term sovereignty implied freedom of will. In all and every single passages of The History we observe it is always related to a female character. Why is that? We have to remember the time frame this masterpiece is from. Women and slaves had little (if nothing) to do in political affairs and the State. They had to do what they were told to do by their partners or masters. Having sovereignty over themselves meant at that time having the right to choose; having the free will to deliberate and to decide what to do and not to do: being the ultimate authority for own issues.

We believe that as the times as societies evolved into larger, more powerful and complex organization the notion also did as a matter of practical necessity.

The philosophers: Plato and Aristotle.

 Both of them, among other classic Greek philosophers, developed theories about human life in its broadest sense: from ethics and politics, to education and sex, from the animal kingdom to the State, from a world of ideas and excellences (or values) to more practical and real issues.

As it can be expected, they also inquired about the State, the people that form it, the authorities that lead them, the possible Constitutions and law that norm them.

Although none of them has specifically written about the concept of sovereignty as we know it nowadays we believe they discussed and developed the notion.

In following posts, and in order to demonstrate our point we shall embark on an analytical journey through their major works related to political sciences. In the case of Plato, we shall observe triad composed by The Republic, The Politicus or The Statesman and The Laws; and with Aristotle, we think plausible and a sensible idea to recreate another triptych view with the Nicomachean Ethics, The Politics and the Constitution for Athens.

Appendix.

 

Book I.

 

“The SOVEREIGNTY of Lydia, which had belonged to the Heraclides, passed into the family of Croesus, who were called the Mermnadae, in the manner which I will now relate”.

 

“The Pythoness, however, added that, in the fifth generation from Gyges, vengeance should come for the Heraclides; a prophecy of which neither the Lydians nor their princes took any account till it was fulfilled. Such was the way in which the Mermnadae deposed the Heraclides, and themselves obtained the SOVEREIGNTY”.

 

“Of all the answers that had reached him, this pleased him far the best, for it seemed incredible that a mule should ever come to be king of the Medes, and so he concluded that the SOVEREIGNTY would never depart from himself or his seed after him”.

 

“In this way he acquired the SOVEREIGNTY of Athens, which he continued to hold without disturbing the previously existing offices or altering any of the laws”.

 

“Pisistratus, having thus recovered the SOVEREIGNTY, married, according to agreement, the daughter of Megacles”.

 

“The opinion of Hippias prevailed, and it was agreed to aim at regaining the SOVEREIGNTY”.

 

Book IV.

 

“They entered Asia in pursuit of the Cimmerians, and overthrew the empire of the Medes, who till they came possessed the SOVEREIGNTY”.

 

Book V.

 

“Coes, on the other hand, as he was a mere burgher, and not a king, requested the SOVEREIGNTY of Mytilene”.

 

“There were two Paeonians, Pigres and Mantyes, whose ambition it was to obtain the SOVEREIGNTY over their countrymen”.

 

“The way in which "The Accursed" at Athens got their name, was the following. There was a certain Athenian called Cylon, a victor at the Olympic Games, who aspired to the SOVEREIGNTY, and aided by a number of his companions, who were of the same age with himself, made an attempt to seize the citadel”.

 

Book VI.

 

“In course of time Ariston died; and Demaratus received the kingdom: but it was fated, as it seems, that these words, when bruited abroad, should strip him of his SOVEREIGNTY”.

 

Book VII.

 

"Artabanus," answered Xerxes, "there is nothing in all that thou hast said, wherein thou art so wholly wrong as in this, that thou suspectest the faith of the Ionians. Have they not given us the surest proof of their attachment- a proof which thou didst thyself witness, and likewise all those who fought with Darius against the Scythians? When it lay wholly with them to save or to destroy the entire Persian army, they dealt by us honourably and with good faith, and did us no hurt at all. Besides, they will leave behind them in our country their wives, their children, and their properties- can it then be conceived that they will attempt rebellion? Have no fear, therefore, on this score; but keep a brave heart and uphold my house and empire. To thee, and thee only, do I intrust my SOVEREIGNTY."

 

Book VIII.

 

“From the mainland of Greece beyond the Peloponnese, came the Athenians with a hundred and eighty ships, a greater number than that furnished by any other people; and these were now manned wholly by themselves; for the Plataeans did not serve aboard the Athenian ships at Salamis, owing to the following reason. When the Greeks, on their withdrawal from Artemisium, arrived off Chalcis, the Plataeans disembarked upon the opposite shore of Boeotia, and set to work to remove their households, whereby it happened that they were left behind. (The Athenians, when the region which is now called Greece was held by the Pelasgi, were Pelasgians, and bore the name of Cranaans; but under their king Cecrops, they were called Cecropidae; when Erechtheus got the SOVEREIGNTY, they changed their name to Athenians; and when Ion, the son of Xuthus, became their general, they were named after him Ionians.)”

 

---

[1] We shall use the version from http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.html

(from http://classics.mit.edu/index.html) when transcribing and referencing.

 

The crisis in Syria

Document by Rethink Rebuild Society, the Voice of the Syrian Community of Manchester.

ABSTRACT

“The Syrian conflict has been ongoing since March 2011. In over four years, it has progressed as follows:

1. Nonviolent protests by civilians demanding freedom and dignity, met with a brutal government response.

2. Defections from the Syrian army to form the Free Syrian Army.

3. Escalation of the conflict as the Syrian regime engaged in artillery shelling, barrel bombing, and the employment of chemical weapons. As a result, some rebel opposition groups became increasingly militarised and committed some breaches of international humanitarian law.

4. Emergence of terrorist groups (as designated by the UK, EU, and UN) that took advantage of the chaotic situation within Syria to advance their own agendas. Many of these groups were supported by foreign fighters from across the world. On the other hand, the Syrian regime also sought help from Iraqi, Lebanese, and Iranian groups, leading to an influx of foreign fighters from these countries to fight on its behalf.

5. Currently: The Syrian people continue to fight for their freedom and dignity, although they are faced with challenges on multiple fronts including from the regime and from criminal and terrorist groups. The outcome has been, in the words of UN Special Envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura, the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II, with hundreds of thousands of casualties, the displacement of over half of the population, and the collapse of Syrian infrastructure.”

Rethink Rebuild Society COMPLETE DOCUMENT

Конфликты суверенитета как проблема распределяющей справедливости

Конфликты суверенитета как проблема распределяющей справедливости:

уравнительно разделенный суверенитет и новый режим управления в Крыму

Хорхе Эмилио Нуньес

Аннотация Большинство, если не все, конфликты в международных отношениях имеют в определенной степени связь с суверенитетом. С теоретической точки зрения, как нас учат в университете, это понятие весьма дискуссионное. С практической стороны интересы государства представляются выше интересов его населения и территории. На этом фоне во всем мире ведутся споры об усилении правовой и политической неопределенности, статусе-кво и непрерывном напряжении с различными негативными последствиями для всех вовлеченных сторон (к примеру, нарушение прав человека, война, торговля оружием). Все более очевидно, что доступные средства правовой защиты почти безуспешны и необходимо мирное и окончательное решение проблем. Эта статья предлагает справедливый и честный способ решения некоторых конфликтов суверенитета. Рассматривается, как теории распределяющей справедливости могут быть применены к понятию суверенитета, исследуется возможность разрешения конфликтов суверенитета. В статье доказывается, что решение может быть основано на принципах Ролза.

Ключевые слова государственный суверенитет, конфликты суверенитета, распределяющая справедливость, Ролз.

Введение

            Кто-то утверждает: «Крым принадлежит России» (Burke-White 2014). «[...] Соединенные Штаты Америки и их европейские союзники разделяют основную ответственность за кризис,» — говорят другие (Mearsheimer 2014). Третьи идут еще дальше и объявляют апокалиптически новую холодную войну (Roskin 2014). Оставляя в стороне эти и другие мнения, напомним: в начале 2014 года Крым стал центром кризиса между Россией и Украиной как ведущих сторон в конфликте. Президент Янукович был отстранен от власти, Россия взяла под контроль Крым, затем последовал референдум. Украина и большая часть западного мира рассматривают данные меры как не имеющие законной силы (Barry 2014). Кроме того, «локальный» кризис в Крыму, в котором мы можем выделить три стороны — Крым, Украина и Россия, — на самом деле имеет большие географические, политические и культурные последствия не только для данного региона, но потенциально и для всего мира (Molchanov 2004).

            Пока есть кризис на крымском полуострове, а напряженность между Россией и Украиной очевидна, в правовой и политической науке существует лишь риторическая аргументация, добавляющая ненужные соображения, которые, кажется, не предлагают какого-либо выхода из сложившейся ситуации. Учитывая, что Крымский кризис является лишь одним из многих других конфликтов суверенитета, существующих в мире в настоящее время, почему бы не взять данный спор в качестве примера решения проблемы по направлению к мирному многостороннему пониманию посредством диалога и переговоров?

            Мы привыкли видеть и принимать как факт, что на одной территории население находится под управлением верховной власти с единой правовой системой или правовой связью. Что бы произошло, если бы на одной территории было два верховных и иерархически равных государя, суверена (с юридической точки зрения) и в то же время две действительных системы норм? Возможно ли, например, чтобы Израиль и Палестина распространяли одновременно суверенную власть и над Иерусалимом? Возможно ли, чтобы верховная власть Аргентины и Великобритании управляла в то же время территорией и населением Фолклендских / Мальвинских островов? А что насчет России и Украины, имеющих ту же степень суверенной власти в Крыму? Если ответ положительный, каковы же последствия в отношении территории, населения, управления и права?

            Есть много случаев, которые могли быть охарактеризованы как конфликт суверенитета, в которых международные агенты (а именно, два суверенных государства и население третьей спорной территории) по различным причинам претендуют на суверенные права в отношении одного и того же участка земли. Крым — лишь одна территория, являющаяся предметом спора относительно суверенитета, среди многих других по всему миру. Кроме того, эти конфликты имеют особое свойство: их решение требует взаимоисключающих отношений между агентами, потому что, как представляется, суверенитет над третьей территорией может быть предоставлен только одному из них. Действительно, суверенитет зачастую рассматривается как абсолютное понятие — то есть исключительное и не разделяемое (Jackson 1999; MacCormick 1993; MacCormick 1999).

            В свете этой навязчивой идеи с абсолютными принципами и отказа от разделенного суверенитета давние споры до сих пор продолжаются по всему миру, в существующей ситуации если выигрывает один, то неизменно проигрывает другой со множеством негативных последствий (например, социальная борьба, плохое управление, неэффективное использование природных ресурсов, напряженность в международных отношениях и угроза местному и международному миру). Таким образом, пока эти конфликты, в принципе, ограничиваются конкретными областями и влекут негативные последствия, прежде всего, для местного населения, они имеют тенденцию к быстрому расширению до регионального и даже международного уровня (например, воздействие на мировые цены на нефть, торговля оружием, терроризм, война).

            Международные отношения, правовая и политическая научная литература предлагают различные возможные меры, которые можно было бы использовать для решения данной проблемы. Они включают в себя независимость, самоопределение и свободное объединение, к примеру. Хотя эти меры успешно решают некоторые конфликты, они бесполезны в ряде других. Следовательно, эти конфликты остаются нерешенными и неконтролируемыми.

            Задача состоит в том, чтобы представить сторонам конфликта решение, которое признавало бы их индивидуальные требования, но не пренебрегало общими правилами. Каким бы оно ни было желательным, такое решение кажется утопией. Я предлагаю рассматривать эти конфликты в широком смысле, а не как конфликты между отдельными и независимыми правомочиями. Таким образом, я рассматриваю проблему распределяющей справедливости (Roemer 1996; Fleischacker 2004), следуя работе Ролза (Rawls 1999), потому что принципы справедливого распределения являются особенно подходящим инструментом для решения вопросов суверенитета, так как они ранее были применены при установлении прав и обязанностей в других социальных институтах. Как следствие, рассмотрение различных теорий (например, «первым прибыл, первым обслужен»; простое завладение; принцип равенства) может помочь нам разрешить данную проблему. В статье исследуется, может ли желаемое решение быть воплощено на практике и может ли быть предложен мирный путь разрешения конфликтов суверенитета посредством использования принципов распределяющей справедливости.

            В следующих разделах я оставлю в стороне особенности кризиса в Крыму и остановлюсь на теоретических размышлениях. Основная причина такого построения статьи в том, чтобы устранить возможное предубеждение, которое может послужить препятствием для мирного разрешения. После этого я применю полученную модель специально к одному из многих существующих конфликтов суверенитета, а значит управления и права.