(Note: Even though history abounds with various contradictions and scholars disagree, the following ideas are considered universally applicable despite shifting opinions. The following article is built on a traditional sense of Western European justice, history and philosophy as well as the law of nations which affirms that under certain circumstances former ruling families possess permanent, unending and inalienable rights---the right to rule and the right to honor.)

From the late nineteenth century to the early twentieth, there seems to have been a rather noticeable variation in the basis of sovereign legitimacy from a ruling monarch to a republic. Another shift or focus appears to be from an emphasis on sovereign state's rights, to individual human rights. However, at this point in history, despite these movements, "de jure" sovereignty in an ex-monarch and his lawful heirs is still defendable as they represent rights and privileges that are permanent and inalienable. This is chiefly because "the principle of sovereignty, whatever its precise scope, still thrives in international law and international relations." (www.law.ufl.edu/faculty

For example, from 1962 to the present, based upon current international laws and conventions, the "International Commission on Orders of Chivalry" concluded that, “an exiled

sovereign retains the right to bestow honours, dynastic, state or however styled. This right extends to their lawful successors.” (www.icocregister.org/principles.htm) As a result, they have approved as valid over 40 some "de jure" titular Emperors, Kings, Princes and Dukes, heads of various royal families throughout the world, as rightfully presiding over 50 some dynastic orders of legitimate and authentic knighthood. In this, these men are exercising one of their most important privileges--the right to honor and reward merit by the authority of their ancient royal status. This Commission stated that even though these rights "may not be officially recognized by the new government [that in itself] does not affect their traditional validity or their accepted status in international heraldic, chivalric and nobiliary circles." (Ibid.)

In spite of the changes that seem to be taking place in international law, sovereignty itself is not becoming less relevant or important. It is, in fact, the mainstay--the chief or most prominent

structuring principle in this world. The concept that sovereignty is inviolable, expressed in the United Nations Charter as “noninterference in the domestic jurisdiction of states” has been universally accepted and supported by UN member nations. It has been called "the defining doctrine," "the primary cause" from which flows all effective government, "the defining feature of statehood," "the glue or cement that holds all society together," "the one and only true stabilizing principle," "bedrock," "the foundation stone," "an indispensible concept," "of cardinal importance," "the central organizing principle," "the soul" of civilized society, "the reference point," "the central concept for the preservation of world peace," "the most basic principle," "the dominant world order framework," doubtlessly "the most precious" of all governmental rights, "the cornerstone," "the key constitutional safeguard," "the final and ultimate matrix of a stable society," the "sine qua non of international law," that is, the indispensable condition that cannot be done without, for it is "the building block," or as Algerian President Boueteflika, while addressing the UN General Assembly in 1999, said, sovereignty is "our final defense against the rules of an unjust world." (www.idrc.ca

Robert Lansing (1864-1928), a U. S. legal authority and author, declared that the "Sovereignty" is ". . . the fundamental authority which controls, restrains and protects man as a member of society." (Notes on Sovereignty in a State, 1 AJIL, p. 105 (1907) Jeremy A. Rabkin, a professor of government at Cornell for 27 years, concurred that sovereignty, ". . . is

central to the maintenance of effective, constitutionally constrained political systems . . . [and that it has the important power to] protect individual liberty." (Law Without Nations? Why Constitutional Government Requires Sovereign States, 2005) (Review: www.independent.org

Sovereignty is a critical principle needed to safeguard the nations and protect our basic and most important fundamental rights from usurpation and encroachment. It is well entrenched in legal and political discourse. Its roots go back for hundreds and hundreds of years. This concept is a close cousin to the legal principle of the divine right of kings. In fact, sovereignty was created to protect the right of kings or the right to rule independent of outside forces. It is still used to protect nations from each other and promote decency and justice. The whole idea of sovereignty is a fundamental anchor essential to the peace, well-being and cooperation of all nations. Jeremy A. Rabkin, mentioned above, in his book, The Case for Sovereignty (AEI Press, 2004), describes a study that shows that a "post-sovereign" world would embolden and encourage terrorism, depress economic development and growth, erode national loyalties, promote lawlessness and crime, destabilize fragile countries and spur even greater international conflict and atrocities everywhere. (www.ashbrook.org/books/0844741833.html) In fact, members of the Overseas Development Institute in 2005 declared the for the future of mankind, "The [real] challenge is to harness the international system behind the goal of enhancing [promoting] the sovereignty of states – that is, to enhance [strengthen and build] the capacity of these states to perform the functions that define them as states." (Working paper 253: www.odi.org.uk/publications/working-papers/253-sovereignty-gap

-state-building.pdf) Strong independent sovereign states equals a strong, peaceful and law abiding world. The sacred principle of sovereignty is a blessing, a great benefit, not a curse. No wonder, "several declarations and resolutions of the United Nations, as well as other important international covenants, recognize . . . that the sovereignty of every country is . . . absolutely indispensable . . . , and . . . condemn any violation of the sovereignty of countries as a . . . crime against humanity." (www.anti-imperialist.org/sovereign-rights_1-18-04.htm) In fact, in some circles, sovereignty is considered to be the only true or real international law in existence.

Sovereignty is power, the highest kind of power known on earth, and it is inseparably connected to the land it rules over. The unmitigated right of an individual or group of people to secede with part of the territory of that nation does not exist. A person or group of people may move to another country and thus free themselves from some of their real or imaginary grievances, but they cannot rightfully take national territory that does not belong to them, that is, such cannot be done without the express approval of the supreme authority of that land. The point is, sovereignty is permanent and indivisible. Unless the ruling power, that holds the supreme right of sovereignty, willingly and freely, and without pressure, undue influence or duress, gives its territory away, no secession or division can rightfully take place.

This is necessary to protect the sanctity of a nation. In other words, if secession were a right, it would threaten the very fabric of society. It would institutionalize a powerful tool for special interest groups to bully the rest of the nation. For example, the rich who don’t like a certain policy could just secede, create their own nation and let the poor and underprivileged of their former nation wallow in ruin. Or, choke the rest of the nation into submission. Secession is the ability to destroy and dismember a nation, create instability, encourage malicious political manipulations and dishearten those who would otherwise invest in and build up the economy creating greater prospects and prosperity for all. Sovereignty, the supernal authority of a nation, is far above any so-called right to secede. U.N. Secretary-General U. Thant declared in 1970:

Self-determination is a noble sounding ideal, but in reality, it is a "golden calf" or "false god," because one man's "self-determination" is another man's "pernicious and malignant rebellion against existing rights"---in other words, sedition and treason. Because self-determination has been worshipped and idolized, it is often exploited by would-be usurpers, rebels, and so-called freedom fighters who bring anguish, murder and pain, not greatness, prosperity and good to their countries. Self-determination is not greater than sovereignty. Sovereignty and territorial integrity remain supreme. Otherwise, there would be justification for infinite malicious mischief, national destruction and ruin. The Chinese people in San Francisco would rebel and create a new China in California and New York, the Kurdistan would create horror and start a blood bath in an effort to start up a new nation out of parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. We would have a nation of Blacks in Alabama, an Hispanic nation in the Southwest of the United States and the Swedes in Wisconsin along with every Indian tribe in the country that would secede and on and on it would go. We could have 8,000 to 10,000 little countries spring up all over. The Pakistanis in England would separate and forcefully create a new country and take part of the wealth and glory of London with them. And what would be left of any national government if everyone could just secede? It would destroy all nations and the prosperity, safety and security of all people. As far back as 1793 in the setting of the French Revolution, General Carnot reported to the National Assembly that:

To concede to minorities either of language or religion, or to any fractions of a population, the right of withdrawing from the community to which they belong, because it is their wish or their good pleasure, would be to destroy order and stability within States and to inaugurate anarchy in international life; it would be to uphold a theory incompatible with the very idea of [sovereignty or] the State as a territorial and political entity. (The Report of the Committee of Rapporteurs, League of Nations, Doc. B/21/68/106 [VII] p. 22-23, April 26, 1921)

The use of referendums for anything of importance is also considered to be a grave mistake as it is a well-known researched fact that most people do not have the time or interest to spend hours identifying the deep, hidden issues or long-term ramifications of the proposals put before them. Most voters are not educated in State craft, in fact, they usually vote for very shallow reasons, like a good slogan or spin, good looks, a great command of speech, not the real issues, or because of clever manipulations, demagoguery or on account of the fact that a favored basketball or football player sponsers it. Referendums also tend to promote a kind of tyranny of the majority—a short-sighted, dangerous, mob

mentality along biased racial, ethnic or religious grounds. Those who favor them tend to think all people are benevolent, rational, kind hearted and good natured, which is far from the whole truth. The general populace are not angels, pure, wise, thoughtful and knowledgeable. Many have extreme anti-social traits, such as venality, brutality, avariciousness, and murderous dispositions and would not shirk from destroying others and robbing them of everything of value, which is why we must have policemen to maintain some semblence of justice. Terrorists love referendums to make big changes through intimidating large groups of people and by ballot box tampering. Citizen initiated referendums are especially problematic as they prove, far too often, to be ill-conceived, knee-jerk, emotional responses to highly complex issues. As a whole, poor, short-sighted solutions generally result from such as there is no accountability and they are subject to whims and fads. Instead of developing unity they tend to promote a politics of divisiveness and conflict, while indirect or representative democracy is structured to facilitate compromise, moderation and the general good. Referendums can be highly destructive of the best interests of any nation. But the worst thing about referendums is that they tend to bypass the checks and balances established to protect and safeguard our freedoms—the most precious thing we have on earth. (See: "Ideals," "Advantages" on the need for checks and balances and Mads Qvortrup and Matt Qvortrup, "A Comparative Study of Referendums: Government by the People," Manchester University Press 2005, pp. 1-37)

Outright rebellion, an act of treason, is another terribly destructive and disheartening power. It is only justified under very rare or extreme circumstances. Simply put, it is a crime against humanity to wage war merely because one wants a change in the type of government one has. As long as a government is making a reasonable effort to protect the basic human rights of its people, it is in the best

interests of everyone for that nation to stand. Nine times out of ten, it is usually the "rebels" or so-called "freedom-fighters" who destroy more rights and hurt more lives than the lawful governments they fight against.

Jean J. Burlamaqui declared that, "Indeed it would be subverting all government, to make it depend on the caprice or inconstancy of the people." (www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2206.htm) Nothing solid, healthy and good can be built on a ruthless and lawless, or fickle society. Hence, sovereignty, that which maintains law and order and brings security to the nation, is inalienable and permanent in law. Why? Because you cannot build strong and thriving nations upon something so flimsy, weak and unstable as popularity contests, political whims or greed. There is no stability in this. Government must be based upon a sturdy foundation and that foundation is the most powerful recognized right on earth.

The supreme, utlimate power of sovereignty is necessary to unify and preserve freedom, punish crimes, defend the nation and promote the general welfare. Unfortunately sovereignty, lately, has been the brunt of a lot of unwarranted and uncalled for contempt in the literature, especially in Europe, even though it is basic, and fundamental, to the unity and security of all people. For example, on an international level, without adequate respect for sovereign equality and non-intervention into the affairs of other nations, the world, as a whole, would soon lose the cooperation of nations and make the world unsafe. World powers could ruthlessly and unjustly violate a country's territory on any pretext or whim made to sound good, and threaten their very survival. The supreme law of sovereignty in international law should protect and safeguard each individual country.

But this can only be accomplished if this core concept is respected and upheld as fundamental and indispensable. Thus sovereignty becomes a life and death issue--not a principle to be discarded as archaic and obsolete. It is not a dinosaur. Sovereignty has always existed in different terms as long as rulers have ruled. "Abandoning the concept will not erase the reality but only occlude [or obscure] it." (Alain de Benoist, "What is Sovereignty," p. 111: www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/what_is_sovereignty.pdf footnoted from Paul Hirst, “Carl Schmitt’s Decisionism,” in Chantal Mouffe, ed., The Challenge of Carl Scmitt (London: Verso, 1999), pp. 7-17) If sovereignty is a myth, as some intellectuals say, then so is the rule of law and all that holds society together. Sovereignty is the foundation of law and order, and law and order is the foundation needed for a civil, kinder and gentler society to take root, thrive and prosper. Sovereignty is, therefore, essential, even critical, to our peace and well-being.

/yazi/2002/coban/coban.html) No wonder sovereignty was defined in an international court as "a fundamental principle of international law." It is the foundation upon which we stand. And despite years of challenges, "sovereignty has remained resilient and robust. . . ." (http://sparky.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/bookshelf_print.htm) It has to! It holds civilization together. Thankfully, according to editors: John D. Montgomery and Nathan Glazer, it still reigns supreme "as the [chief] guiding framework for the governance of human affairs." (Sovereignty under Challenge, 2002) So great is this principle as a bulwark of protection for civilization, prosperity and peace worldwide, that Daniel Philpott, a professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in defending it from criticism declared that ". . . the sovereign state has proven a remarkably robust form of authority, enjoying over 350 years of staying power and expanding outward to become the only form of polity in history ever to cover the land surface of the globe." (http://libproxy.dixie.edu

The ideology behind universal jurisdiction rests on the notion that there should be sanction for crimes which "shock the moral conscience of mankind" and that there are certain moral truths which are "right and true for every person in every society." (United Nations War Crimes Commission, London 1948; see also International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Judgment Against Dusko Tadic, 7 May 1997. See also Geoffrey Robertson, Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice (London: Penguin Books, 2000) and (The National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002) However, Wolfgang Friedmann reminds us that:

In the present greatly diversified family of nations--which comprises states of starkly

differing stages of economic development, as well as of conflicting political and social ideologies--the notions, for example, of "equity," "reasonableness" or "abuse of rights" . . . do, and are bound to, differ widely. What to the one party is an abuse is to the other the reassertion of a long withheld "natural" right. ("The Uses of 'General Principles' in the Development of International Law" (1963) 57 A.J.I.L. 279 at 289-90)

The emotional appeal of human rights doesn't universally fit all over the world. Therefore, the supremacy of human rights ends up being ". . . legal nonsense, in the literal sense that they have no legal meaning without being applied to specific cases or classes of cases within a legal procedure." (John Laughland, "The crooked timber of reality: sovereignty,

jurisdiction, and the confusions of human rights," The Monist, January 1, 2007) Sovereignty like the "rule of law" has prevailed and been re-affirmed and validated as the best option to benefit all nations. This is because without the rule of law, we have nothing left but vigilantism, increased corruption and rampant insecurity. It means taking the law into one's own hands without "due process" or any legitimate right. Obviously there is great danger in this. It would allow impulsiveness and whim to rule in international discourse. No wonder, ". . . in its international-judicial sense, [sovereignty] retains its moral, political, and legal significance. . . ." (Georg Nolte, Brad R. Roth, Helen Stacy and Gregory H. Fox, "Sovereignty: Essential, Variegated, or Irrelevant?," American Society of International Law, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, January 1, 2005) The results is ". . . the United Nations' supreme judicial body . . . continue[s] to base is rulings on sovereignist jurisprudence, i.e., on recognition of the legal fact that the world is divided up into different jurisdictions, each with its own [rightful sovereign] rights and duties." (John Laughland, 2007, op. cit.)

"The pillars of international law" are congruent and essentially the same as what is known as the "Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence," that is, the seminal ideas that holds nations together. They are: (1) mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, (2) mutual non-aggression, (3) non-interference in each other's internal affairs, (4) equality and mutual benefit and (5) peaceful co-existence. These are the most basic ideas of international law in a nutshell. Sovereignty is the foundation stone of success among nations. No wonder this principle is considered critically important. It is at the root of peace and well-being in this world. (Georg Schwarzenberger, The Fundamental Principles of International Law, note 282, p. 207 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Principles_of_Peaceful_Coexistence)

A major problem still lives on, however, not with sovereignty, but with the myriad of international laws currently in existence, because they sometimes violate the basic principles. And these laws are "a work in process." They are often too fluid, too contradictory and changing, too whimsical, too political and philosophical. Putnam B. Potter, a prominent political scientist, said it well when he wrote that "international law can mean anything, like beauty which is in the 'eyes of the beholder." (www.womensgroup

.org/INTERLAW.html) He concluded that since "international law is largely based on custom," and customs can be broken or have no real force behind them, therefore, international law is always in a state of flux. (Ibid.) Part of the reason for this is that international law is shaped and fashioned, even twisted and contorted to a large degree by political game playing. Therefore, it can get really complicated and it changes to suit what the major players want. In practice, because international law and politics are inseparably connected, it cannot help but be fraught with contradictions and

complexities. Even their legitimacy is questionable. Some international laws are made by private companies, such as, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization---organizations without any sovereignty or elected representatives. Which, in effect, is "taxation [binding, expensive rules] without representation." This principle was one of the primary complaints of the American colonies that brought about the war of independence from Great Britain. Needless to say international law is an imperfect system and some scholars say, it "is therefore incapable of providing a useful approach to structuring international society." (www.ejil.org/journal/Vol4/No1/art1.html) Unfortunately, this means we must "rely on essentially contested--political--principles" to solve problems. (Ibid.) And both politics and politicians are fickle, unstable and ever changing. There is nothing comforting and solid about this.

The point here is, countries generally do what they want to, in spite of international law. For example, a legal opinion written by Willliam P. Barr, assistant Attorney General on June 21, 1989, declared that the United States "has the power to override customary international law" in certain areas. This understanding that the US has unquestionable authority "to exercise the sovereign's right to override international law (including obligations created by treaty) has been repeatedly recognized by courts." (www.fas.org/irp/agency

Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson both maintained that a nation could renounce a treaty at any time it thought fit. . . . The pages of history are littered with accounts of broken treaties. . . . The Charter of the United Nations is itself no more than a treaty. . . . Consequently, the resolutions of the Security Council have been ignored time and again, by South Africa, Israel, North Korea, and [former] Iraq -- to mention only [a few]. . . ." (www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-19/chapter

In other words, ". . . states being sovereign are at liberty to interpret a treaty in whatever way that best suits them, as they are also free to retract their commitments whenever they deem the circumstances warrant it." (Ibid.) Pointedly, "The pages of history are littered with accounts of broken treaties." (Ibid.) It is the rule of the day and the more common rule of the ages. "Consequently, the authority of International Law is fictional, even in theory. . . ." "Decisions agreed to in the General Assembly [ of the United Nations] are never binding; neither these nor any resolutions of the Security Council can be imposed on individual members, [because beingsovereign states, 'they are subject to no higher authority' than their own, therefore] should they defy or ignore them . . . , [they] cannot be forced to comply except by some form of military threat." (Ibid.) But the whole idea that treaty power is unlimited and so omnipotent and powerful that it may be used to OVERRIDE the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the supreme law of the land, is a dangerous and foolish notion. It is also of recent origin and does not reflect traditional law and philosophy. Treaties are important, but common sense and sovereignty are not to be thrown out the window to honor some foolish or harebrained treaty that no longer applies to current events. For according to Emerich de Vattel, "Every . . . absurdity ought to be rejected [in a treaty]: or, in other words, we should not give to any piece a meaning from which any absurd consequences would follow, but must interpret it in such a manner as to avoid absurdity." (The Law of Nations, Book II, Chapter XVII, #282) The conclusion on treaties is, "A sovereign state can make a treaty. It can also break a treaty, or determine for itself when a treaty commitment is no longer binding or applicable." (Jeremy Rabkin, "Recalling the Case for Sovereignty" Chicago Journal of International Law, January 1 2005, p. 23) This is just good common sense and practical as well as being protective, healthy and good for all people.

The real problem, however, is that we live in a world where sovereignty, the greatest and most crucial and important international law of all, has routinely and predictably been violated by the great and the powerful of the earth. In other words, it is the views of the popular and/or the dominant that always prevails in spite of international law, treaties or the opinions and ideals of legal scholars. It all boils down to,"might makes right" or “the stronger you are, the more rights you’ll have.” If you don't have great power or clout, if you are weak and defenseless, the bullies of the world may very well oppress you and take advantage of you.

Emerich de Vattel, one of the fathers of international law wrote the classic book The Law of Nations "to establish on a solid foundation the obligations and rights of nations [that] is the design of this work [is to promote what is right and just]." (Preliminaries to Book, note 3) This article focuses predominately on the inalienable rights of kings and sovereign princes to rule and reign. These ancient rights, are, unfortunately, trampled on, discarded or over looked because of our modern emphasis on different things. Nevertheless, these rights are real and important. In the case of Kuwait, the royal dynasty and its monarchy was fully restored after the first Gulf War, as was appropriate, and in full accord with international principles of justice. Phillip Marshall Brown, a distinguished international lawyer, wrote on the sovereignty of kings and princes in exile, living in England, who had been robbed of the right to rule their own territories during World War II, he stated that:

A nation is much more than an outward form of territory and government. . . . So long as they [those who hold sovereignty] cherish sovereignty in their hearts their nation [kingdom or principality] is not dead. It may be prostate and helpless. . . . [It] may be suspended, in exile, a mere figment even of reality, derided and discouraged, and yet entitled to every respect. [Why? Because we are] not dealing with fictions, [these] valiant standard bearers of sovereignty . . . in faith and confidence [have, and this is the point] . . . inalienable, immutable rights. (“Sovereignty in Exile,” 35 American Journal of International Law (1941) 666-668) (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-

The following took place in recognition of the inherent and incorruptible rights just mentioned. His Highness Emir Jaber al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah's sovereign right to rule his own country of Kuiat was recognized and restored. Many other monarchies were re-established after their unlawful occupation and loss of sovereignty in World War II: Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Norway to name a few. Unfortunately, the fact is, most are never restored even though their causes are just and their claims are pure, perfect and unblemished. Justice does not always prevail in this world. Nevertheless, the claims of these lost thrones are still valid and authentic, they are legitimate and legally recognizable and acknowledged in law, whether they are honored by modern governments or not.

Though international law is imperfect and fails over and over again to protect the innocent and the robbed, at least it is an attempt to enthrone justice among the nations as the crowning and towering principle above all others. The basic privilege and right of sovereignty or supreme power has been around for a long time. For example, with the discovery of Roman law in the 12th century came the maxim Rex in regno suo imperator est, that is, a king is emperor in his own kingdom. (Kenneth Pennington, The Prince and the Law, 1200-1600: Sovereignty and Rights in Western Civilization, p. 3) Nevertheless, many scholars look at the Treaty of Westphalia (ratified in 1648) as the beginning of something truly great among the nations, because the rights were made a part of a treaty or, in effect, actually written into law. Professor Daniel Philpott declared:

This was the real start of international law or the attempt to recognize what is inherently right. This treaty gave decisive acknowledgement, confirmation and legal importance to the "ancient rights" of Emperors, Kings, Princes and States. It gave the idea of "ancient rights" a whole new legal power that it never had before although rights were usually, at least morally or ethically, recognized as just. But so powerful was this recognition of rights that, for example, in a dispute of the Hapsburgs of Austria in 1711, more than sixty years later, they felt compelled on the basis of this way of thinking to recognize the inviolability of the ancient rights of the Magyars, who they were quarreling with.

Jean J. Burlamaqui, one of the early founding fathers and writers on international law wrote in 1748 that "The princes of the blood royal . . . certainly [have] an absolute and irrevocable [sovereign] right, of which they cannot be stripped without their consent." (www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2204.htm) In other words, these rights are permanent and final. They can be taken away by dispossessing the monarch on a "defacto" basis by force, duress or coercion, but not on a "de jure" basis. In other words a rightful king and/or his successors who have been robbed and cheated out of their right to rule still, and will continue to, hold all the royal prerogatives of their "de jure" territories as long as the family continues to live and carry on their traditions.

For the “Electors, Princes and States” of the Holy Roman Empire, these “ancient rights” were explained in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. They were “established and confirmed” in their royal rights and prerogatives including the free exercise of their high lordships or ruling privileges “without contradiction” to create and interpret laws, declare wars, impose taxes, erect fortifications, raise armies and conclude treaties as sovereign states without interference or “molestation” of any kind whatsoever as long as it did not go against the “Public Peace” of the Empire. (www.globalpolicy.org/nations/nature/westphalia.htm) "Although technically still a part of the empire (which would last in name until 1806), these [German] principalities gained all the trappings of sovereign statehood." (Hendrik Spruyt, "The Sovereign State and Its Competitors," Princeton University Press, 1994, p. 29) "The Treaty of Westphalia gave virtually all the small states in the heart of Europe sovereignty, thus formally rendering the Holy Roman Emperor politically impotent [similar to a committee chairman of some 300 independent little sovereign nations loosely connected together]. . . ." (Thorbjorn L. Knutsen, "A History of International Relations Theory," Manchester University Press, 1992, p. 71) The princes actually owned their realms which was the basis of their right to rule or govern.

/econ/int03.htm) Dominium means property. Dominion is ruling or royal authority over a territory or a people and ownership means a person is an owner of that authority and property. Woodrow Wilson, in The State, remarks, "The most notable feature of feudalism is that . . . ownership means sovereignty; he who owns the land shall have primary dominion over the fruitage of the land; he shall therefore hold in absolute subjection the dwellers on the land." (www.materialreligion.org

Morris Cohen, a renowned jurist of the early 20th Century United States, explained in his famous legal essay entitled “Property and Sovereignty,” that these two are near equivalent terms. He shows that private property rights even today in law resembles the public law of “imperium”—“ the rule over all individuals by the prince” or the principle of sovereignty more than it does the concept of private property under the old Roman law of “dominium.” (1927, 156) In the Middle ages, the union between sovereignty and property was clear, that is, “The essence of feudal law . . . is the inseparable connection between land tenure and . . . genuine sovereignty. . . .” (Ibid.) But even now, property rights reflect sovereign privileges. British economist Ralph George Hawtrey in his book Economic Aspects of Sovereignty, declares that sovereignty “carries with it important economic rights which are closely related to the rights of property.” (Hawtrey, 1930, p. 18) In other words, ". . . ownership of a nation is bound up with its sovereignty. . . ." (Christian von Wolff quoted in Aboriginal Sovereignty by Henry Reynolds, p. 47) Even the word "real" in "real estate" means in French "royale" and the Spanish cognate for "real" is "royal." In other words, "real estate" or "royal estate" was the estate of the sovereign. "Today, just like hundreds of years in the past, we pay property taxes, or rent to be on the government's land or the Royal Estate."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate)

This traditional concept of sovereignty and property is still active and alive today. For example, the UN "Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States" in Article 2(1) affirms that "[e]very state has and shall freely exercise full permanent sovereignty, including possession, use and disposal, over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activities." (www.eytv4scf.net/a29r3281.htm) UN experts have encouraged the use of "ownership" and "property of" for the word "sovereignty." The king or sovereign lord in ancient times likewise had proprietary rights---the right to control and manage his own possession. And even though these rights are intangible or abstract, they are nevertheless, real and recognizable. They are so powerful that Jean J. Burlamaqui wrote "that those kings possess the crown in full property. . . ." (www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2107.htm) It was their personal possession--something that they owned as a royal birthright or privilege. It is similar to the concept of "allodial title" to land, that is, "held in absolute independence, without being subject to . . . or [any] acknowledgement to a superior." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title) The king or prince owned the highest right on earth to the right of sovereignty in spite of modern conventions that have unlawfully dispossessed and robbed these lawful former rulers, or their successors, of the free exercise of those rights. This basic legalistic view of things--this comparison, based upon the principle of imperium or public property rights, is still viable today and the full and complete ownership of these rights extends to the sovereign and his successors to perpetuity as long as they continued to exist.

Hugo Grotius, considered by many to be the father of international law, which is supposed to be a compilation of rights, or a compilation of what

is right, stated in 1625 “that the person ejected from his inheritance should be reinstated. . . ,” and "anything [even a crown] belonging to another should [be] restore[d] . . . to the lawful proprietor." It may never happen, but it is, nevertheless right, and that, ". . . by the principles of natural justice." (http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Grotius0110

_Book2B.html) Patrick Macklem, a noted Canadian legal scholar, commenting on sovereignty rights, taught that it is not right to say that the aborigines of Australia have lost their inherent and inalienable right to govern themselves, because of so-called European superiority and their takeover. Equally, it can be added, it is not right to say that kings and princes of nations have lost any of their hereditary rights to govern because of the so-called superiority of democracy. Superiority has nothing to do with what is right or fair in either case. Theft of governance is as much an act of

theft as any other kind of robbery of one's goods. It is a crime. To support it is to be in contempt of the law and in violation of justice. The inherent right to govern was and is a legitimate possession owned by the rightful proprietors of those rights. Both the aborigines and the kings and princes of the nations should be given back what is rightfully theirs. Both were betrayed and unlawfully deprived of their rights in the past. Their possessions were ripped out of their hands illegally by the force of arms or under duress, undue influence or coercion. Hence, international law labels this kind of theft like any other crime as unjust and wrong, and that restoration is not only morally and ethically right, but legally right as well.

_un_hr_committee/1_native_title.pdf) This will probably never happen, but it is recognized as a "right," or what is truly right. And in all fairness, what is ethically and morally right for one group, who was unlawfully divested or robbed of their rightful possessions, is just as right and proper for another. That is, using the same words and same philosophy, “where they [the former kings and princes] have been deprived of their lands and territories traditionally owned . . . without their free and informed consent, [we should] take steps to return these lands and territories [to their rightful heirs]” (Ibid.)

The international law of restitution began to be acknowledged as a "right" in 1927 when the International Court of Justice declared, ". . . That reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed." (http://hrw.org/pub/amicusbriefs/medellin_012405.pdf) This was, of course, merely recognizing what is just and fair. This important recognition of what is ethical was further strengthened on July 19, 1943 by the International Law Conference which was held in London. They adopted as mandatory the most important principles of the Law of Restitution. These principles apply to all who have been robbed of their rights. They declared, "rightful ownership remains in the person [king or sovereign for our topic] who has been dispossessed of anything [their kingdoms] by outright confiscation or by any device resulting from political pressure by the occupant [or usurper]. . . ." (http://palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/Chapter38_1of4.htm)

Indigenous peoples [kings and sovereign princes] have the right to the restitution of the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, occupied, used or damaged without their free and informed consent. Where this is not possible, they have the right to just and fair compensation. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples [kings and princes] concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status. (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1995/2; E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/56, 28 October 1994, at 105-115, reprinted in (1995) 34 I.L.M. 541, Art. 27) (www.usask.ca/nativelaw/ddir.html)

For example, Professor Francis Anthony Boyle, a well-known litigator for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) wrote the following very significant statement on the possible restoration of the monarchy of the Hawaiian Islands. He said: “The kingdom [of Hawaii] was never lawfully terminated, therefore the kingdom still exists [on a ‘de jure’ basis] . . . .” (www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/151.html) These rights never extinguish as long as the people survive or the royal family continues to exist in some form. Since most, if not all, of the ancient sovereignties of the Holy Roman Empire were never lawfully terminated, they still exist as well. That is, they are still legal, they are still intact, if only, on a “de jure” basis.

What is meant by "de jure" in a broad legal sense is "by right," "fitting," "fair," "legitimate," "authentic," "real," "genuine," "lawful" and "true." A right is something to which one has a just claim. It is the legal or moral entitlement that belongs to a person by law, nature, or tradition. They are moral, proper and just whether they are respected or not. Just like a slave has the inalienable and perfect right to be free, but that right may not be honored in the area in which one lives, nevertheless, that person has a just and legal claim to it. Freedom is a basic right that belongs to all mankind.

In the case of Native American sovereignty, it is really a sham, because it is not absolute.

Limited sovereignty is not sovereignty at all. That is, it may be politically polite or politically correct to say that they possess sovereignty, but it is impossible because absolutes don't exist in degrees. You can't be partially pregnant, sort of dead, kind of human, or almost sovereign. These are not absolute conditions. A sovereign nation can not be a satellite, protectorate, or dependent colony, and still be sovereign. And it can't be a ward of another government, as is the case with all Indian tribes. A sovereign nation must have supreme dominion. Therefore to say they are sovereign deludes both sides of the camp into doing nothing. It is an endless and permanent stalemate. That is, it would be really hard to believe that the United States Government would ever grant the Native Americans their full right to self-determination. Or, that the American Indians could ever take their legal right to sovereignty back from the most powerful nation on the earth. It will never happen. A Federal Court declared that "the blunt fact . . . is that an Indian tribe is sovereign to the extent that the United States permits it to be sovereign -- neither more nor less." [364 F.Supp. at 194.] (www.manataka.org/page94.html) It is very obvious who has the power in this context. It would be more appropriate and honest to say that the Native American tribes have the full, complete and absolute legal right, but not the "defacto" privileges of sovereignty.

Under normal circumstances, “right” holders, who have “de jure” or the legal right to something important, can rest assured that if their claims were ever challenged in an objective, unbiased, judicial setting, that those rights would most likely be supported and recognized. However, way too many barriers and obstacles exist to thwart such recognition for a sovereign indigenous people or dispossessed royalty,

which is the subject we are focusing on, for two significant reasons: (1) in these modern times, there are few nations on earth that do not have a well entrenched and deep seated bias against monarchy or the indigenous people, or fear them as a threat to democracy, and therefore, (2) no legislation exists in most countries to support or even to acknowledge their claims lest they gain some legal entitlements or advantage that these nations do not want them to have. This is a protective, but unnecessary, stance especially in regard to monarchy. (See “Ideals” and "Advantages" on how limited or constitutional monarchy has profoundly enhanced, enlarged and expanded democracy and prosperity for those countries that have adopted it)

But even though monarchy is rarely recognized legally in domestic law, royal families are recognized socially because most people know intuitively that they have lawful claims that are real and very significant. The same is true of high academic degrees or titles. For example, if it is true that a person could legitimately claim that he has an earned Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree from a regionally accredited university, if this is actually the case, then the claim is obviously valid, real and

genuine, even if there is no legislation to support it. There probably never will be legislation to this effect. The same is true for royal titles, it is socially acknowledged, but rarely will any nation legally acknowledge the inherent right that an sovereign heir has to the scepter, throne and crown of their fatherland. It just won't happen. Still it is recognized as "just" that "sovereign rights and self government [be] restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them." (The Atlantic Charter, 1941, Winston S. Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt) (www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii

However, holding a right to something is very different from the freedom to exercise and enjoy that right. There are many examples of cases where strong "de jure" property rights were of limited value because they could not be enforced or actualized. President Cleveland concluded long ago on December 18, 1893 that the United States was guilty of wrong doing for the illegal

takeover of the kingdom of Hawaii, therefore, he called for the "restoration" of the Hawaiian monarchy. Mr. Boyle wrote, "Under international law when you have a violation of treaties of this magnitude, the World Court has ruled that the only appropriate remedy is restitution." (www.hawaii-nation.org/boyleall.html) Because according to accepted law, conquest does not transfer sovereignty rights. International law also forbids the creation of new states in occupied areas. So according to the law, the lawful heir, whoever that is, does have the recognized "right" to rule his or her country, but the problem is, he or she cannot exercise it or enjoy it at this time, and may never receive back his or her rightful patrimony. The same is true for many other royal families throughout the world, they are “de jure,” but they are blocked and legally thwarted from ever enjoying the full rights that they were robbed of, by current or former governments. Nevertheless, according to the law of nations, reiterated by Emerich de Vattel:

. . . if the bona fide possessor [the defacto ruler or republic] should discover, with perfect certainty, that the claimant is the real proprietor [the real "de jure" sovereign], and has never abandoned his right, he is bound in conscience, and by the internal principles of justice, to make restitution [not just compensate, but give back to the rightful ruler what he or she truly owns---defacto rule of his own country]. (The Law of Nations, Book II, #141)

First and foremost, sovereignty in a person is something very special and unique. A king, a prince, a duke, a count, etc., who held full sovereignty at one time was indeed the personification of, or the embodiment of, all the powers and glory of his nation's regal and sovereign privileges and rights. The King was the State, and the State was the King, in ancient times. That is, the King and the State were indistinguishable or synonymous. William Blackstone explained that "the law ascribes to the king the attribute of sovereignty, or pre-eminence [in all things]." (www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials

/gnazzo/2005/part1.html) The sovereign was the representative of all the collective power and privileges of the whole people. The king held all sovereignty. All property was owned by the monarch. It was his exclusive possession. It represented something sacred and perpetual as embodied or incarnate in the person of the King and his heirs after him. "All the majesty of the nation resides in the person of the prince. . . ." (The Law of Nations, Book I, Chapter XV, #188) And like a "de jure" right to property, it cannot be taken away. It is the notion of "absolute, unlimited power held permanently in a single person or source, inalienable, indivisible, and original" or a hereditary right to the "supreme authority within a territory." (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0749-6427(199921)

Sovereignty, because it is supreme, above and beyond anything else, is invested with the most powerful and enduring qualities that the mind can conceive. No wonder two of the founding

fathers of international law declared unequivocally that sovereignty is "permanent and irrevocable." Other words used to describe this state of supremacy are "inseparable," "inviolate," "indivisible," "perpetual," and never ending. Jacques Maritain of Princeton University wrote that the law of sovereignty gave “. . . the king . . . supreme power which was natural and inalienable, inalienable to such a degree that [even] dethroned kings and their descendants kept this right forever [or endlessly]. . . .” (“The Concept of Sovereignty,” The American Political Science Review, vol. 44, no. 2, 1950, p. 348) Hence, the investiture of sovereignty in a person, and his or her heirs, is considered to be sacrosanct and to be perpetual, that is, to remain intact from generation to generation forever. As long as the sovereign descendant of the former ruling house does not sell or otherwise legally surrender his or her sovereign or territorial rights to reign, it never dies and is without end. It cannot expire as long as the royal family continues and has a lawful head. In other words, with this stipulation in mind, the principle of “jure sanguines,” by right of blood, is transferred and conferred to infinity. It is a kind of secular sacrament establishing a superior claim that is passed on to ones senior surviving posterity forever. It is called “Rex Non Moritur” in British Public Law.

“The glory of a legitimate monarch is enhanced [and promoted] by the glory of those around him." (Benjamin Constant. Political Writings, 1988, p. 91) The nobility serve as a kind of fundamental framework for the monarchy. Noble honorific titles are honors based on the sovereignty of one's King and they reflect his splendor. But a sovereign noble prince or duke over a territory or tiny country are different. They are not normally considered royal, yet they often held the right in full, and like any true monarch, his or her sovereignty had its origin in the same four basic regal prerogatives: the “ius imperii;” the “ius gladii;” the “ius majestatis” and the “ius honorum."

All the four prerogatives are inherent and incarnate in the person of the sovereign and his or her heirs throughout their generations forever--all the way to the end of time; chiefly, because the State and the person of the sovereign, were indivisible, giving them, the reigning or "de jure" sovereign, the full and unmitigated rights of a sovereign state. This personification or embodiment of all power was reiterated in the Law of Nations. Emerich de Vattel declared that, "The sovereign thus clothed with the public authority, with every thing that constitutes the moral personality of the nation, of course [is]

The reason for this great authority and power is that "sovereignty," derived from the French term "souverain," means, by definition, a supreme ruler not accountable to anyone. The traditional and ongoing concept of sovereignty is that every nation, king or prince is supreme within its or his own rightful borders and acknowledges no master outside them. In other words, it is the distinguishing mark of the sovereign that he cannot in any way be subject to the commands of another power or force. And this regal privilege is permanent and continuing to his or her heirs or alternate rightful heirs as the case may be.

Stephen P. Kerr, B.B.A., J.D., LL.M., M.A.T., a World Court Litigator and Special International Legal Counsel to the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and a Professor of Law at Antioch University Law School in Washington, D.C., made it clear that, ". . .de jure possession of sovereignty continues so long as the de jure ruler or government does not surrender his sovereignty to the usurper." (See "Dynastic Law") (Johann Wolfgang Textor, Synopsis Juris Gentium, Chapter 10, Nos. 9-11) This was once discussed by Thomas Hobbs in the 17th Century. He stated, “His [the sovereign’s] power cannot, without his consent, be transferred to another: he cannot forfeit it. . . .” (Hobbes, Lev XX 2-3) (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/hobbes

Similarly, in the second principle of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), it states that, "It is . . . considered ultra vires [beyond the control] of any republican State to interfere, by legislation or administrative practice, with Princely Dynastic Family or House Orders." (www.icocregister.org/principles.htm) A subsequent government can make dynastic orders, titles or recognition illegal---they can ban whatever they want to in the present within their own territories, but the rights continue forever and can be exercised, if necessary, within the boundaries of a different jurisdiction, that is, in exile. Archbishop Hyginus E. Cardinale in his book stated:

A Sovereign in exile and his legitimate successor and Head of the Family continue to enjoy the ius collationis [the right to confer and enjoy honours] and therefore may bestow [such] honours in full legitimacy. . . . No authority [no matter what that authority is] can deprive them of the right to confer honours, since this prerogative belongs to them as lawful personal property iure sanguinis [by right of blood], and both its possession and exercise are inviolable." (Orders of Knighthood Awards and the Holy See --- A historical, juridical and practical Compendium, Van Duren Publishers, Gerrands Cross, 1983, p. 119)

The whole point here is that these legal rights survive usurpation or any other form of legalized theft. Therefore, no usurper or subsequent government has the lawful power or authority to take away a family's inalienable royal or sovereign prerogatives; not by vote, referendum, court degree, invasion, war, revolution or uprising. Why? Because such sovereigns are not accountable to anyone inside or outside of their own lawful jurisdiction. Their rights are inalienable unless voluntarily discarded.

For example, in a republic, it is assumed as a legal presumption that sovereignty is possessed by all individuals in a state under natural law, but the point here is, “Once the people [have] . . . given the king and his descendants power over them. . . the natural right to govern the body politic resided henceforth in full only in the person of the king.” (http://libproxy.dixie.edu:2076/journals/world_politics/v053/53.2philpott.html) A referendum to throw out the monarchy and establish a republic (or an unjustified revolt) is really

nothing more than a collective act of treachery and sedition against the highest and most important power of the land. This is because sovereignty is legally the "ultimate authority held by a person or institution, against which there is no appeal." (www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O142

However, as Emerich de Vattel wrote: "If the body of the nation declare that the king has forfeited his right, by the abuse he has made of it, and depose him, they may justly do it when their grievances are well founded. . . ." (The Law of Nations, Book II, Chapter XII, #196) But, such cannot be done by mere political whim, or just because the people want to because it is popular or the newest fad. Unless such an action is agreed to by the king himself, it is illegal and traitorous.

Jean Jacques Burlamaqui brought up the common sense or self-evident notion that no man is perfect, which includes the prince of the land. He said, "We must indeed make some allowance for the weakness inseparable from humanity." (www.constitution.org/burla/burla 2206.htm) No king is going to be perfect, but if the king is reasonably good, it is treachery of the worst kind to oppose him and speak evil of him. The point is, ". . . the whole body of the nation, have not a right to depose the sovereign. . . ," if he is basically good---popularity has nothing to do with justice and what is right. (Ibid.) The people just do not have this right unless the king is a genuine tyrant or truly oppressive. However, even if such a despotic king is rightfully thrown out and deprived of his throne, his heirs still have the right to rule in his place and to succeed him with all his former rights and royal prerogatives. Disposing of an evil king does not give a country the right to dispose of the royal family and set up a different form of government or create a new royal house. The ". . . will of the people [by referendum or revolt], without the [willing, not coerced or forced] consent of the prince [the rightful monarch or his successor], cannot deprive his children. . . [or take away their lawful right to rule]." (J. J. Burlamaqui: www.constitution.org

Obedience to a rightful ruler or his lawful successor is a ". . . [duty, obligation or a just responsibility] of subjects [citizens of the nation] to their sovereigns . . . [ie.] the person of the sovereign should be [held] sacred and inviolable." (Jean Jacques Burlamaqui: www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2205.htm) In fact, "It is this obligation to obedience in the subjects [the citizens of the nation], that constitutes the whole force of civil society and government. . . ." (Ibid.) It is fundamental to everything good and just and right in the governing of a nation, kingdom or empire.

Jean Burlamaqui made it clear that if the king is basically good, not perfect, but basically good (we are not discussing criminal tyrants here), ". . . the right of disposing of the kingdom returns to the nation" only under one type of situation---only if the sovereign family that has the right to the crown, or their close relatives who also have dormant succession rights, no longer exist or no longer proclaim their right to the throne. (www.constitution.org/burla

And it does not take much to perpetuate these just and lawful rights. Professor Kerr declared that these ". . . de jure legal rights to the succession of that monarchy may be kept alive indefinitely [that is, made permanent, continual and forever] through the legal vehicle of making diplomatic protests against the usurpation" or, it should be added, merely by virtue of the fact that they keep their "de jure"

rights alive through history showing that they are the rightful and proper heirs to the thrones, or full sovereignty, of their progenitors---the former kings and princes of the land. (See: "Dynastic Law") (See Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations or Le Droit des gens, Book II, Chapter II, Nos. 145-146)

Israel is the only state that was created in the last century whose legitimacy was recognized by both the League of Nations and the United Nations. The League of Nations Mandate that was issued by the victorious powers of World War I did not create the rights of the Jewish people to a national home in Palestine, but rather recognized a pre-existing right, for the links of the Jewish people to their historic land were well-known and accepted in the previous century by world leaders from President John Adams to Napoleon Bonaparte to British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston. . . . [The point here is,] . . . it was not a new claim, but rather a reassertion of a historic right that had never been conceded or forgotten." (www.jcpa.org/jl/vp507.htm)

Yet Israel never made a single genuine diplomatic protest for thousands of years. It was their history, their desires, their plight and their connectedness as a people to that land that finally or ultimately resulted in a full and complete recognition of their right to be sovereign rulers in their own historic homeland. Diplomatic protests only represents one type of vehicle to keep the international community aware of one's inalienable rights. The permanency of these rights, recognized or not, are perpetual and have no end and were still enforceable after thousands of years. The obvious conclusion is that recognition can takes many forms other than a full diplomatic protest.

. . . cannot be used against a claimant who alleges just reasons for his silence, as, the impossibility of speaking, or a well-founded fear, &c., because there is then no longer any room for a presumption that he has abandoned his right. It is not his fault if people have thought themselves authorized to form such a presumption; nor ought he to suffer in consequence: he cannot therefore be debarred the liberty of clearly proving his property [or right to the kingdom]." (The Law of Nations or Le Droit des gens, Book II, Chapter XI, #144)

In other words, when any kind of threat of harm or loss is implicit, not necessarily overt, but implied by circumstance, we cannot ". . . deduce from long silence a legal presumption of abandonment." (Ibid., #148)

Some royal and imperial families in order to stay in the lands of their forefathers, such as, in Germany and Austria, are forced by domestic law not to use their titles officially. They must remain silent, but their history still proclaims their rights as heads of state and government, even if that little country was only a county and its rightful sovereign was merely a count. In such a case, the ". . . nation has . . . [been at fault, because it] has participated in it by a tacit approbation." (Ibid.) That is, by domestic law, the usurper denies the noble or royal house normal channels of protest. So disuse of royal rights, silence or even disappearance cannot always be construed as a renunciation of any former power or privilege, because this royal property and privilege belongs to them by "jure sanguinis," by right of blood, and both its possession and exercise are inviolable and permanent if maintained.

Having said that, sovereign rights can be lost, as stated above, and once lost, they are lost forever and cannot be retrieved. But this can only take place ". . . in cases of long-continued, undisputed, and uninterrupted possession" by the usurper, whether that usurper was the people, as a whole, by referendum or unwarrented rebellion, or whether the usurption was perpetrated by an outside aggressor through the force of arms. Both are, by the law of nature, robbers who have unlawfully stolen the property rights of others---that is, those owned by the<IMG SRC="361cc82c0.jpg" border=0 width="200