Originally commented on a video by Sky News Australia
https://youtu.be/T4mgSuB_jhk?si=l8vVppUsVJ9VBFcI
There is implied allegiance to the laws of a foreign state: while on the soil of a foreign state. BUT not allegiance to the foreign nation-state itself. Would be my understanding.
In the video in question the honourable Supreme Court Justice didn’t make that distinction clear, although the difference IS probably up for debate — as laws and sovereignty are intrinsically linked while still being separate concepts.
My understanding is this: as part of the “global social contract” the laws of a foreign land, whether there legally or illegally should be extended to any individual regardless of race, creed, or colour. (Creed includes any religion or belief system.)
Obviously, lacking documentation when not in the country where you hold citizenship — also known as a person’s country of origin — can and does create problems. It means you’re effectively breaking the law just by inhabiting said foreign soil. And it should go without saying that that doesn’t make you exempt from prosecution or judicial process, quite the opposite lol. More severe if anything. And in turn you still deserve lawful protection, proper legal defence, representation, as you are in theory still bound by the laws present in said foreign land.
(These laws are enforced either by extradition to the person’s native land or by judgement and or arbitration where the crime took place and the person resided at the time. Contention arises when laws differ between where the crime is committed and the homeland of the accused.)
Even countries with laws deemed inhumane by the majority of the world don’t automatically cede their right to sovereignty — that’s WHY regime change is a thing. Embargoes, blockades, sanctions and whatnot.
If a country’s laws are just “too” barbaric then we generally have travel advisories or may restrict travel entirely.
I will admit that the “social contract” of laws being extended universally between nations, really falls apart, when fundamentalism breeds violent religious zealotism which doesn’t mesh at all with our way of life in the West.
Our laws have to govern anyone inhabiting our land documented or not, so people can’t or rather shouldn’t bring Islamic law over here (Shari’a and Sunni) and still expect the same protections and rights afforded to others.
…Less about terrorism even, more about the fact that you can’t have two sets of laws to adhere to that clash so completely.
(Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too!)
Anywho… my final point would be, that the spirit of the law as written is that it’s to be applied to everyone equally – bereft of exceptions or limitations.
However, bureaucracy demands documentation.
And modern judicial prudence (having been shaped by eons of bureaucratic process) relies upon extensive documentation/filing and, has at least since the advent of paper.
Hell, the movie ‘The Terminal’ made a great point about this. Even though his country’s government had crumbled and was no longer a legal entity Tom Hanks still had to follow the “rules” or “laws” of the airport that he couldn’t legally leave. So he had to show allegiance to the laws of the airport terminal while staying there… because he had no legal citizenship. Bro was there for years.
Based on a true story.
Addendum:
a country’s sovereignty is in dispute or not recognized by other powers when economic measures are put in place. I wanted to clarify that rule of law, governance (which is sovereignty in effect?) is only truly dispensed with when a state collapses or lacks any substantive recognition from other key legitimate nation states.
This is tricky to pin down, but Palestine’s definitely an example of a potential nation state lacking official recognition on the global stage. Whereas Taiwan funnily, no. Even though China very much disputes its legitimacy they have a seat at the table, tenuous, maybe, but they do.
The USA obviously plays a big role as it holds most sway at the UN and sort of dictates terms on various treaties worldwide. EU is the new opposing power in the sphere of “Allied Nations” — and they have to contend with an East meets West logic when presiding over global affairs. Geographically as well as economically. Europe inhabits dual spheres of influence.
Ummmm….
Meh.
