Two recent extradition cases got me to thinking about national sovereignty, and how far that national sovereignty should be undermined to facilitate cooperation between Anglosphere nations.
In the case of the war on terror most people would, I suspect, be in favour of extradition, even if it did cast a doubt over national sovereignty. But what about the 'war' on drugs?
Whilst it is important to underline the laws and customs that we share, is it not equally important for Governments to underline the differences between our nations?
Posted by Gareth at November 17, 2005 05:54 PMWell, yes. We don't want the laws to be completely uniform throughout the Anglosphere, because it's useful to see how different approaches work out in fundamentally similar societies. So extradition laws should be confined to things that are undisputedly crimes in both countries involved. Reguulatory arbitrage is one of the great bulwarks against state power abuse.
Posted by: Jim Bennett at November 17, 2005 06:16 PMWhat 'war on drugs'? This was an advertising campaign, run by American and British "drug tsars". Just because some American politicians hyperventilated doesn't make it real. Druggies don't fly planes into skyscrapers. Druggies don't, in fact, engage in any acts of war or hostility. Druggies find it challenging to cross the street when the little green man says Walk.
Drug dealers don't want confrontation with entire nations, or even the drug dealers on the next block. Let us dispose of this stupid term.
The West is engaged in a war on terror. It is a real war. Let us not trivialise what we are up against.
Posted by: Verity at November 17, 2005 10:02 PM