Global policeman
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 17:55, 20 April 2026 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
No formal recognition of this position exists. Theoretically, in [[international law]], all nations are equal; "{{lang|la|[[par in parem non habet imperium]]}}", no authority between equals, is the principle applied, although, in reality some states are relatively [[List of modern great powers|more powerful]] than others. States are [[Sovereign state#Ontological status of the state|"immortal" and cannot be indicted]].[[Martin Wight]], [[Power Politics (Wight book)]], 1978, p 98- 109 |
No formal recognition of this position exists. Theoretically, in [[international law]], all nations are equal; "{{lang|la|[[par in parem non habet imperium]]}}", no authority between equals, is the principle applied, although, in reality some states are relatively [[List of modern great powers|more powerful]] than others. States are [[Sovereign state#Ontological status of the state|"immortal" and cannot be indicted]].[[Martin Wight]], [[Power Politics (Wight book)]], 1978, p 98- 109 |
||
==Comparison with state policing== |
== Comparison with state policing == |
||
Within [[Sovereign state|states]], law restrains and limits power; between states, the opposite is true.Martin Wight, Power Politics, 1978, p 102 |
Within [[Sovereign state|states]], law restrains and limits power; between states, the opposite is true.Martin Wight, Power Politics, 1978, p 102 |
||
The [[Peelian principles]] of policing |
The [[Peelian principles]] of policing includes: the duty to prevent crime, keep the peace and uphold the law, with the consent of the public, and with minimal use of force and restraint; to act impartially; and not to usurp the powers of the judiciary.[[Charles Reith]], A new study of police history, Oliver and Boyd, 1956, appendix. The latter standard requires a [[presumption of innocence]]. Candidates for police recruitment and promotion are appointed on merit, whereas a 'global policeman' is self-appointed [[faute de mieux]]. |
||
Within states, a [[monopoly on violence]] is the norm; the police may carry weapons, but few others do so (the US is an exception, prompting [[Charles Lane (journalist)|Charles Lane]] to ask if it is 'really a state'[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-us-who-has-the-monopoly-on-force/2016/07/13/fbcd45da-490d-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html 'In the US, who has the monopoly on force?'], [[Washington Post]], 13 July 2016) Internationally, a 'global policeman' is but one heavily armed state among two hundred others. |
Within states, a [[monopoly on violence]] is the norm; the police may carry weapons, but few others do so (the US is an exception, prompting [[Charles Lane (journalist)|Charles Lane]] to ask if it is 'really a state'[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-us-who-has-the-monopoly-on-force/2016/07/13/fbcd45da-490d-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html 'In the US, who has the monopoly on force?'], [[Washington Post]], 13 July 2016) Internationally, a 'global policeman' is but one heavily armed state among two hundred others. |
||
To confer the |
To confer the role of 'global policeman' on any self-interested, expansionary state implies a [[conflict of interest]]. States wage war with maximum force; engage in arms sales; form alliances and thus lack impartiality.[[Daniel L Davis]], 'What the 'world police' analogy gets wrong,' [[The National Interest]], 2 October 2016 |
||
==History== |
==History== |
||
