[MichaelCollins]

> Who is 100% sovereign?

100%? Only those with a nuclear deterrent, and maybe not even them. Otherwise, there is always a bigger fish.

Edit: I can see some people don't believe me. Do you really think treaties are more than paper if you don't have force to back them up? The US has threatened to invade the Hague if they try to charge Americans with war crimes. Went beyond mere threats in fact, congress and Bush the younger enshrined this threat in Federal Law.

[theplumber]

>> Do you really think treaties are more than paper if you don't have force to back them up?

There is a foce that can build up. If the U.S starts going rough someone else will take its place. We've already seen pieces moving during Trump's term. U.S's soft power helps it more than you think.

North Korea is more "sovereign" than the U.S. in your book. Good economic and political relations with your neighbours can make you more powerful than being a sovereign lunatic.

[MichaelCollins]

> North Korea is more "sovereign" than the U.S. in your book.

In practice, the US can do much more of whatever it pleases than North Korea can. The US can invade most countries on a whim, and has demonstrated this ability numerous times in living memory, while the North Korean government mostly just fumes for the past few decades. But more to your point, yes, North Korea has more sovereignty than most; they are one of the few countries America can't invade on a whim.

[theplumber]

You have a very twisted way to see the world. If NK is more sovereign than most countries why should countries aim for sovereignty?

The bottom line is that the "paper treaties" allowed the world to function and create economic growth/trade not a sovereignty dogma. I think the total sovereignty dogma didn't exist even in the medieval times. Its roots are rather religious. I'm not sure where you want to go with that. Certainly not towards prosperity.

You don't want international treaties with nations you can't invade or what's exactly the gist of it?

Being a super power has benefits. That doesn't mean you can break economic treaties without consequences or that you can invade countries every time you don't like their economic policy. Bad behaviour brings reputational damage. Wars are costly(economic and politically). Soon enough you may find yourself alone and that you are not a super power anymore(i.e Russia).

Being a small country like NK or the UK you can play ball with the system or become poor. If you want to change the system you must be a super power and/or have powerful friends(i.e not sovereign)

[daniel-cussen]

So the list of countries with nuclear arsenals is very short. It ends in North Korea and Israel, basically the rogue state of China (but fiercely independent at the same time, it is not subservient, it assisted China militarily in the hardest times after being carved to pieces for centuries by the nuclear powers of the time, and apparently nobody ever helped the Chinese ever) and secondly Israel, America's rogue state (but fiercely independent at the same time, it is not subservient, it assisted America militarily, and really they get all kinds of exceptions because they invented it, can't realistically stop them from having it).

Secondly France has huge problems with sovereignty because it can't make a computer. That's the impediment to their sovereignty. Nukes the have, that's not the issue. And even America is struggling with supply lines, looks like nobody can make a computer anymore.