Agreement or Constitution?

Two warring tribes have the only risky way to agree on peace. Its essence lies in the throwing of a white flag, which the other party considers as the intention of the first party that threw this flag to negotiate.
Such negotiations can take place if both parties have the same understanding of the submitted sign. If each of these parties understands this sign in its own way, the enmity flares up with renewed vigor.
One can guess that in such a situation, none of the warring parties will refer to the Constitution, since it can only be developed after positive negotiations ending in an Agreement between the warring parties. Let us remind you that such an Agreement is prepared on behalf of all members of both tribes.
As a result, the tribes coexist peacefully, without even realizing that they do not have the right to such coexistence if there is no Constitution.
If it suddenly turns out that they managed to create a Constitution, then, in accordance with modern jurisprudence, it follows that the tribes lose the right to independence.
This result follows from the condition that the Constitution, as interpreted by many modern politicians, is superior to the Agreement. However, it should be noted that the Constitution itself, as a set of laws, is developed on the basis of such an Agreement by executive structures, including leaders acting on behalf of members of their collectives.
If there is no Agreement between nations, or it conflicts with the interests of at least one party, that party retains the right to self-determination. Hence the need to conclude another Agreement and prepare a new Constitution for it or revise the old Constitution so that it meets the new conditions.
The rank of the Agreement between peoples is at a higher level than the Constitution, which describes the rules of behavior of both parties, subject to which the terms of the Agreement concluded between peoples are not violated.
Violation of the Constitution is not a reason for world wars. Such a violation presupposes its improvement or becomes a reason for the peaceful exercise of the right to self-determination of the interested party.
Often, in world practice, leaders replace the Agreement between peoples with the Constitution, the content of which such leaders interpret for themselves and wave it when they intend to direct the effect of this Constitution against their people, but act on their own behalf.
Territories occupied by peoples, of course, cannot be separated from the diasporas living on them, even if they live on these territories without a Constitution at all.
What place does the right of peoples to self-determination have in relation to the content of the Constitution? It describes rules of conduct that do not violate the joint Agreement and which give the right to peaceful termination if the other party violates these rules.
Violation of the set of rules of conduct by one of the parties contributes to the unhindered exercise of the right to self-determination by the other party. The content of the Constitution in advance contributes to the painless manifestation of this right.
It is worth asking how the leaders of world politics interpret this thesis?
Doesn’t it seem like a mistake to see this problem as world jurisprudence, which allows the concepts of “Agreement” and “Constitution” to be interchanged? A vision that has legitimized bloodshed across the globe for years?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *