In a previous article entitled Equality of difference we mentioned that this concept was at the root of democracy. The individual is naturally considered as different from another one not affecting his civic value, for the acceptance of difference leads to the equality of rights. In this one, we want to study the side-effects created by the replacement of the word individual by the expression state entity within this context.
In essence, the state representing all the general services of a nation, guarantees the law not necessarily returning to the spirit of laws. However, when the state represents a group of humans settled on a specific territory submitted to the same authority, it can be considered as a legal entity. Thus, our theoretical replacement makes sense and it fits with international law. Then, it is interesting to consider its share of responsibility, humanly speaking. It is obvious that this question becomes essential when the relevant state is a superpower. For, as a liberal analyst correctly noticed, if the incomparable power of a State is really carried out for the good of humanity, humanity must have the right to check its application. And it is really in this context that the role of the State makes all its sense. But just before studying its assigned responsibilities, the ones that it is not empowered to take have to be considered. Thus, as a man is not responsible for all men – so, a fact he can't claim for – a State can't be responsible for all the other ones for the others didn't concede that right. For all that, it doesn't mean that this State has to be classified in the category that Chomsky – quoting Washington and London – wisely attached to the concept of rogue state. But if it illegally uses force, then, differences actually vanish.
In reality, the difficulty of the judicial status of a State, mainly when it is a superpower, comes from the intrinsic dysynchrony existing between the realities of international law and geostrategy. The latter, though specific to any State, is in essence the main interaction of this very State with the others. Yet, international law can only operate with mutual agreement. It is obviously slower than the geostrategy of a State only depending on its own initiative. That is obviously the case for any country but when it is a superpower owning a “large domain” such as a strategically essential world space ensuring the world control, according to the terms of the war-peace study group, then, this dysynchrony is obvious. A State can't exist without geostrategy but for all that, does it have the right to act if this action runs counter to international law? Yet, to turn round the question even if it seems somewhat provocative: can a state really respecting international law exists in the geostategic sense of the term? In reality, this kind of questions highlights, not only the intrinsic nature of the problem of the coexistence of these two tendencies, but also its pre-existence to combine. For international law in its present extension is a relatively new element, whereas geostrategy, though not having this codified form from the beginning, has almost existed since the existence of war. So, the implementation of zones and spheres of influence for the States or even large domain for the superpowers is a classical process, excluding the possibility of a clear world dividing up as international law wishes. Geostrategy wonderfully operates with network superstructures whereas international law fights against any network process representing natural transgression. Thus, the extension of the power of a State goes beyond and by far, the extent of its rights. And the global acceptance of the notion of State is in opposition to international law. So, our substitution shows a failure of the system.