Consoling the People and Punishing the Guilty: A Conservative View of Sovereignty

I. Historical Context: The Invention of Sovereignty and the Conservative Revision

Historically, sovereignty is not an immemorial concept. In 16th-century Europe, power existed in a highly decentralized feudal network of local nobles, autonomous cities, and ecclesiastical authorities. Against this backdrop, Jean Bodin introduced the concept of sovereignty—essentially a form of “political camouflage.” Its purpose was to package the power of absolute monarchs as “indivisible, absolute, and perpetual,” shielding it from the constraints of traditional norms, customs, and overlapping jurisdictions, rather than establishing a moral foundation for responsibility toward order and the populace.

Conservatism offers a profound critique and revision of this: True sovereignty is not defined by who holds supreme power, but by who fulfills the responsibility of maintaining order, protecting livelihoods, and preserving civilization. As Edmund Burke and the American Federalists observed, once sovereignty is understood as absolute power isolated from responsibility, the social fabric is destroyed, the civilizational trust is violated, and sovereignty itself mutates into a tool of oppression and dispossession.

II. The Trust of Order: From Governing Efficacy to Institutional Constraint

The conservative reverence for order is rooted in a rational examination of historical experience: Order is paramount, but only an order with an ethical foundation possesses vitality. The “order” referred to here is not mere stability or forceful control, but an institutional structure capable of restraining arbitrary violence and constraining the behavior of rulers.

When a regime colludes with narcoterrorism and uses the name of sovereignty to facilitate criminal acts, it effectively abdicates the legal basis of its own existence as a sovereign entity. The exhaustion of legitimacy is determined by observable, verifiable criminal and institutional collapse: judicial confirmation of electoral fraud, concrete evidence of transnational criminal chains, and a total failure of the “Responsibility to Protect.” These negative facts collectively trigger the depletion of sovereignty, rendering its shield null and void.

III. Paradigm Shift: From “De Facto Control” to “Responsible Justice”

The “Operation Absolute Resolve” against the Maduro regime on January 3, 2026, marks an irreversible turning point in international political philosophy: The “sanctity” of sovereignty is being stripped away from mere de facto control and returned to its essence as “Responsible Sovereignty.” This paradigm shift ends the formalistic myth that “effective control of territory” is synonymous with “inviolable sovereignty.”

Under this new paradigm, the Maduro regime is no longer viewed as a failing government, but is defined as a criminal organization cloaked in sovereignty. When a regime is indicted by a major judicial system for high crimes such as narcoterrorism, and its state machinery becomes a paramilitary wing of the “Cartel of the Suns” (Cartel de los Soles), it has voluntarily stepped outside the fortifications of the civilized order.

The philosophical significance of this action lies in the proof that sovereignty is not a fallout shelter for tyranny. When the nature of a regime transforms from a guardian of order to an executor of crime, the international community’s stripping of its sovereign shell is a necessary repair of the civilizational contract. This represents a “moral convergence of justice and force,” declaring that “Sovereignty as Responsibility” has officially superseded “Sovereignty as Power.”

IV. Legitimacy of Intervention: Civilizational Trust Over Formal Procedure

Such actions inevitably draw criticism regarding the “violation of sovereignty.” However, when international legal procedures become paralyzed by vetoes and turn into a “procedural maze” protecting unjust regimes, absolute adherence to formalism becomes a betrayal of substantive justice. When a regime’s crimes are documented and ongoing, its existence poses a direct threat to regional security and human dignity.

Capable actors, moving on clear evidence and limited objectives, provide a necessary remedy for failed international processes and defend the principle that “Sovereignty is Responsibility.” This mode of intervention does not seek utopian social engineering or infinite nation-building; its goal is solely the removal of criminals poisoning the order and the restoration of a minimum foundation for safety and governance. It marks a sustainable model of just intervention: International law enforcement against specific crimes, rather than the export of ideology.

V. Conclusion: Order Before Power, Civilization Before Rule

The ancient mandate of “Consoling the People and Punishing the Guilty” (弔民伐罪)—a cornerstone of The Classic of History (書經) tradition—provides a timeless edge of justice to the modern concept of sovereignty. The ultimate purpose of sovereignty is to protect the people. If a sovereign becomes the perpetrator of harm against its own citizens and a source of global chaos, its immunity naturally expires. A better international order must distinguish between legitimate sovereignty and criminal entities, allowing justice to pierce the hollow disguise of sovereignty when necessary. This is not an invitation for lightheaded intervention, but an affirmation that when the people’s suffering is profound and the crimes are immense, a decisive “punishment of the guilty” is the most profound “relief of the oppressed.”