Would you entertain the idea of hiring a housekeeper or a nanny who insisted on absolute immunity? The answer is undoubtedly a resounding ‘no.’ The concept of absolute immunity erases any trace of accountability, and without accountability, how can anyone be expected to act justly?
Despite residing in developed democracies like the Netherlands, individuals are governed by a political class shielded by absolute immunity, allowing them to infringe upon our rights with impunity. Globally, tens of millions of people including children suffer horrific abuses perpetrated by individuals aware of their complete legal immunity.
As citizens of the 21st century, can we tolerate being governed by leaders protected by the law, even when their behavior mirrors that of medieval tyrants prioritizing their interests over our human rights? While modern liberal democracies adhere to both national and supranational laws on paper, governments often violate these rules using their sovereign immunity.
To remedy this antiquated legal loophole, we must educate the public about the flawed, medieval concept of sovereign immunity (the King can do no wrong), which grants leaders the power to become oppressors. It is essential to stand against tyranny and oppression, holding those who believe themselves above the law accountable, as individuals never consented to entrust elected officials with the power of immunity.
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) asserts, “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.” Only by dismantling sovereign immunity can we fulfill the requirements outlined in Article 7, ensuring that every human being, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, can live with security, peace, and dignity.
The establishment of an international mechanism to safeguard human rights is imperative, with all states adhering to its rulings in the pursuit of defending everyone’s human rights. Council bodies, such as FREMP (Working Party on Fundamental Rights, Citizens Rights, and Free Movement of Persons), can assume responsibility for protecting human rights as a cross-cutting concern.
Sovereign Immunity And The Divine Right Of Kings
The history of Europe’s monarchies is intertwined with a political doctrine of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and could not, therefore, be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament.
The divine-right theory can be traced to the medieval conception of God’s award of temporal power to the political ruler, paralleling the award of spiritual power to the church. However, by the 16th and 17th-century monarchs were asserting their authority in matters of both church and state.
Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704), a French theorist and advocate of the King’s divine right, stated that the King’s authority was sacred as his power was absolute and derived directly from God.
In the 17th, Sir Robert Filmer, a century English Royalist squire, stated that the state was like a family and the King was the father. Therefore, the father had absolute authority over the other family members.
However, during the 17th century, anti- absolutist ideas began to bubble to the surface. John Locke was the most famous anti- absolutist philosopher, and he wrote his first Treatise of Civil Government (1689) to refute the absolutist theory.
King James I (1603-25) was a particularly fierce supporter of divine right. Still, he ruled a country that was becoming increasingly apprehensive around the idea as calls for parliament to be empowered grew.
The Glorious Revolution (1688–89) saw the doctrine virtually disappear from English politics, and events in other European countries resulted in a similar diminishment of the King’s divine right o absolute power.
The American Revolution (1775–83), the French Revolution (1789), and the Napoleonic Wars deprived the doctrine of most of its remaining credibility.
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/divine-right-of-kings