Jimmy Carter Quotes

Our first object is... the obtaining of sovereignty, assured by international law, over a portion of the globe sufficiently large to satisfy our just requirements.

In a pre-Internet world, sovereignty over our physical freedoms, or lack thereof, was controlled almost entirely by nation-states.

Sovereignty is a word that is used often but it has really no specific meaning. Sovereignty today is nominal. Any number of countries that are sovereign are sovereign only nominally and relatively.

I am telling you, as a president of the country, I do not find it a mistake to listen to you and to respond to your requests and demands. But it is shameful and I will not, nor will ever accept to hear foreign dictations, whatever the source might be or whatever the context it came in.

Ultimate authority in a global system remains with sovereigns. Governments will not have it any other way: politicians face instant rejection from their electorate if they allow transnational authorities to dictate terms.

To be called a sovereign nation, a nation has to be able to control its own borders. It is controlling your own destiny in a way, and we don't control our own borders.

I think everyone must settle for what is in the parameter of their own rights. No one must have an evil intention toward the territorial benefit or integrity of other nations.

Everyone should respect the sovereignty of the EU countries.

Usually Mexico, or always Mexico has defended itself and its territory.

It is difficult for the strongest advocate of national rights to assert that the people in actual occupation or political control over a given area of the earth are entitled to do what they will with "their own," entirely disregarding the direct and indirect consequences of their actions upon the rest of the world.

I wouldn't say the nation-state is dead, but the Sovereignty has been greatly circumscribed ... even for a country as large as the U. S.

Sub-national, ethnic or tribal factions cannot expect to undermine the political unit in which they exist while claiming the privileges of a sovereign nation-state.

Just as one wife does not have two husbands so one land does not have two sovereign nations in possession of it.

... we have no dynasty of our own and no liking for a foreign dynasty.

We do not want a single foot of foreign territory; but of our territory we shall not surrender a single inch to anyone.

No man has the right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation.

No state has a divine right to exist.

No nation should have the right to simply grab land from another nation.

America was not annexed to the realm, and … it was not fitting that Parliament should make laws for those countries.

For somebody who comes from Europe, I can only say if we give up this principle of territorial integrity of countries, then we will not be able to maintain the peaceful order of Europe that we've been able to achieve.

I try to put myself in others' shoes: How does any country give up any sovereignty and expect to survive as a government? I don't think that any Philippine president, or any leader for that matter, can afford to give up any portion of territorial sovereignty. That would be political suicide.

Without sovereignty, a nation cannot exist. Without borders, it can't be defined or protected.

A nation has the capacity to choose its own capital city, and Jerusalem is Israel's capital.

You cannot force a country to do something that is against its own interests or against the democratic process.

All I can say is we will fully utilise our right to self-defence. No one can just do what they want on our borders.