| |
| | THE ORDER OF MALTA, SOVEREIGNTY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW |
 | | In continuing recognition of the governments-in-exile, a position followed not only by Great Britain and the United States but by many other States which had accredited representatives to the occupied countries before 1939, their lack of territory, population, and jurisdiction was not considered any impediment to recognition. |
 | | A Sovereign State has "the fundamental right to demand that other States treat it on a perpetually equal footing."[38] This must be so even if it may appear that their Sovereignty is limited in a way which classic definitions of Sovereignty would consider sufficient to impeach their claims to Sovereignty or independent status. |
 | | That this was accepted by the other member States in practice as a matter of political expediency,[40] to insure Soviet co-operation, does not negate the fact that the other members of the United Nations, in accordance with the Charter, treated these two States as equals. |
| www.chivalricorders.org /orders/smom/maltasov.htm (9540 words) |
|