Talk:Vilatte orders

See main disccussion

For discussion about split, please see "far too long for anyone to read" section on Talk:René Vilatte page

The following is a short research report on the sovereignty claims of the so-called Abbey-Principality of San Luigi (http://san-luigi.org)

This religious order claims they achieved the full right of sovereignty over a few acres or less on the continent of Africa for a period of about one year ending in 1844 after which they were forced to depart. The major problem with this erroneous claim is it is in direct violation of international law, because it was on someone else’s lawful territory. This, in and of itself, makes their claim illegal and therefore invalid. To illustrate and perceive how flawed this claim is – the idea of holding sovereignty within another nation’s territory -- all one needs to do is extend this irrational idea to its logical conclusion. That is, if the Catholic Church could set up tiny abbeys and monasteries all over the earth and declare them to be independent sovereignties, we could conceivably have, instead of about 150 nations, 50,000 little countries all over the earth. But then again, carrying this ridiculous theory further, the Orthodox Church and others could do the same thing and set up nation-states within the sovereign abbeys created by the Catholic Church on the same principle, because in this scenario, sovereignty means little or nothing, independence is a meaningless ideal. Such a theory eliminates sovereignty and supremacy altogether. It is to throw out all international sovereignty law. In other words, the idea behind their claim is without any validity or wholesome benefit to the nations of the earth, who are organized under the rule of sovereign independence as a central fundamental feature of the rule of internaitonal and domestic law. The point is:

"No rule is clearer than the precept that no State [or other sovereign entity] may lawfully attempt to exercise [or hold valid] sovereignty within the territory of another."[1]

"Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political authority over a defined territory (land, airspace and certain maritime areas such as the territorial sea) and the people within that territory. No other State [or other entity like an abbey] can have formal political authority [sovereignty] within that State [or kingdom]."[2] (emphasis added)

Only by the crime of usurpation could they exercise sovereignty authority on someone else’s land. Legally, the only way a usurper can gain lawful or true sovereignty over another's territory is after 50 to 100 years of uncontested, undisputed, public exercise of such. However, their claim was only for a little over one year. This is absolute proof that they never gained any kind of real or authentic sovereignty. If they did exercise authentic or genuine sovereignty in this populated desert land over their tiny property, it was in violation of the sovereignty of the rulers and the people who lived there. It was in full breach of the highest secular law on earth. Such a claim is not legal. It "gives them no right whatsoever."[3]

You can’t disobey the only laws on earth that can create valid sovereignty and somehow magically obtain it some other way like a thief and a robber. Sovereignty, the highest secular right on earth, can only be achieved by obeying the laws that govern its birth and creation. Therefore, no person, no organization, no religious order or abbey, not even another sovereign nation, can lawfully assume any kind of legitimate or valid sovereign jurisdiction or rights in another country's territory without permission. This would be in direct defiance of international law.

The unfounded claim of this religious order was, according to their own writings, based on discovery of uninhabited land, or land inhabited by a nomadic people. One of the major problems with this is ". . . that territories inhabited by nomadic peoples living as ‘organized societies’ were not to be considered terra nullius [uninhabited] open to acquisition by occupation."[4] The land which they claimed was already occupied for thousands of years by an ancient kingdom with a long history and succession of rulers and kings, who ultimately became free from the domination of three prior Empires: the Roman, Byzantine. The point is, the land of the Fezzan was not terra nullius or empty of people. The Tuareg land had seven major confederations. Each ruled over by a supreme Chief called "Amenokal" who governed with a counsel of elders from each tribe. There were actually more people subsisting in this land under their own sovereign indigenous governments than there are now in modern times. They possessed the land having over 35 towns and 100 villages and were supreme in the use of their own laws and judgments. The government is monarchial; but its power are administered with such regard to the happiness of the people, the rights of property so revered, the taxes so moderate, and justice, directed by such a firm, yet temperate hand that the people are ardently attaché to their sovereign.[5]

Having sovereignty, no one could come into their land like a foreign Catholic Abbey in Moslem territory and establish a new little country in their midst without their full permission and authorization. This would be a violation, or blatant breach, of their territorial integrity – a fundamental rule of international law. The point: The Abbey was nothing more than an Abbey, which only lasted less than one year before they were entirely removed by the people of the land who had rejected them.

The people and the kingdoms that existed in this area were composed of a much larger population in the 19th century than now live upon the land. The reason this Catholic religious order took residence in this place was because this land was occupied. If there was not much potential for people to be converted to Christianity, it would never have been founded there. The idea that this land was terra nullius or empty of an organized people was historically inaccurate. This fact alone invalidates their claim – a claim that is historically unsupportable.

They claim that the Catholic Church recognized them as sovereign, but admit that no proof exists to substantiate this. The problem here is that recognition does not create sovereignty. ". . . Sovereignty is neither created by recognition nor destroyed by nonrecognition."[6] Recognition simply cannot make something false into something true. You can't make the world flat, just because the nations of the earth may have recognized it as such at one point in time. Neither the Catholic Church nor any other sovereign entity has the legal right to create internal sovereignty over someone else’s land. No one can legally do this.

In addition, in international law, if there is no proof that something occurred, it becomes nothing more than pie in the sky or a nice sounding fairy tale.

It is true that there was such a religious order that owned some property there in Africa at the time, but this does not magically transform them or anyone else into a supreme free and independant nation or principality, especially without the support of the only laws on earth that can produce the genuine sovereign right to rule.

[1] R. Y. Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International Law, 1963, p. 2.

[2] Robert Beckman and Dagmar Butte, Introduction to International Law, p. 2; 2013: http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/intlawintro.pdf. [3] Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 3, chapter 11, no. 183.

[4] Stephen C. McCaffrey, Dinah Shelton and John Cerone, Public International Law: Cases, Problems, and Texts, 2010, no. 4.2.1.

[5] Richard Brookes, Brookes' General Gazetter abridged: Containing a Geographical Description of the Contries, Cities, Towns, Forts, Seas, Rivers, Lakes, Mountains, Capes, &c. in the Known World, “Fezzan,” 1796.

[6] The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, edition 15, part 3, vol 17, 1981, p. 312. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.19.194 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Shameful article

I am sorry to say that this article is really unfair, biased and written only under a roman catholic view. It is a breach in the neutrality of Wikipedia. It seems that this article is just an accusation, not a fair information providing a neutral point of view.

The Valensi affair is too long and has over 100 years ! This part of history has more than probably nothing to do with the current orders.

I think the authors should have read this http://san-luigi.org/chivalry/the-san-luigi-orders/history-of-the-order-of-the-crown-of-thorns/ and may be tried to have updated information and data's, not those published in pro-roman catholics newspapers of the early 20th Century.

This is a shame !

--SpartakusFreeMann (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)