Ideas of national sovereignty and international law

This study aims to present the nascency and development of the ideas of national sovereignty and international law which are inextricably linked with the ideas for the attitude towards “the Other”. The main thesis in the article are supported with a historical narrative for events that created the nascency of legal norms in an international law. The main subtopics in the text are: equality or inequality: Las Casas – Hines de Sepulveda – Francisco de Vitoria; whether the discovered “Others” are humans and have the same rights – typology of attitude toward the “Other” – Michel de Montaigne and Charles Montesquieu; Jean Bodin’s ideas on national sovereignty and Francisco de Vitoria for international law.


Introduction
The Ideas of National Sovereignty and International Law are inextricably linked to the relationships between people, associated with the ideas of the "Other" within the frames of Protoglobalization. The question of how to live in the conditions of uncertainty created by the presence of the "Other" has become extremely acute in the 16 th century when Europe has faced the unknown "Other" in America, India, China, and Africa. This question is also a current, topical issue, because globalization requires an even greater intensity and permanence to continuously live in the company of the "Other".

Equality or inequality: Las Casas, Hines de Sepulveda and Francisco de Vitoria
Equality or inequality -it is understandable that these dimensions of attitude to "otherness" have been applied mixed and not strictly distinguished. For example, the evangelist Las Casas knew the Indians less than Cortes, but he loved them more, though their ways met in their approach to the Indians and merged into the general assimilation policy. To get to know does not mean to love, and vice versa; and one and the other do not require identification with the "Other" and do not depend on it.
Conquering, loving, assimilating or identifying of the "Other" is self-acting. In this context, it is worth analyzing the position and theory of the Spanish philosopher, theologian and jurist Francisco de Vitoria, who is the founder of the philosophical tradition known as the Salamanca School. He has made a special contribution to the development of the theory of fair warfare and the theory of international law. Interesting is his thesis about the fair waging of wars against the Indians. On the one hand, he is of the opinion that it is a natural human right to communicate and participate in a community -one can freely travel and trade with whom he wishes. The Indian rulers cannot stop their subjects from trading with the Spaniards and vice versa, the Spanish rulers cannot ban the trade with the Indians. However, as much as the propagation of the Christ's ideas, any violence or warfare is permitted, because the Christian salvation is an absolute value. Furthermore, any military intervention is justified and legitimate if it is done to protect innocents from the tyranny of the chiefs or local laws. Even if this rule was applied equally to the Indians and Spaniards, the problem is that the Spaniards appear to be both a part and a judge in the situation without ever being on their territory. This tyranny they exerted on these territories would be understandable if the Spanish presence was officially proclaimed as conquest. For example, according to de Vitoria, the sacrifice of people is tyranny, but it is not tyranny to exterminate and slaughter them if they have not wished to be baptized (sее Pagden & Lawrance, 2001). The theses of de Vitoria are act of segregation, racism and intolerance towards the "Other" (the Indians). It should not be forgotten that all the time we are talking about a voluntary and peaceful process of perceiving of the Christ's ideas of brotherly love, social equality and prosperity, perception of anyone other than me as equal to me. Here's what de Vitoria says: "Although the barbarians are not totally disturbed, they are not far from this (...). They cannot or are no longer better able than the maddened or wild beasts and animals because their food is not and is a little bit better than wild beasts. Their stupid minds not far then any children or madmen mind from our countries" (Todorov, 2010: 174). Certainly we cannot talk about any kind of reciprocity in economic, political, legal, social and cultural terms. Over the Indians were visibly engaged in slaves, and they could not defend themselves against this crime. In fact, the so-called religion of love and brotherhood -Christianity -is imposed with massacres, wars and violence. Still on de Vitoria is regarded as a defender of the Indians: under the guise of the international law -it invoking and based on reciprocity, it actually offers a legitimate basis for the colonization wars, which so far have had no legitimate ground.
Another important element in the dispute over the "Other" during this era is the dispute between Bartholomew de Las Casas and Gines de Sepulveda.
Bartolome de Las Casas was born in 1484 and died in 1566. He dedicated his life to an active struggle against slavery, violent colonization, and abuses of indigenous people in America and he tried to persuade the Spanish judges to apply a more humane policy during colonization. And although it fails to save the indigenous population of West India, its efforts have led to several improvements in the legal status of the indigenous population and the increase of humanism in the ethics of colonialism. Las Casas is often seen as one of the first advocates of universal human rights. Las Casas became the first bishop of Chiapas and the first officially appointed as "Defender of the Indians". His extensive writings, the most prominent of which are A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (De Las Casas, 2005) and A History of the Indians note the atrocities committed by the colonists against an indigenous peoples. He was arrived as one of the first settlers in the New World, he tried to resist the atrocities committed against of the Indians by the Spanish colonists. In 1515 he gave up his own Indian slaves and his right to the encomienda, and took up the advocacy of the natives' rights before King Carl I. In 1522, he attempted to initiate a new kind of peaceful colonialism that was applied to today's shores of Venezuela. But this endeavor fails, which makes Las Casas act in the Dominican Order and he became a monk. Then he undertook a peaceful evangelistic mission in Central America among the Mayan Guatemala, and participated in the debate among Mexican clerics about how to connect the local population to the Christian faith most readily. He returns to Spain to recruit more missionaries, continuing to follow his principles of abolishing slavery on the Indians and removing the encomienda. In 1542, the Spanish Royal Court adopted laws restricting violent incidents and alerting itself to a more tolerant attitude towards the Indians, as well as the gradual abolition of the encomienda. Las Casas was appointed Bishop of Chiapas, but served there only for a short time before being forced to return to Spain because the laws passed against the encomienda were about to be canceled because they did not like the Spanish settlers. For the rest of his life he devotes himself to Spanish justice, having a great influence on issues related to the lives and rights of the Indians. In 1550 Las Casas participated in Valladolid in a debate with the Spanish philosopher and theologian Juan Gines de Sepulveda (1489-1573. The debate in Valladolid, in which theologians, philosophers and jurists participated, was organized by King Charles I in order to give a definite answer to the question whether the newly-baptized and unbaptized Indians can self-govern themselves. De Sepulveda, defending the position of the colonizers, claimed that the American Indians were "natural slaves", referring to Aristotle's views expressed in Politics: "Those whose condition is such that their function is the use of their organs and nothing better can be expected of them, these, I say, are slaves by nature. It is better for them to be governed in this way -as slaves". De Sepulveda defended the thesis that natural superiority should be followed, meaning that the Indians refer to the Spaniards as: "The body to the soul, the children to their parents, the women to their husbands, the cruel people to the good people, the slaves to the masters" (Todorov, 2010: 77). He believed that not equality but the hierarchy was the natural state of human society. Due to the fact that the only hierarchical state he knew was the "higher and lower" hierarchy, therefore he did not see any other differences, but only between the different degrees of the same value ladder. Although Aristotle was a major source of de Sepulveda's arguments, he proceeded from various Christian and other classical sources, including the Bible. Las Casas used the same sources as counter arguments against de Sepulveda's arguments. According to Las Casas, Jesus has authority over all the people of the world, including those who have never heard of Christianity. Las Casas claimed that the rights of Indians as human beings should not be different from those of all other people in Spain. De Sepulveda asserted that they must remain and be regarded as slaves (see De Sepúlveda, 1547). Today, the position of de Sepulveda is perceived as extremely racist, but in the XVI century it is considered to be normal. While claiming that Christianity is above all other religions (attributing to the baptized Indians only the features of ideal Christians), Las Casas defended the thesis that the Indians are equal to all other men, and therefore their enslavement is unjustifiable. De Sepulveda argued that they are fewer people and need a stewardship policy to integrate them into civilization.
King Karl I ended the debate by not adopting Hines de Sepulveda's views, nor Las Casas's arguments. Still, de Sepulveda was not allowed to publish his book in which he appeared as an advocate of inequality and a defender of force-applied evangelism.
The discourse between Las Casas and de Sepulveda reveals the duality of Christianity's attitude towards the "Other". On the one hand, Christianity has the idea of the universality of man and the love of the "Other". On the other hand, Christianity turns out to be extremely aggressive towards the ""Other"", treated as a part of another religion.
3. Are the "Others" found to be human and have the same rights or to typify the attitude towards the "Other" -Michel de Montaigne and Charles Montesquieu Are the "Other" found in the Conquistador era human and they have the same rights -typology of attitude towards the "Other". In his book Conquering America -the Question of the "Other"? Tsvetan Todorov (Todorov, 2010) makes an interesting typology of the attitude towards the perception of the "Other", giving an example of how this was done in Michel de Montaigne and Charles Montesquieu. In his essay Essays Montagne examines -along with many other topicsthe conquest of Mexico and Peru by the Spanish conquistadors. On the one hand, he emphasizes the inability of Indians to build roads and use machinery. Montagne expressed their astonishment at their desire to use their hands only by not looking for mechanics: they did not use other means of transporting building materials apart from their own hands; the cargo was dragging and there was no other way to lift the weights except pouring a finger around the erected building. On the other hand, he notes their fine skills, which cannot be compared to their splendor with what is found in Ancient Greece and Rome -magnificent cities, exquisite craftsmanship, zoological and botanical collections, showing the exceptional soul, nobility and the mind of these people. The same applies to moral descriptions. On the one hand, it is unfortunate for Montaigne that this conquest of Central America was not done during the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans during the time of Alexander the Great, so that everything "wild" in the nature of the Indian could be improved. But on the other hand, he thinks that the Indians, though not Christians, do not yield to the clarity of their natural mind and wisdom -they excelled the Europeans by piety, respect for laws, kindness, generosity, courage, etc. Montaigne assigns this world to a "childhood of mankind" as "youth", even ironically commented that this world is like a story of "children's tales". By resorting to the examples of America's conquest, Montaigne attempts to illustrate two independent ones in their "Experiments": the first is that mankind lives on the model of the individual who goes through different stages of his existence -from childhood, youth and maturity to old age. Montaigne used as an example for this thesis;  The comparison of "children" with "savages". The "youth" of a society implies that it is awaiting development. Montaigne gives an example to the societies of Europe that are in their "maturity". This "mature" world, according to Montaigne, is called upon to educate, to enrich the rest of the world, to universalize it (Montaigne, 1975: 179);  The second thesis is set out in the For vehicles essay. In his first part, Montaigne says that with time the marvelous reality of one place is degenerating. In this way, he criticized the rulers ruling the Western societies, who, although civilized and ordered, lost their naturalness. In the second part of the essay, Montaigne applauds the wise Indian rulers who have managed to preserve the natural life of their societies -the Indians respect the laws of their societies; they receive incredible wisdom, generosity and determination, various trials and difficulties, and etc.
The conclusions that may be drawn from Montaigne's theses are that he applies the description of the "Other" epistemological atomism and axiological (ethical) globalization. Epistemological atomism in this case is expressed in the description of the lives of the Indians as individuals: they are bold, respect the laws, are generous, able to bear the most difficult trials and difficulties, and in these qualities Montaigne outlines their reactions to individuals through which responses they manage to preserve against the background of external violence. Axiological (ethical) globalization in Montaigne's approach is expressed in the fact that, in the description of Indian or European society, value judgment is global: "our morals", which can be manifested in inhuman cruelty and actions, unlike the morals of the Indians, which is embodied in extraordinary, superhuman courage, faith, kindness, etc.
As Montaigne, Montesquieu condemns the ways of conquering America by comparing it with a huge wound to the human race.
But at the same time, referring to his geographic theory of human societies, he assumed that societies in the geographical latitudes of the equator, such as Mexico and Peru, are more prone and prone to despotism. And in tyranny the subjects are reduced to the position of animals that can only obey. According to Montesquieu, the colonists play a positive role in destroying despotism, eliminating superstition in the minds of these people, rationalizing Indian societies. In this, we can seek, according to Montesquieu, the positive role of evangelization as well as the globalizing trend of moral Christian ideas. Here is what he wrote about racial prejudices: "If I have to defend the right by which we have made the black slaves, I would say the following. After destroying the peoples of America, the European peoples had to enslave the peoples of Africa so that they could make so many land fit for them. Sugar would be too expensive if the plant from which it was produced was not slaughtered. The people in question are black from head to toe and their nose is so flattened that it's almost impossible to pity them. One cannot imagine that Godsuch a wise creature could have put a soul in good condition into a very black body" (see Montesquieu, 1984).
Montesquieu's position, expressed in these lines, is very clear. It features a new trend that will lead in the coming centuries and will determine economic relationships -the moral and philosophical legitimacy of cheap, even free labor, the low cost of manufactured goods and products, as well as different quality and different consumers. In this context, it is important to mention the argument of Francis Bacon. In the spirit of what has been said above from Montaigne to the Indians and in connection with the perception of the "Other" and its experience, Bacon writes: "The man, servant and interpreter of nature, does and understands only as much as he could discern in the spirit of nature by observation or reasoning on the facts, he does not know and can no longer achieve. Neither the bare hand nor the mind left alone can do more; the results are achieved through tools and aids; they are equally necessary for both the mind and the hand". (Bacon, 1994: 13-14). In this case, not all people have the opportunity to have a good enough view, acquired in social experience, which is conditioned by the nature of their societies. This means that although people are equal in nature, they are different in experience and this difference determines the different ways of existence. Bacon writes "It is often possible to see how a Christian gentleman -born in a decent, well-educated and educated family -willingly drops his high status and wealth to settle among the savages and lead their lives, turning himself he's in a savage. At the same time, I have not seen any Indian who voluntarily renounces savagery to live the lives of a civilized person" (Bacon, 1994: 13-14). Although they belong to Bacon and the words: "The person ruling over others loses his own freedom" (Bacon, 1994: 13-16).

Jean Bodin's ideas on national sovereignty and Francisco de Vitoria's ideas on international law
The origin of the idea of national sovereignty and the need for international law has a direct bearing on the subject of the story of the attitude towards the "Other" as this idea is generated in view of the question of whether "Others have the right to independence". The concept of sovereignty is linked with the name of Jean Bodin and his The Six Books of the Republic, issued in 1576. The main pathos in his work, though dressed in a solid theoretical form, is directed against Niccolo Machiavelli. The concept of Bodin for human nature and society, although fundamental to the introduction of the concept of sovereignty, is far from original. The idea that power, regardless of who it belongs to and how it is exercised, must have deeper, philosophical grounds, in one form or another can be found at a much earlier stage -even in the theoretical summaries and in the practice of Ancient Greece, Rome or the Middle Ages. If for Aristotle this is the autonomy of the polis, which presupposes autarchy as self-sufficiency of power, for the Roman speakers and philosophers, this is the divine origin of the Emperors. As far as the medieval tradition is concerned, here the divine beginning of power is shaped according to the Christian doctrine. What is new with Boden is that he gives political power the status of a necessary form of public life without sinking into unnecessary reflections on the origin of the republic or what are the signs of good governance. What is essential in his view is that the presence of a unifying public authority is a fact that is beyond doubt, no matter what historical stage is society. Here comes the fundamental question -what is the main sign of this power? The answer is: the sovereign power, which is realized through "the proper management of many households and of what they have in common" (Chatelet, 1998: 53). Thus, the "calling of the republic" or of the state. Therefore, the most important sign of sovereignty is that it is power, understood as an asymmetric attitude of dominance of one subject (which in this case is public) to another by the so-called sovereign power. Bodin, in accordance with the spirit of his time, defines sovereignty through three main features:  Absolute. The sovereign power of the state is absolute, because it is the one that issues the orders and does not obey orders issued by someone else. It does not depend on anything or anyone outside of it, whether it be God, nature or the people. In these dimensions it does not need any reason, because it is self-sufficient;  Indivisibility. Sovereign power is unified and indivisible, and if it is delegated, it can only be done in its entirety, not just in some of its manifestations;  Consistency. Sovereignty is neither more nor less with time. It is a constant and either exists or not. Although the state is the public form in which sovereignty exists, it is not something that has direct effect. Sovereignty is manifested by the laws that are issued by one or another mechanism. It is the sovereign who can decide whether to issue the laws or not, whether to lead a war or to seek peace, how to rule the clerks, judge and judge as a last resort, pardon, coin, and determine taxes.
Considering that Bodin: "Distinguishes sovereignty from power, and government from government, it is no wonder that sovereign may be either the people as a whole, or some part of it, or a particular individual. Mixed forms here are unthinkable" (Chatelet, 1998: 54). "For its time, the sovereignty is a breakthrough and a new method of legitimizing state power. It replaces the divine law, the laws of reason or other grounds of the state with lawful authority, understood as a force dressed in the laws" (Tanchev, 2003: 9).
It is worth noting the contribution of Thomas Hobbes to the concept of sovereignty. It links monarchical sovereignty with the contractual nature of the constitution of the state (see Hobbes, 1971). In the transition from the natural to the civic state of society, the public contract that has been concluded has only one objective -to ensure peace and prosperity for the contracting parties. It is concluded between all the members of society, not between the rulers and the people, and constitutes the basis of the sovereign power of the ruler. After signing the treaty and establishing the supreme authority, the subjects cannot reject his sovereignty and break the contract without the monarch's consent. Curious about Hobbes's concept is that the sovereignty of the absolute monarch is expressed in the monopoly of the laws he creates. They are obligatory for the subjects, but not for themselves, because that would undermine the absolute sovereignty. It is also impossible to split it between several media because it would be contrary to its indivisibility. Of course, when talking about people's sovereignty, there is no way to miss the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, around which his The Social Contract was built. In contrast to Hobbes's understanding of the "natural state" of war with everyone who leads to the need for a public contract, and with it generates sovereignty, for Rousseau it is only a theoretical hypothesis, a postulate, an idea. It is convenient for the beginning of the analysis, but for him the human nature from which he should go is neither real nor supposedly given in his natural state. Therefore, civil (or political) society does not arise from the necessity to overcome the defect of everyone's enmity with each other, but is born as a series of coincidences. The emergence of private property and social inequality based on it, along with the wars, killings, misfortunes and horrors that have arisen from them, show that the so-called social contract, though wise and thoughtful, is also unfair. That is why people can give up on it because the origin of power is human, contracted, and artificial; therefore, if it is a human creation, it can also be broken. That is the purpose of the keynote essay of the thinker from Geneva, in The Social Contract -to show what should be the legitimate social contract, which to return of people their taken liberty. Even if the idea of a social contract, through which Hobbes justifies absolute monarchical sovereignty, Rousseau places in his place the unlimited sovereignty of the people. But in order for this sovereignty to be legitimate, it must be based not on inequality but on freedom. Everyone, bound to everyone, does not bound anyone. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as we have the same right over everyone as what is given to everyone above us, we win the same as we lose, and more power to keep what we have. And here follows something that is very important for the problem analyzed in these rowsfreedom is obedience only because obedience is voluntary and equal, which makes moral freedom. People's sovereignty under Jean-Jacques Rousseau is brought out of universal will. It is the integration of private wills whose small differences are canceled. This means that the universal will does not allow division or fragmentation of the public whole. This universal will is the essence and life of the political body, sovereignty is its exercise, and legislation -its application (Châtelet, 1998: 85).
Like Bodin, Jean-Jacques Rousseau also characterized sovereignty with inalienability, indivisibility, infallibility, indefiniteness. Basically, it is the first characteristic: "For the same reason that sovereignty is inalienable, it is also indivisible. Because the will is common or not, it is the will of the whole nation or only one part of it. In the first case, when expressed, this will is a sign of sovereignty and has the power of law; in the latter case it is only a private will or an administrative act, the most decree" (see Rousseau, 1996).
Thus, we can assume that the concept of the sovereign state in that epoch imparts to the notion of sovereignty the understanding that it is the absolute and permanent (eternal) power of a state; that sovereignty is the very absolute state power; that the state by definition is a sovereign community; that if a political community does not have this absolute, permanent, and only power, it is not a state. The theory of Bodin is extremely important for shaping, functioning and seeking ways of independent existence not only of the then European countries, but also of those communities that at that time were overseas and oceanic colonies of European countries.
The theory of sovereignty in them is of utmost importance. This thesis of sovereignty in the geographic spaces of the Central America, North and the Central Africa, and the Asia Minor, later in Asia itself, is a manifestation of some kind of universalism. This universalism is contained in the fact that every collective identity and solidarity in the colonial population is originally the result of the changes and the unifying factor introduced by the colonial power (e.g. in Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Kenya, Egypt, Iraq, India, etc.) the consciousness of unity, of nation, is formed by the laws, norms and rules introduced by the colonizers (see Smith, 2000).
Does the idea of sovereignty so shaped and started to operate does not contradict of the processes of globalization of ideas for common international law?
The formation of a national identity and the definition of sovereign borders of individual states are a stage in the development of individual societies. Thus the very process of conscious sovereignty is also a stage in the process of globalization of individual societies, although at first glance and visibly it is a temporary encapsulation of individual states that reminds and provokes de-globalizing tendencies. When we reach the current state of globality, we will conclude that among its most striking results is the strong erosion of sovereignty of states at the expense of strengthening the role of transnational institutions. But within the sixteenth, not until the first half of the 20th century, the sovereignty of individual peoples is of positive significance inasmuch as it creates the conditions for the strengthening of individual state communities and the elaboration of the principles of international law. The current globalization process would be inconceivable if there are no and certain rules in the inter-people communication, without the existence of international law. And it was born along with the birth of the idea of national sovereignty.
The ideas of Francisco de Vitoria, which are the foundation of international law, make a major contribution to the elaboration and functioning of international law. According to de Vitoria, the political society -the nation (res-publica) -is an ideal form for the functioning of a society. It is a self-sufficient form for society, naturally uniting it around moral values and legal norms. In other words, as de Vitoria, the natural and geographic space on which a society lives, finds its finality and integrity in the form of state unification. In fact, states are the result of positive human actions, but as de Vitoria, "men are obliged by natural laws to participate in some form in the political society", that is, in its governance. This means that the main purpose and duty of man as a naturally distinct being is to live in a society organized by him -in a state. Outside, man would not find the right goods and virtues. The main tasks of the formed society are two: to promote the common good and virtuous life of their citizens and to protect their rights. De Vitoria likens the nation of the family. The form of government of the state must depend on the will of its citizens to monitor the respect of the powers of government of the state entrusted to its rulers. For de Vitoria, the absolute best form of government, is the monarchy: "For all in political society, the most reasonable government is from one prince and the Lord". The reason for his claim that the monarchy is better than any other form is the creation and preservation of the necessary unity for social action, which, however, should not restrict the rights of its citizens unjustifiably. In this connection, de Vitoria notes that excessive democracy leads to the collapse of societies, due to the huge number of people who have access to political governance, as well as the sporadic conflicts arising on a conceptual basis. In contrast to Bodin, de Vitoria highlights the crucial role of the international community. The nation as a single organism is not isolated in time and space. It is a participant in common processes that are adjustable by any member of this peculiar society. A nation cannot be encapsulated altogether in itself, because, even if it does not want it, it is interconnected with the surrounding nations. The whole global political space represents humankind as a family. In order to function properly, this family requires laws, norms, rules, and obligations. De Vitoria reduces to two basic principles of international law. The principles and norms of this right must be based on natural ethical norms and natural rules and customs that respect people. Every nation, whether small or large, has the right to exist, to legal equality, to independence. Exceptions are made by those nations that are legally and politically immature and for these reasons are unable to self-govern. In this case, a more civilized nation can temporarily administer, manage, or trustee within a given mandate. Every country has the right to free communication and commerce, failure of which the other nation could justify war and the right and duty of any State to intervene in defense of peoples who are victims of domestic tyranny or threat of attack by stronger nations. An important point for our analysis is de Vitoria for the war. It is allowed as a last resort when all other means of persuasion have been unsuccessful. The reason for warfare, whether defensive or offensive, is the violation of the law. An essential condition for the licitation of war is that the evils arising from it will not be greater than the good flowing from it. The defensive war can be fairly undertaken by any person. Offensive war can only be started by state authorities. All the means necessary to achieve victory are permissible in the just war. Once the victory has been achieved, the country must exercise its rights over the possessed with moderation and Christian charity.

Conclusion
We could summarize what we have written here in the following way.
Through Christianity's ideas of equality, brotherhood, love and compassion (analogous ideas are found in Islam as well as in Buddhism), the need for spiritual closeness and equality of people is reached. These religious-moral values were put into the foundation of human rights in the 16 th century, and later broke the path of the idea of their universal meaning. The wars and conquest policy of the Western Europe in the era of colonization put the issues of legal solution and the justification of international legal norms on the agenda. The rules on warfare and peace are being fixed. This officially marks the beginning of international politics as well as international diplomacy. The question of the legitimacy of slavery was raised for the first time in the history of humanity in the 15 th /16 th centuries and the position of its formal ban emerged. The idea of man as a universal being is humanized to a degree far beyond the one that was valid at the time of ancient Greek humanism. Attempts to protect and define the religious, conceptual and cultural-political foundations in the Central America and Europe shape the trends of nation-building. Depending peoples over the ocean are the cheap, but on the principles of the independence of individual nations, groups and tribes, the legal basis and protection of the "Other" is being sought; attempts are made to elaborate international norms and laws that regulate interpersonal relations. The concept of national sovereignty is beginning to emerge and the first ideas for cosmopolitanism are formed. Christian universalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition behind it receive one of their projections in the ideas of de Vitoria about the need for international law.
The imposition of these international norms presupposes the process of selfdetermination of existing social communities, i.e. the creation and maintenance of national sovereignty. Its maintenance would be possible if international law is respected.
It is understandable that during the historical period of the 15 th /16 th century there have been extremely large events, which in one form or another have modified and defined human thinking and being. Undoubtedly, however, the globalization process we are seeing today will not be possible unless there is Christian universalism, Islamic ideological utilitarianism, and peaceful peace exchanges between the West and the East. These factors have put the question of the attitude towards the "Other" on the agenda. If, in the early centuries, this attitude was more a result of anthropological and epistemological interest, then after the discovery of America, the "Other" appears to be an axiological counterpoint that must be known to be mastered. The invasion of the "Other" social space -either through the experience of his Christianization or the desire to obey him -has led to the understanding that there is a need for new mechanisms for organizing societies and for their international interaction. Thus, it is obvious why it can be argued that during the period from the sixth to the sixteenth centuries some of the conceptual prerequisites of the future globalization process were created.
At the same time, the period under consideration illustrates some of the problems whose solution has not yet been found. Because of the fair observation of Sigmund Baumann, the problems are not "how to eliminate strangers, but how to live in their constant company -that is, in conditions of cognitive abundance, uncertainty and uncertainty" (Bauman, 1999: 220). The question of how to live in the conditions of uncertainty created by the presence of the "Other" has emerged with extreme sharpness in the 16th century when Europe faced the unknown "Other" in America, India, China, and Africa. Although for other reasons, this question is also a matter of today, because globalization requires an even greater intensity and permanence to live in the continuous company of the "Other".