Belin's Creature

1748 Words4 Pages

Section II The City as an independent creature
The City today is viewed as a creature of the state. Under this view, the city is created by the state. The national sovereign state either grants the city, its police powers or it delegates their own police power to the city. The problem with this theory is that it ignores history.
The cities of Jerusalem, Warsaw, and Berlin are all older than their national sovereign state. All three of these cities cannot be creatures of their respective national state as such, all three cities were in existence before their national state. Therefore, they are not creatures of the state rather, they are their own independent creature. All three of which were once the capital city of an extinct state.
Jerusalem …show more content…

The Allies split Germany into four zones of occupation, in addition, Berlin was split into four zones of occupation. Had the Allies, viewed Berlin as a creature of the state, Berlin would have been divided up with the rest of Germany. Therefore, the Allies explicitly recognized Belin as its own independent creature. Otherwise, there would have been no need to divide up Belin separately. Further, the way Germany and Berlin were divided up is evidence that the Allies believed them to be separate creatures.
When the Allies divided up Germany they drew both internal and external borders. The borders, they drew were based on the borders of Germany in 1917. However, when it came time to divide and draw the borders of Belin they based it off of the Berlin Act of 1920.
The Berlin Act of 1920, was a municipal ordinance passed during The Weimar Republic, the ordinance extended the boundaries of the city. At the end of the War Germany ceased to exist, as a sovereign independent national state. The Allies had to have believed, that Berlin was an independent creature, otherwise the Berlin Act of 1920 would have been null and …show more content…

four-year siege, Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar looted the temple treasury and exiled Jerusalem’s elite. He took the King prisoner and appointed a new King. However, Nebuchadnezzar allowed the service in the temple to continue. This indicates, that Nebuchadnezzar viewed Jerusalem as separate from the Kingdom of Judah. Had he not, he would have likely not allowed the services in the Temple continue.
In 589 BCE, Jerusalem and the Kingdom of Judah fell after another Babylonian siege. This time, Nebuchadnezzar and his army, razed Jerusalem to the ground. They destroyed the Walls of Jerusalem and burnt the Temple to the ground. The King was taken, as a prisoner, and his children were killed. Only a small amount of the population was allowed to remain. Jerusalem itself was left desolate.
Approximately 50 years later the Persian Empire replaced the Babylonian Empire. The Persians allowed the Exiles to return and to rebuild Jerusalem. The Persians returned the temple treasury that had been taken by the Babylonians. Further, they allowed the temple to be rebuilt and the services to resume. Finally, during the reign of Artaxerxes I, the Walls of Jerusalem were

Open Document