Which would be relevant if there were a global sovereign and the government of Kazakhstan merely the regional administration beneath it of a particular territory, and if that sovereign made it relevant. Foreign residency alone doesn't immunize one from the rules of a sovereign either in theory or with a sufficiently capable and motivated one, in practice.
> That Kazakhstan can make a rule that has zero real-world effect because they can't enforce it, and because nobody can make them change their rule, they are therefore sovereign?
Close, but not quite. Rather, Kazakhstan, being sovereign, can make whatever rules it wants and is limited in applying them only by practical constraints, mostly those applied by other sovereigns. It may or may not be able to effectively apply it's laws to some conduct beyond it's borders; certainly other sovereign entities have done quite a bit of that.
> Close, but not quite. Rather, Kazakhstan, being sovereign, can make whatever rules it wants and is limited in applying them only by practical constraints, mostly those applied by other sovereigns.
And absent any practical way for them to enforce their rules, no one has any good reason to respect them. Nor does their claim to "sovereignty" give them any kind of moral imperative over the actions of people who do not reside in that country on any philosophical theory of law that I am aware of. So without a practical reason (the threat of force) or a moral imperative (patently non-existent), why should Mozilla comply with their wishes?
If the smallest sovereign state in the world passed a law that said that marriages in the United States were invalid if they were between two people of the same gender, would anyone care? Should they?
Which would be relevant if there were a global sovereign and the government of Kazakhstan merely the regional administration beneath it of a particular territory, and if that sovereign made it relevant. Foreign residency alone doesn't immunize one from the rules of a sovereign either in theory or with a sufficiently capable and motivated one, in practice.
> That Kazakhstan can make a rule that has zero real-world effect because they can't enforce it, and because nobody can make them change their rule, they are therefore sovereign?
Close, but not quite. Rather, Kazakhstan, being sovereign, can make whatever rules it wants and is limited in applying them only by practical constraints, mostly those applied by other sovereigns. It may or may not be able to effectively apply it's laws to some conduct beyond it's borders; certainly other sovereign entities have done quite a bit of that.