Abstract
The concept of
sovereignty is considered to be a very vital ingredient in international
relations. It is a basic underlining factor that sets states apart and is seen
as fundamental to the dignity and respect of states. However, globalization and
economic and technological development seems to restricted or curtailed the
exercise of this sovereignty the world haven become a global village. Globalization
has ensured that the old distinctions between international and domestic
policies are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Sovereignty signifies
simultaneously a right to act and a power to act. There are cases where the
power of a state to act is so confined and limited that its sovereign right to
act is rendered largely meaningless. Equally, there are times when the actual
power of a state is so great that, although its sovereign right to use this
power has not been formally acknowledged by others, it is tacitly recognized.
These are extreme
cases,
however. Normally, sovereignty means the possession of a right and power, and
disputes about sovereignty are disputes about right and power.
The Concept of sovereignty:
According to Eric Brahm[i]
Sovereignty is the central organizing principle of the system of states.
However, it is also one of the most poorly understood concepts in international
relations. At its core, sovereignty is typically taken to mean the possession
of absolute authority within a bounded territorial space.
There is essentially an internal and external dimension of sovereignty.
Internal sovereignty is the right of the state to
organize public powers, namely: the right to legislate, to do justice and
police, exclusively, without any interference in all areas of political,
economic, social and cultural rights.[ii]
Internally, a sovereign government is a fixed authority with a settled
population that possesses a monopoly on the use of force.
It is the supreme authority within its territory.
External
sovereignty
means absolute independence of the state and was expressed as a principle, for
the first time, in 1576 by Juan Boden in the paper "About the
Republic". According to this view, the state is freed from all
subordination to any external power of it. Boden shows that sovereignty is
absolute, perpetual and individual Externally, sovereignty
is the entry ticket into the society of states. Recognition
on the part of other states helps to ensure territorial integrity and is the
entree into participating in diplomacy
and international organizations
on an equal footing with other states.
An important role in the birth of
international law, in general, and its principles, in
particular, had, the Peace Treaty of
Westphalia concluded in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years War in Europe. The
importance of this Treaty for the international law is that, for the first time
an international legal document recognized the equality of states as a
principle of international law and for the first time in history the
independent states of Europe have joined in an international community.
Although equality of states was recognized by the Treaty of Westphalia, from
1648, this principle was applied only in the relations between the Great
Powers, which can be noticed, especially in relation to the diplomatic relations
between states. Great Powers privileges, could be observed, especially in
external relations: only great monarchs enjoyed the right to appoint senior
diplomatic representatives (ambassadors), the right to royal ceremonial etc.
The small and medium states did not enjoy such rights, and failure to follow
these ceremonial rules often caused tensions between states.[iii]
A stage with a significant
importance in encoding the principle of sovereign equality is the adoption in
1945 of the UN Charter. The principle of sovereign equality of the states is
enshrined in art. 2 of the UN Charter, which stipulates that "the United
Nations is based on the sovereign equality of all its members". According
to the principle of sovereign equality of the states, in the sense of the
Conference from San Francisco,
de jure equality of the states does
not depend on de facto power, size of territory, population or socioeconomic
factors or policies. Being sovereign, states are equal and independent members
of the international community. States, as subjects of international law with
equal rights, possess the same rights and obligations under international law
and are bound by international law equally. As part of the principle of
sovereign equality of states, sovereignty has succeeded, after long efforts of
the international community, to remove certain forms of state dependency, such
as vassalage, protectorate orothers and to establish relations between states
based on independence and equality. Thus, sovereignty is the basis of sovereign
equality of states. In turn, respect for the sovereign equality of states
contributes to the recognition and establishment of state sovereignty in
international law. [iv]
The
concept of sovereignty is important in international relations as it defines
the relationship between states. The very notion of the State has these
essential components:
(a) a permanent population,
(b) a defined territory,
(c) government, and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with other States[v]
(a) a permanent population,
(b) a defined territory,
(c) government, and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with other States[v]
This is evidenced in the actual
state of the international community: sovereign States generally refrain from
interfering in the domestic affairs of the others. Whatever political regime
and social institutions a State may have is a matter for it within its own
territorial limits.[vi]
As established so far, from the
perspective of international law all states are sovereign and enjoy equal
rights. In this way, at least at a declarative level, any state may participate
in the plane of international affairs on an equal footing, conclude treaties on
the basis of freely given consent, exclude other states from intervening in its
internal affairs, govern the state territory and control the borders.[vii]However
if we carefully study the behavior of states in international relations we can
observe that, in reality, not all states demonstrate the same degree of
sovereignty. In practice, countries with strong domestic institutions,
developed and with a dominant position, are those who enjoy absolute
sovereignty behavior, and in this regard, some states are "more sovereign
than others".This is because not all states are able to exercise all their
rights as derived from the concept of sovereignty, like Stephen Krasner and
Robert Jackson, had suggested.[viii]
SOVEREIGNTY OF STATES IN THE 21ST
CENTURY
Hitherto,
the major actors in international law and relationship were just states. But we
now have non-state actors who play and important role in the international
relations. “Matters which had formerly been considered indispensable exclusive
State functions are presently accomplished by virtue of international
cooperation in its various instrumental modes and forms (international
organizations; multilateral instruments; integrated communities).”[ix]
Additionally, non-State actors, for
example, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or even terrorists have a
growing, or in-negligible, place in the international community and
international law today. If non-State actors have such growing importance,
State sovereignty may logically be so much declining in importance.
Given the emergence of a whole range
of transborder issues from economic globalization to the environment to
terrorism, one of the key discussions surrounds whether the nation-state is
obsolete as the best form of political organization to deal with these problems.
Economic and social processes increasingly fail to conform to nation-state
borders, making it increasingly difficult for states to control their
territory, a central component of sovereignty. This raises important questions
about the proper site of political authority. As governance structures are
established at the global level to deal with the growing number of global
problems, debate has ensued as to how to make these arrangements accountable
and democratic.
Many organizations are state-based,
such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, or the European
Union. Therefore, in principle, states are firmly in control and any ceding of
sovereign authority is in their interest to do so. However, bureaucracies, once
established, often seek to carve out additional authority for themselves.
States also may find functional benefit in ceding authority to supranational
organizations.
What is more, a whole range of
private organizations have emerged to infringe on sovereign authority as well.
In addition to human rights NGOs discussed
above, global civil society
organizations have emerged around numerous issues. Civil society groups have
had a growing, yet uneven, effect on nation-states and international organizations. In addition, as economic interdependence grows, private
governance arrangements, such as the Bank for International Settlements, are also
becoming more prevalent. Private security organizations even conduct war on
behalf of states, whether as mercenaries in western African civil wars or as
contractors to the US military around the world.
Together all of this suggests that
the concept of sovereignty is under considerable pressure. Some aspects of
sovereignty still exist and are honored in most circumstances, but many inroads
are being made into state authority by many actors in many different
circumstances. Where this will lead has yet to be determined.[x]
According to Stephen D. Krasner[xi]
Sovereignty was never quite as
vibrant as many contemporary observers suggest. The conventional norms of
sovereignty have always been challenged. A few states notably the United
States, have had autonomy, control, and recognition for most of their
existence, but most others have not. The polities of many weaker states have
been persistently penetrated, and stronger nations have not been immune to
external influence. China was occupied. The constitutional arrangements of
Japan and Germany were directed by the United States after World War II. The
United Kingdom, despite its rejection of the euro, is part of the European
Union.
Stephen Taylor in the summary of his work “Erosion
of National Sovereignty by 21st Century Technology”[xii]
“There
appears to be two threats to the sovereignty of nations that arise from the
Internet, Cyberspace, and e-commerce. First, through their desire to
participate in the new world economy via the Internet and international
telecommunications systems, nations must agree to and adopt international laws
and regulations that in essence usurp their individual control and sovereignty.
In this case, they have decided and agreed to negotiate away some degree of
their sovereignty.
Second,
governments are concerned about the loss of their "informational
sovereignty", as the technology of worldwide interconnection becomes
prolific, the ability to monitor, control, or stop any individual communication
becomes exceedingly difficult.21 There appears little doubt that sovereignty,
as we know it today, will be diminished, and with it the centralized control
and power of governments.”
[i] Brahm, Eric.
"Sovereignty." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and
Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado,
Boulder. Posted: September 2004 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/sovereignty>.
[ii] D. Popescu,Drept Internațional Public, „Titu Maiorescu”
University Publishing House, 2005, p. 55.
[iii] I.- M. Anghel, Drept diplomatic şi consular, Lumina Lex
Publishing House, Bucharest, 1996, p. 45.
iv Nicu-Răzvan Dobârceanu, Vlad Alexandru Voicescu. Sovereignty and integration in modern era. Perspectives. International Journal of Law and Jurisprudence Online Semiannually Publication published by Union of Jurists of Romania and Universul Juridic Publishing House e-ISSN 2246-9435
[vi] Sovereignty and International Law by MIYOSHI Masahiro
Professor Emeritus of International Law Aichi University, Japan @ page 4
[vii] N.- Q. Dinh, Droit International Public, 8th
edition, LGDJ, Paris, 2002, p. 472.
[viii] R.- H. Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International
Relations, and the Third World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993,
pp. 22-23
[ix] steinberger, Helmut, “Sovereignty”, in Bernhardt, R. (ed.),
Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. IV (Amsterdam, etc.: Elsvier,
2000), at 511
[x]
Brahm, Eric, supra
[xii]
Stephen Taylor in the
summary of his work “Erosion of National Sovereignty by 21st
Century Technology” 2003
International-Business-Center.com
