Sovereignty

Before exploring possible conceptions of sovereignty, it is important to clarify the terminology related to the sovereign areas that we will be referring to. In particular, a state often differs from a nation. Recall that a nation is more of a cultural and ethnic concept. It refers to a group of people who share common cultural elements such as language, religion, history, traditions, and often a common ethnic origin. A nation does not necessarily have political or geographic boundaries and often evokes a sense of belonging and community among its members. A good example of a nation that is not a recognized state is the Kurds, who span several countries in the Middle East. Note that not all states are composed of a single nation (like Canada, a multicultural state with multiple national identities).

On the other hand, a state (often called a country) refers to a political entity characterized by a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the ability to enter into relations with other states. It's a legal and political organization with sovereignty over its internal and external affairs. States are recognized as such in the international system, and their boundaries and governance structures are defined by international law.

Let's pause here to consider notions of nationalism: both the positive and the negative.

Go to this webpage and respond to the following guiding questions:

As we consider some of the challenges to sovereignty, let's start with the following introductory video:

Answer these guiding questions as you watch the video:

Guiding Questions

1. How does sovereignty define the role and authority of states within their borders?
2. How did the emergence of the concept of sovereignty about four centuries ago change the nature of international conflict and relations?
3. In what ways has sovereignty been challenged recently?
4. How does the 'responsibility to protect' doctrine challenge the traditional concept of sovereignty and
5. What are the implications of this challenge for international relations?

Is Sovereignty Absolute? 

Sovereignty is generally viewed as being almost, but not completely, absolute. A continuing discussion revolves around the issue of whether there should be justifiable reasons for intervening in another country's domestic affairs, possibly even using military force. One such reason might be to halt genocide. Central to the debate is whether the concept of international order should go beyond simply governing relationships between states and consider the internal activities within states.

Recently, there's been a move towards rethinking the balance between the state's authority and individual citizens' rights. According to this perspective, sovereignty is an agreement between the government, its populace, and other states. If a government fails to meet its obligations, it may lose certain privileges traditionally associated with sovereignty. One such privilege is the general expectation of non-interference in its internal affairs. 

Responsibility to Protect

An explicit call to revise the concept of sovereignty to allow for internationally sanctioned intervention arose with The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a document written and produced in 2001 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, a commission that the Government of Canada convened at the request of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

R2P proposes revising the concept of non-interference. As described above, sovereignty involves a “responsibility to protect” on the part of a state towards its own citizens, a responsibility that outsiders may assume when a state perpetrates massive injustice or cannot protect its own citizens. This framework lays the groundwork for external interventions—whether through diplomatic dialogue, economic sanctions, or even military action—when a state commits or fails to prevent large-scale human rights abuses within its borders. Responsibility to Protect has garnered wide international attention and highlights how sovereignty is not absolute and can be conditional upon outside obligations.

In real-world scenarios, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine hasn't succeeded as hoped. For example, the U.S. and NATO used R2P as the reason for intervening in Libya in 2011. However, countries like China and Russia grew skeptical when the mission, which started as a humanitarian effort, seemed to evolve into an attempt to remove the existing government. Implementing R2P can also be extremely challenging and expensive, which may be why global action was limited when around 500,000 Syrians died during the civil war. Most of the population was displaced due to a conflict largely fueled by its own government. Additionally, countries shy away from making exceptions to the principle of complete sovereignty. They worry that this could set a precedent limiting their freedom to act within their borders.

The following summarizes the core principles of responsibility to protect:

• Responsibility to protect: States have the primary responsibility to protect their citizens from mass atrocities, such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. If a state is unable or unwilling to protect its people, the international community has a responsibility to intervene.
• Responsibility to respect: States should respect the human rights and dignity of their citizens, including the rights to life, liberty, and security. This also means that states should not engage in or support activities that violate these rights.
• Responsibility to prevent: States should actively work to prevent conflicts and crises that could lead to mass atrocities or human rights abuses within their borders and in the wider international community.
• Responsibility to act: States should take appropriate actions, individually or collectively, to address situations that threaten peace, security, or the well-being of their citizens or the global community.

Responsible Sovereignty

Responsible Sovereignty emphasizes the importance of states being not only sovereign but also responsible for the welfare of their citizens and the impact of their actions on the global community. This idea challenges the traditional notion of sovereignty, which primarily focuses on the authority and independence of states. Responsible sovereignty goes beyond this by stressing the need for states to be domestically and internationally accountable for their actions and policies.

The former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, introduced responsible sovereignty in his 1999 speech to the General Assembly. The idea behind responsible sovereignty is that sovereignty is not an absolute right but rather a responsibility that states have to their citizens and the international community.

Annan argued that in today's world, where issues such as terrorism, environmental degradation, and human rights violations can have global consequences, states cannot simply act in their own self-interest without regard for the impact of their actions on others. Instead, states have a responsibility to exercise their sovereignty in a way that considers the needs and interests of others and contributes to the collective good.

According to Annan, responsible sovereignty involves three main principles: first, states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from harm; second, states have a responsibility to respect the sovereignty of other states; and third, states have a responsibility to cooperate with each other to address global challenges. However, some argue that the notion of responsible sovereignty places too much emphasis on state responsibility and not enough on individual rights and freedoms.

Pooled Sovereignty

A way in which sovereignty has been seen to be challenged is through European integration. European integration began in 1950 when six states formed the European Coal and Steel Community in the Treaty of Paris. The community established joint international authority over these six countries' coal and steel industries. This same model was expanded to a general economic zone in the Treaty of Rome in 1957. A judicial body further enhanced it, the European Court of Justice, and a legislature, the European Parliament, a directly elected Europe-wide legislature. European integration has widened, as the institution now consists of twenty-seven members. It deepened with the 1991 Maastricht Treaty, which expanded the institution’s powers and reconfigured it as the European Union.

Far from replacing states, the European Union “pools” important aspects of their sovereignty into a “supranational” institution in which their freedom of action is constrained. European Union states are no longer absolutely sovereign. In recent years, European integration has continued to advance in important respects. On December 1, 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon came into full force, pooling sovereignty further by strengthening the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, creating a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to represent a unified European Union position, and making the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Human Rights legally binding.

However, strains on European integration have also emerged in recent years. A treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was signed by the European Union’s member states in 2004, but referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005 rejected it and prevented its ratification. Then, in 2016, a referendum in the United Kingdom resulted in a victory for the U.K.’s withdrawal from the European Union, popularly known as “Brexit.”

A similar situation exists within the World Trade Organization. In these cases, countries believe they're better off participating in collective decision-making, even if they don't agree with every decision. Importantly, as was demonstrated by Brexit, this sharing of sovereignty is partial and voluntary and can be reversed if necessary.

To learn more about the European Union, click on this link and answer the following guiding questions:

Guiding Questions

1. In what way is some limited sovereignty given up when countries agree join the UN or WTO?
2. What are the four freedoms of the EU single market?
3. Describe the three benefits for countries that are part of the EU.
4. What are three drawbacks of being involved in the EU?

Challenges by Nonstate Actors

Sovereignty might also be called into question if a government lets a terrorist organization operate within its borders. It can't expect other countries to respect its sovereignty if they allow these aggressive, sovereignty-violating activities to occur within their borders. This was the situation with Afghanistan, led by the Taliban, which allowed al-Qaeda to plan the 9/11 attacks on U.S. soil. When one country violates another's sovereignty—whether through military invasion or cyberattacks—it opens the door for some form of retaliation by the victim country.

It's important to note that sovereign states aren't the only players in global politics. There are corporations and NGOs like Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, Greenpeace, foundations, journalists, religious leaders, local politicians, and global and regional organizations. There are also actors like terrorists, drug cartels, and pirates. While countries generally have more power and influence, they're not alone in impacting global events. They can't always stop other actors from making their presence felt. This makes the world less of a place where state sovereignty is an absolute reality and more of a place where it's a guiding principle.

The current realities of global politics have challenged the notion of national sovereignty. With increased economic integration and interconnectivity, a policy of isolationism is a non-starter today. Furthermore, the increasingly detrimental human impact on the environment, which does not recognize borders, will continue challenging notions of sovereignty.

Most states have attempted to address challenges to their sovereignty by entering into mutual agreements. Furthermore, they have used agreements to further their economies and to benefit the world more broadly. However, these agreements also seem to represent a loss of sovereignty. They usually involve states tying themselves to agreements that may partially result in losing control of their decision-making capabilities. This is not to say that these agreements may not be in a state's best interests, but they may be for a state to do something they may not want to do and, therefore, chip away at a small piece of a state’s sovereignty. 

Economic Influence on Sovereignty

In today's world, economic factors often interfere with a country's operations. This is particularly true for poorer countries when wealthier countries influence them. When a country is much weaker economically than others, it raises a question: Can it still be considered legally sovereign and equal to other countries? Extreme economic differences and the pressure they create can limit a country's legal sovereignty. If a country is economically weak, it might be forced to make decisions not because it wants to but because of the pressure from more powerful countries. Think of it like personal freedom. Normally, your choices are your own, even if others influence them. But if someone forces you to choose (like a robber saying "your money or your life"), you're not really free in your decision. Similarly, if a country is under too much economic pressure, its ability to make free legal decisions is compromised, just like your freedom in the face of coercion. So, while all countries have legal sovereignty, the reality is that economic power can heavily influence the decisions of economically weaker countries, challenging their ability to make truly independent choices.

International Law and Sovereignty

International law has grown alongside increased global economic integration, affecting states' independence. It's used by states to manage the impact of outside interference. By agreeing to international laws, states voluntarily accept certain restrictions to avoid greater negative impacts from actions they can't control. This seems to challenge the idea of a state's complete legal freedom (legal sovereignty).

However, some argue that international law doesn’t conflict with a state's legal sovereignty. International law differs from local law because it's only binding when states agree to it. So, when a state agrees to international law, it’s actually exercising its sovereignty. 

International law enforcement comes through pressure from other states or groups, not through a single powerful authority. If a state breaks an international agreement, it might face consequences like reprisals from other states, but these are not as forceful as legal penalties within a country. This pressure is a way for other countries to influence the state.

Even with international agreements, a state still has legal independence because it chooses to comply with the law. While there can be significant consequences for not following international agreements, these are not usually forceful enough to make a state lose its legal independence. However, if international law becomes extensive and the consequences of not following it become severe, then a state's legal sovereignty might be threatened. But we're not at that point yet.

In summary, while international law does place some limits on states, it's generally seen as a way for states to exercise their sovereignty rather than lose it. Compliance is mostly voluntary, and the consequences for not following international laws are usually less severe than domestic legal penalties, keeping a state's legal independence intact.

The Future of Sovereignty

Today, the world is deeply interconnected, with vast amounts of money, goods, and people moving across international borders yearly. Local issues have become global, exemplified by climate change, where the greenhouse gas emissions of one nation can pose a global threat. In this era, there's a growing debate among experts about whether the traditional concept of sovereignty is still relevant. They're considering if there's a need for a new definition of sovereignty, where governments are responsible not just for their own citizens but also for the impact of their actions on people in other countries.

Sovereignty is further questioned by the rise of entities other than states, like non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, terrorist organizations, and inter-governmental organizations. However, most of these groups don't have the same level of power as states. Furthermore, only a few see themselves as directly challenging state sovereignty. While some terrorist groups aim to challenge state power to establish a new state or radically change an existing one to suit their goals, most of these groups recognize the importance of working within state frameworks and influencing state policies to achieve their objectives.

Sources:

• The State and Sovereignty by Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd
• Introduction to Global Politics by Steven Lamy et al.
• A Puzzle of Sovereignty by Steven Lee
• The World by Richard Haass
• The Stanford Encyclopedia

Challenges to Sovereignty: Concluding Reading and Video

As we conclude our consideration of the challenges traditional sovereignty faces, watch the following video and complete the reading along with the guiding questions.

Complete the following questions as you read through the sections of the reading on sovereignty.

1. How does the desire for agency and independence in humans relate to the concept of sovereignty in states?
2. What is the difference between a state and a nation? Provide an example to support your explanation.
3. Explain the three central aspects of sovereignty.
4. Barnett, Brown, Lunch and Telhami wrote in Foreign Affairs (May/June 2023) that "the state and sovereignty are not the same. The state is defined by what it controls, whereas sovereignty depends on other states recognizing the legality of that control." How might you respond to this claim when considering internal and external sovereignty?
5. Compare and contrast the Declarative Theory and the Constitutive Theory of Statehood. Why might a territory like Palestine meet the criteria for statehood under the Declarative Theory but not be considered a sovereign state?
6. What role might the United Nations' procedures for membership play in nations achieving statehood?
7. Define self-determination and explain its importance in global politics.
8. How can economic factors from wealthier countries affect the sovereignty of poorer countries?
9. Explain how nonstate actors can challenge the sovereignty of states.
10. How does international law challenge and uphold state sovereignty simultaneously?
11. How can a state's participation in international law be seen as an exercise of its sovereignty?
12. Explain how globalization and environmental issues are reshaping the concept of sovereignty.
13. What are the roles of NGOs, MNCs, and IGOs in challenging the traditional concept of state sovereignty?
14. Explain the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept and its implications for state sovereignty.
15. Discuss Kofi Annan's principles of responsible sovereignty and their relevance to our discussion of sovereignty.
16. Describe how European integration challenges the traditional notion of state sovereignty.