Sovereignty essay

A governing body is said to be sovereign when it has complete control over its operations and is not subject to intervention from other entities or sources (Anghie, 2007). Political authority is a formal designation of supreme power within a particular polity. It is clear that sovereignty can take on various forms, including interdependence sovereignty, home sovereignty, and international legal sovereignty, when considering it in the context of postcolonial political and social movements. The method to sovereignty that is most frequently used is called domestic sovereignty, in which the actual state’s control is exerted by a body or an authority that is set up within its provinces. In some scenarios, if there is a presumption that there is an existence of borders separating states, the actual control of movements across the borders is what is termed as interdependence sovereignty. Lastly, when a state needs to be or is already recognized by other sovereign states, then this type of sovereignty is known as international legal sovereignty.

From an anthropological view point one can clearly state that sovereignty has something to do with de facto sovereignty. This is meant to mean that the authority is given the authority to not only punish, kill or discipline but also bear the monopoly to determine who ought to be excluded or included from the political fraternity. That notwithstanding the monopoly grants those in power to determine what normal life, security or order is made up of and the measures that ought to be undertaken in their restoration in the event the principles come under threat. It is based on this one can therefore say that the administrative affairs decentralization can result to the judicial authority fragmentation coupled with the application of de facto on customary law. It is important to note that despite the fact legal sovereignty is in many cases an unattainable ideal, it specifically becomes tenuous in those post-colonial societies where the local authorities were the custodians of sovereign power. Therefore based on the fact that legal pluralism has become embedded in the political landscape then this means that the de facto deferred sovereignty cannot be termed as being illegal.

In the current postcolonial dispensation of many political outfits, these aspects of sovereignty always fail in one way or another to appear at a go. There are examples of states that were perceived to be sovereign in one dimension and fall short in another segment of sovereignty. Noteworthy, sovereignty must be recognized by others for it to have any meaning. More than anything else of legitimacy, the concept of sovereignty requires a reciprocal recognition. Before looking at the relationship between the concept of sovereignty to justice and development in a given postcolonial environment, this paper shall begin by looking at its historical development to interrogate how it was distributed among many forms of local authority.

Historical Development

The concept of sovereign states was not used in the arrangement of states in the international system. In the middle ages, Europe was under the governance of alternative feudal arrangements whereas city states lasted until the recent modern period (Moreton-Robinson, 2007). The sovereign states system developed in Europe in 1648 during the Peace of Westphalia, an agreement which allowed the ruler to determine the religion that is located within his borders and also represented both the external and the internal aspects of sovereignty. From the fifteenth through to the nineteenth centuries, the period which Europe had begun colonizing much of countries in the rest of the world, the system of state sovereignty spread across the universe. During that time, non-Europeans didn’t experience the touch of sovereign authorities as it did not extend to them. Nonetheless, the drawing of boundaries to give a clear demarcation of borders would later become a critical point for defining sovereign states in the postcolonial zeitgeist after the process of decolonization.

The second movement of sovereignty started after the Second World War and stretches to the present. A bigger chunk of international law that existed prior to the Second World War was designed to reinforce sovereignty. Later on in the years, the international society started a series of agreements within the parenthesis of the United Nations that implored states to ensure the protection of human rights of their own citizens, which is a restriction to the authority whited by a state, as a consequence of what had been seen during the Nazi killings and the Nuremberg war criminals tribunal (Milward, 2007). There was a proliferation of nongovernmental organizations after the Second World War whose main objective was to aid in the governance of relations between states in different areas such as trade, policies, and security.

At this time, most countries of the non-western world gained independence. As a consequence, a scenario resulted whereby some nations were not fully sovereign. The states that were granted independence and recognized as being sovereign joined the intergovernmental organizations and were considered equals to states from Europe. However, some countries were left with uncertainty pertaining to their sovereignty. For instance, there was a lack of capacity to rule in some countries as a result of borders that were drawn arbitrarily which left some groups rebellious when it came to providing their governments with supreme authority. In the current dispensation, sovereignty is widely acclaimed to borders and not necessarily on the capacity on the part of governments. The methodology was adopted to hasten the decolonization process of many colonies so that they can quickly become independent (Wotipka & Kiyoteru, 2008).

Sovereignty in Cultural Anthropology

Since the rise of the focus towards globalization, the field of cultural anthropology has considered sovereignty in new ways. There has been a growth on the work of anthropology of states since the 1990s. Such researches have become fundamental to the discipline of cultural anthropology as it has managed to unseat some of the anthropology studies such as political anthropology which was conventional during that time as it basically focused on the rational modes of authority and power. There has been a departure from the historical focus on kingship and social structures of hierarchy, especially when the twenty first century dawned. The anthropological study of political authority shifted from the said social structures, and it is now concentrating on the formation of modern government forms, state authority and the modern management of bodies such as the population through having a discourse on subjects such as health, security, and Science (Farquhar & Qicheng, 2005). The historical knowledge of state sovereignty is perceived to have fallen short of getting to appreciate and comprehend the tumultuous birth of new states across the global and more so the birth and the growth of state sovereignty in the postcolonial environment. Anthropologists are also uniquely equipped to study the historical layers of authority that are rather complicated and theorize them.

According to Thomas Blom, whom this study shall interrogate his approach, sovereignty has returned as a central concern in anthropology in a form that is reinvented and one that seeks to go above the de facto sovereignty by looking at it as a tentative and a form of authority that keeps emerging based on violence (Hansen, 2009). The works of Thomas Blom extrapolates how classical works that were based on kingship failed to give an adequate mechanism to comprehend the political imagination of a postcolonial world. He states that in as much as it is not possible to attain an effective legal sovereignty, it is of less importance in quite a number of postcolonial states such as Somalia where initially the sovereign power was distributed among many forms of local authority. Thomas Blom and Finn also emphasize on studies about informal sovereignties such as insurgents and vigilante groups as the market forces relationship that serve to reconfigure the sovereign power is traced. In conformity to the approach by Blom and Finn, the subsequent part of this research will focus on the modern trends in state sovereignty in postcolonial environment. In doing so, the paper shall focus on the concepts of supranational institutions, economic globalization and human rights

Contemporary Challenges

The threats to the sovereignty of the state can be categorized into three key elements. The areas include the economic globalization, the rise of human rights, and lastly the growth of supranational institutions (Ong, 2006). The authority of governments to act within their own boarders has been widely affected by the emergence of human rights as a subject of concern in the sphere of international law. As the free flow of capital increases, and the multinational corporations grow, the ability of states in the postcolonial era to register a direct economic development and establishing an economic policy have been constrained. Additionally, supranational institutions have emerged to facilitate and limit the more troubling effects of direct economic development. They act as a source of authority to place limits on the sovereignty of a state. A good case in point is the recent situation in Iraq and Afghanistan that depicts how sovereignty will further be constrained in the quest to wage war against transnational terrorism (Venn, 2006).

For many countries in the postcolonial environment, economic globalization has been placing significant limits on them. Majority of state actions within their sovereignty has been constrained by the growth of multilateral institutions that manage the global economy. Most states in the postcolonial environment have been forced to pursue a neoliberal model due to the increased mobility of capital. Moreover, the as global competition intensifies; governments have experienced the constraining of their spending and collection of revenue.

The Protection of Human Rights and justice

The UN charter after the cold war contains contradictions that are troublesome. It contains a defense of the integrity of the territory of states which was as a result to a reaction of the Second World War Nazi Aggression. Similarly, there exists in the same charter a commitment to the human rights of the individuals and the rights of groups to self-determination (Xanthaki, 2007). There have been different conventions such as the one for genocide and torture that exists to restrict the behavior of a state within its borders. There has also been the growth of the human rights law that has existed to limit the conception of the sovereignty of a state through the provision to the individuals of their rights with regards to the state. However, there was a breach of justice during the era of cold war to countries like Somalia and Mozambique which sank to civil war as the rivalry between the United States and Soviet Union caused paralysis to the Security Council since it rarely acted on the human rights principles set in the UN charter.

Many non-governmental organizations developed in the 1960s and 70s with the main objective of fighting for the human rights cause. There have been groups such as human rights watch and Amnesty international which have served as watchdogs in publicizing the records of human rights for governments. This, in a way has acted to limit the action of states. At times, the publicity from these two bodies has been sufficient to alter the behavior of countries that are rather perceived to be sovereign. During the period in the 1990s, the security council of the United Nations embarked on mechanisms of interpreting the UN charter in a manner that favored human rights over the state sovereignty protection.

If democracy can be measured based on justice and development, it is clear that a country like India has completely failed. In India the constitution establishes a parliamentary system where the major rule. That notwithstanding the constitution has allowed for the decentralization of power and judicial independence. One of the areas that can be termed as a success is voting rights which are conferred to the population, the rest of aspects that are a mark of democracy have completely not been embraced in this country. It is certain to note that a common man in India lacks any role in policy formulation, evaluation or even implementation. An analysis of the political structure in this country one can deduce the presence of an authoritative structure while the government disguises as a democracy. One can clearly note that the masses that fought for freedom were not made custodians or shareholders of that freedom. One of the major causes of failure in India arises from the fact that it only takes into account its political meaning and completely alienates the social and economic dimensions to great extents.

It is important to note that democracy ought to incorporate three dimensions which are democracy, justice and development. It therefore implies that for it to exist then there needs to be equality and political liberty. It is also incomplete to note that a country is democratic if there is no social and economic liberty. The aforementioned elements are critical in the achievement of development and justice. The Indian constitution put justice as the main goal and reason why it embraced democracy. However it is vital to highlight that there is little mention of development. This is based on the assumption that development is the ways that the country will employ in ensuring that justice is attained. Ultimately what needs to be deduced is that democracy is a vehicle that leads to development and the latter bringing about justice. However one of the main measures to evaluate if justice is upheld in India is the implementation of land reforms. The former Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru is prime example of a leader that failed to implement land reforms, one of those issues that has dogged India for ages. The interest of the peasants has completely been shadowed by the rich who have utilized the instruments of power such as parliament in ensuring that their interests are protected. It is evident that the path to development in India has completely been corrupted as there has been unequal development which can be reflected in the unemployment rates, high poverty levels and poor living standards for the majority.

Supranational Organizations in the Postcolonial Environment

There has been a discussion as to whether having a nation state has become obsolete as a means of political organization to deal with the challenges of trans boarder issues such as environment, terrorism and economic globalization (Sandholtz & Alec, 2010). It has become difficult for nations in a postcolonial environment, specifically those in Africa to control a major component of their sovereignty, which is their territories, because of the prevailing economic and social processes which have constantly resulted to the failure of boarders between nation states. The circumstances have raised many questions about the most appropriate place of political authority in those states. Governance structures have been established at the global level resulting to a major effect towards the sovereignty and democratic processes of a nation.

Conclusion

Many private organizations have emerged and they have brought about the infringement of the sovereignty of most postcolonial states such as Libya and Venezuela. Apart from human rights non-governmental organizations, so many global civil society organizations have also come into existence on a myriad of issues. Together, the above scenarios explain how the concept of sovereignty has been under a considerable pressure from different quotas as it has attempted to promote justice within the territory and also ensure development. Very many aspects of sovereignty are still in existence and are honored. However, a considerable amount of inroads have been made into the authority of a majority of states that are surviving in a postcolonial environment in many different ways, resulting to an interference in the working of a state within its territory.

Reference

Anghie, A. (2007). Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law. Cambridge University Press.

Farquhar, J., & Qicheng, Z. (2005). Biopolitical Beijing: Pleasure, Sovereignty, and Self‐Cultivation in China’s Capital. Cultural Anthropology , 303-307.

Hansen, T. B. (2009). Sovereign bodies: Citizens, migrants, and states in the postcolonial world. . Princeton University Press.

Milward, A. (2007). The frontier of national sovereignty: history and theory 1945-1992. Routledge.

Moreton-Robinson, A. (2007). Sovereign subjects: Indigenous sovereignty matters. Allen & Unwin.

Ong, A. (2006). Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sovereignty. Duke University Press.

Sandholtz, W., & Alec, S. S. (2010). Neo-functionalism and supranational governance.“. The Oxford Handbook of the European Union., 56-98.

Venn, C. (2006). The postcolonial challenge: Towards alternative worlds. sage.

Wotipka, C. M., & Kiyoteru, T. (2008). Global human rights and state sovereignty: state ratification of international human rights treaties, 1965–2001. Sociological Forum, 724-754.

Xanthaki, A. (2007). Indigenous rights and United Nations standards: self-determination, culture and land. Vol. 52. Cambridge University Press.