The Arguments for and against the idea of state sovereignty

The concept of freedom is one of the most contentious political positions in the current global system. Varying researchers have different perspectives on this subject, but the general consensus is that autonomy is a stance that is being challenged by globalization. As a result, the concept has become one of the most contested questions in international relations and law. One of the basic tenets of this development is thought to have originated with the Treaty of Westphalia. In the present system, sovereignty faces challenges from the globalization of commerce, internal and external disagreements within independent states, technological innovations, and international law. Besides, this idea is further complicated by interventions from multinational agencies like the United Nations (UN) while running its activities across globally. In the traditional setting, sovereignty refers to the absolute independence of a state (country) from other states and the superiority of its laws to international legislation. The paper will capture the arguments for and against sovereignty as espoused by classical realist scholars, neo-realists, and realists.

Krasner (2004), classified the concept of sovereignty into four: interdependence, domestic, Westphalian, and international legal autonomy. Krasner postulated that Westphalian and global legal sovereignty entails elements of legitimacy and authority but not control. Worldwide judicial supremacy is the recognition of the sovereignty accorded to a particular territory with jurisdictional independence. Westphalian freedom is about the exclusion of external factors which might influence the harmony or the smooth functioning of an independent state. On the other hand, domestic captures the control and authority which is free from external influence on the running of activities of a sovereign country. While independent sovereignty concerns itself with power but not the body; the state can manage the movement of individuals across its national borders (Krasner 2004, p. 86).

Aristotle states the term sovereignty has several meanings. The supremacy of the constitution offers a relationship between the government and the law. Besides, Aristotle postulates that the law must have powers. Otherwise, it is not a law; it must be binding, and all people holding influential positions in government must respect it and make decisions based on its provisions (Krasner 2004, p. 86).

The perception of sovereignty is one of the profound pillars of the international framework. Some academics hold that the current trends of the international setup like globalization profoundly contribute to the erosion of sovereignty. Other scholars maintain that the most significant challenge to sovereignty notion arises from the duty to safeguard global human rights (Krasner 2004, p. 86). The issue of human rights tends to oppose the idea of sovereignty. For instance, Krasner holds that the quest to uphold human rights erodes the general provisions of independence thus leading to the view that the two are irreconcilable and in opposition to one another. The linkage between human rights and sovereignty stand on zero-sum perspectives, that is, when the element of independence is stronger, human rights provisions are weak, and the opposite is true (Krasner 2004, p. 86).

Several interventions took place after the conclusion of the cold war. The response in this context refers to aggressive military intrusion in the affairs of an independent country compelled by the need to protect the welfare of human beings, especially during war. Around the 1990s, several military actions took place and were justified by humanitarian provisions (Wheeler and Morris 1996, p. 199). The increased frequency of permissibility and independent states interruptions escalated after the conclusion of the cold war thus pointing out the beginning of evolution and change of the notion of sovereignty. However, it is not easy to tell when the characteristics of freedom changed but it is evident that it has tremendously evolved. But it is possible to postulate that the growth of interventions on humanitarian grounds in the 1990s marked the start of this change (Wheeler and Morris 1996, p. 199).

The Westphalian Sovereign perspective

Under this view, Glanville (2006) postulated that sovereignty begun around the 17th century and from then till this day, states have enjoyed the unbound rights for self-governance, freedom, and freedom from intervention in the running of their internal affairs. The tale of sovereignty provides that independent countries enjoy absolute rights to zero intervention and interference and the free will to exercise self-governance. Even though it is difficult to prove whether this notion out rightly existed, it raises essential points subject to discussion. In the absence of this ideal and the rights advances to states, it is impossible to determine whether there is the violation of sovereignty through the acts of intervention. Besides, the view plays a crucial role in establishing the point of view which posits that states have a right to whatever they deem right within its boundaries with no interference (Glanville 2006, p. 155).

Debunking the perspective

It is not easy to just cast away the Westphalia myth. However, the limitations of the Westphalian view come in three accounts. First, sovereign powers have never existed without check. Secondly, the non-interference never began during the Westphalian era, and the notion does not reflect reality because of the regular cases of intervention witnessed every single year (Philopot 1996, p. 37). The perspective of non-intervention connected with non-intervention was written down at a later date at the middle of the 18th century. Thus, this erodes the standpoint that in the development of sovereignty one can overlook up to three hundred years without neglecting some critical changes (Philopot 1996, p. 37).

Further, the level at which the traditional perspective existed, especially the non-interruption element is subject to debate. It is difficult to establish whether it lived and worked out on the international stage. The principles underpinning the international law and Westphalian sovereignty are often breached; thus providing proof of the non-existence of the Westphalian view (Philopot 1996, p. 39). The consistent violation of the Westphalian ideal makes Krasner (2004) concludes that it is just a form of hypocrisy because people vividly comprehend their provisions but rarely respect them. Moreover, this standpoint regarding sovereignty appears static and relatively rigid because it looks at autonomy as constant with unchanging features, thus undermining the notion that it can evolve. Hence, for Krasner, sovereignty represents something which authorities can manipulate and therefore subject to violation by massive intrusions. Further, Glanville (2006) disregards the notion on the ground that the practicality of freedom did not match the standards of reality. Glanville also postulates that a sovereign power has often entailed growing responsibilities since its inception. He rejects the provision that sovereignty of states had perfect features and empowered countries with unbound powers and rights and privileges to act according to their wishes but offering a contrary argument that independence has always been under check.

The traditional idea of sovereignty

The general perspective on freedom holds that national sovereignty is that a country has supreme authority over its national boundaries and in the tenets of international law, these powers are unalienable. According to Jean Bodin, a French political philosopher and jurist, the initial understanding of the sovereignty, is that a country has an absolute capacity to legislate within its territory and there is no law-making body can overtake its powers. Further, Jean Bodin believes that sovereignty as the ultimate power within a country limitless unless by natural and laws of God. Also, Bodin postulate that history, culture, or identity describe a state but sovereignty must be part of its political framework (Deng 2010, p.355).

Nevertheless, Hobbes took the idea of sovereignty a bit further during the seventieth century and postulated that freedom had no limitation and overrode all social norms and beliefs including religion. In his famous writing, Leviathan, Hobbes holds that supreme powers to legislate within a polity should rest on the ruler (Deng 2010, p.355). Further, Deng 2010), holds that the binding and universal natural law is the primary origin of the international law. The secondary documents of transnational requirement with the approval of member states supplement the natural law.

Classical theory and state sovereignty

Two prime changes happened in the 18th century; the French and the industrial revolution-these changes brought forth massive changes in the concept of freedom. These evolutions transformed the economic framework on the global scale, marking the beginning of capitalism which eventually led to imperialism (Evans 2011, p.115). The advancement of imperialist ideas changed all aspects of the international order. Jean Jacques Rousseau developed the principle of popular sovereignty in third estate French uprising postulating that national sovereignty can is subject to change by taking into account the views of the people against the opinions of the rulers. Popular sovereignty was employed to contest or reinforce the power of the government by looking at the aspects of the people as a ‘nation.’ Thus in the case of the classical view, the international law is inferior to national law and a state has exclusive powers to execute its competencies freely (Evans 2011, p.115).

For many years, sovereignty connected with the head of a territory which carries his legitimacy and authority. As time went by the freedom of the rulers changed and they acquired their powers through the will of the people who elected the rulers and conferred them with the authorities to make decisions on their behalf. After the Second World War, sovereignty got its definition through the will of the people (Evans 2011, p.115). According to Saskia Sassen, while describing independence in the age of globalization states that the government acquires its legitimacy through the accord of the people. The human rights declaration of 1948, article 21(3) approved Sassen’s view in international law by stating that the will of the citizens confers a government its legitimate authority as expressed on a regular cycle of elections (Evans 2011, p.115). The past few decades have witnessed massive changes in the international framework, interstate, and between states associations in commercial activities, where globalization power these transactions. Thus, the evolving role of a country contributed to the conceptual transformation in the contemporary globalized world (Evans 2011, p.115).

Characteristics of sovereignty during the cold war

In the period of the cold war, the emphasis was non-interventionist connected with the territorial and political integrity of states. Many participants stood for a non-interruption conception. Nevertheless, the superpowers breached this notion and intervened in some events and occurrences in some independent countries.

During the cold war, people and international bodies viewed military interruption regardless of the underlying as an abuse of non-intervention laws. Morris and Wheeler elucidate three examples of intervention as the cold war was going on: Vietnam in the Cambodia case (1979), India’s interruption in Pakistan (1971), and Tanzania interference of Uganda’s political events (1978) (Evans 2011, p.115). International policy makers and opinion leaders regarded these acts as breaches of the provision of non-intervention. They hold that the global society chose to rebuke them of violations of non-interference laws. All the three interruptions were meant to subvert the genocide acts which took place in the three countries. However, many perceived them as the ultimate violation of the non-interventionist statist tradition (Evans 2011, p.115).

The rationale for each intervention case is justifiable on the grounds of self- protection and not on the humanitarian basis. For instance, India stated that it invades Pakistan to protect its territory and its people in response to Pakistan’s military and refuge aggression. However, the international community responded by condemning India’s acts and support for Pakistan’s right to non-intervention and sovereignty (Evans 2011, p.115). The example of India vs. Pakistan is a classic example of independence which took place in the wake of the cold war. Pakistan’s supremacy was paramount irrespective of its conduct, and India’s response was thus deemed abuse to the international law on sovereignty and the right for self-determination (Evans 2011, p.117).

Further, the responses accorded to Vietnam’s action in Cambodia reflects the power of the idea backing sovereignty clearing stating that it is sacrosanct and inviolable. Vietnam’s reaction dethroned a Cambodian regime which killed around one-sixth of its entire populace. Irrespective of these efforts, several countries in the UN Security Council convention condemned the act as illicit (Evans 2011, p.115). However, the argument provided was that Vietnam had disrespected the sovereignty of Cambodia regardless of the ills committed by the then administration. The support for Cambodia’s freedom, in this case, illustrates the perceptions of absolute sovereignty which maintains that the rules can work with impunity and get away with it because of the provisions of legal autonomy (Evans 2011, p.115).

Interruptions for the humanitarian course in the 1990s

The years around 1990 witnessed several interventions whose mission was the protection of people and their well-being. These altruistic acts took place in countries like the Balkans, Haiti, Somalia, and Iraq (Wheeler and Morris 1996, 200). These interventions were profound in many ways. For instance, they were backed up by pro-humanitarian courses, which represented a significant diversion from the cold war era. Besides, they were accorded extra attention because they were sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, thus heightening the level of activism in that period (Wheeler and Morris 1996, 200).

More attention was accorded to the 1991 happenings in North Iraq because it was the first case of intervention on humanitarian grounds and it highlights two critical issues of sovereignty. First, it revealed that a country or government could not brutalize its people without condemnation. Secondly, the quest for respect for human rights overrides sovereign powers. The UN sanctioned the response of the Iraq government’s brutality on its people following an anti-government uprising (Wheeler and Morris 1996, 200). The government repression resulted in massive loss of lives and massive displacement of people who later became refugees in neighboring countries. The political and media pressure forced the UN to act by providing humanitarian aid in the form of food and shelter, and the creation of safe havens. Hence, in this instance, the UN was justified to breach the provision for state sovereignty to safeguard lives (Wheeler and Morris 1996, 200).

Responsibility in sovereignty

The idea of duty in independence arose in response to the sufferings witnessed among internally displaced people (IDPs) around the year 1993. The rationale for this concept is that when people cross an international border as a result of a war, they get a refugee tag and are internationally recognized and thus given humanitarian assistance (Wheeler and Morris 1996, 200). But the IDPs find themselves in a vulnerable and compromising situation because they lack protection and risk attacks from their national government. IDPs could not get aid from the international community and other philanthropic bodies because of the sovereignty clause which bars the international community from reaching to these people (Wheeler and Morris 1996, 200). Therefore, the view of responsibility in sovereignty acknowledges that there are some responsibilities which must follow freedom. Through this, the international community cannot watch people suffer from exposure to adversities under the pretext of sovereignty. It cannot work out that way. In that instance, the government is compelled to offer security to her people and provide some basic necessities amidst difficulties. Besides, the international organizations must intervene and assist suffering citizens in case their governments fail or exert its influence to compel the respective states to assists its people (Wheeler and Morris 1996, 201).

Locke held different views from Hobbes mostly probably because he existed in the time the world was comparatively more peaceful than Hobbes’ time. Locke believed in the separation of power, judiciary, executive, and the legislature He did not acknowledge the existence of the absolute monarchy as the ideal structure of governing a country. John Locke believed in the superiority of the chamber over the executive or the monarchy. Nevertheless, he approved Hobbes notion on the social contract (Krasner 2004, p. 87). Locke postulated that the proper duty of the government was to safeguard liberty, life and the property of its subjects. He talked of the laws of nature and espoused that it was the role of the government to enact laws which protect property because inherently the natural laws do not protect property. Locke thought that man had a social contract with their sovereign authority to offer security for three inalienable natural rights; estate, liberty and life which are directly given by God. Further, he came up with the fourth privilege; the right to protest against oppressive laws and their legislators (Krasner 2004, p. 87).

How to account for the change in sovereignty

The conclusion of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union played a fundamental role in the facet of state supremacy. When the cold war was on-going, the bipolar tensions suppressed non-intervention and the provisions of the human rights. However, the end of the cold war brought massive changes. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the UN Security Council got the capacity to address the impasse between non-intervention and human rights (Krasner 2004, p. 87). The conclusion of the cold war appeared to bring liberation in the contradiction between the two opposing views as the growth of numerous activisms around the 1990s can evidence (Krasner 2004, p. 87). The cold war brought forth in legitimising cases of humanitarian intervention and hence offering a different meaning to sovereignty. Furthermore, escalated saliency on issues affecting human rights providing a vital influence going forward; it is clear that since the close of the cold was the quest for human rights become the dominant phrase in several forums. The massive abuse of human rights became of great concern to the international community, not just a simple issue affecting the national population (Krasner 2004, p. 87).

Conclusion

In conclusion, higher levels of intervention reveal that the conception of sovereignty is evolving. They prove that several cases of interference have taken place since the end of the cold war reinforces the perspective that there are massive changes in the idea of sovereignty. However, it appears that autonomy is an on-going process. It is noticeable that initially, freedom provided for strict respect to the affairs of the independent state irrespective of the atrocities it might commit to its people. Then, it developed and offered provisions for the international community to intervene and provide basic needs and protection if the country in question does not stand in a position of delivering such. In in the third place, the international society can interrupt the sovereignty of an independent nation by compelling it to provide the necessities and security for its people in the case of a compelling situation which risk their lives. The spread of human rights intercessions around the 1990s eroded the norm of sovereignty. Human rights evils perpetrated by political administrations could no longer regard as internal issues which the international community had no say about because of freedom instead changed and gave the foreign bodies and other independent bodies a chance to intervene when circumstances dictate.

References

Deng, F.M., 2010. From’Sovereignty as Responsibility’to the’Responsibility to Protect’. Global Responsibility to Protect, 2(4), pp.353-370.

Evans, G., 2011. Ethnopolitical Conflict: When is it Right to Intervene?. Ethnopolitics, 10(1), pp.115-123.

Glanville, L., 2006. Norms, interests and humanitarian intervention. Global Change, Peace & Security, 18(3), pp.153-171.

Krasner, S.D., 2004. Sharing sovereignty: New institutions for collapsed and failing states. International security, 29(2), pp.85-120.

Philpott, D., 1996. On the cusp of sovereignty: Lessons from the sixteenth century. Sovereignty at the Crossroads, pp.37-62.

Wheeler N.J., and Morris J., 1996. Humanitarian Intervention and State Practice at the End of the Cold War In: Fawn R., and Larkins J., International Society After the Cold War, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd. pp 198-209