I decided to delve into politics and international law. It's the world according to me, right? Well, understanding the concept of sovereignty is an assignment I wrote and found fascinating. And of course it earned me an A-grade but I think I can share my thoughts with any one interested in international law, sovereignty and politics. So...
" If a determinate human
superior, not in a habit of obedience to a like superior, receive habitual obedience
from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in
that society, and the society (including the superior) is a society political
and independent." -RITCHIE (1981)
Sovereignty! The
evolving and dynamic nature of the concept of sovereignty makes me wonder what
the international community and political science universally and concisely
define it to mean. Is it just a term loosely used to describe or tag the
ability or opportunity of States to act independently? Is it an opportunity to
reign, rule and control weaker powers? Is it a concept that is rooted in
history? The answer to this is, yes!
Prior to the World War I, Sovereignty was the
central, irreducible concept which signifies that states have the absolute
right to control and protect her territory and population and repel those who would interfere in its domestic affairs. The
idea of Sovereignty was conceived initially by the rulers of early modern
Europe as a result of their repudiation of the overarching authority of the
Pope. In 1534 King Henry VIII of England succeeded in gaining "supreme
headship" for himself and his successors from the laws and authority of
the Pope. This Act of Parliament gave the king and his successors immunity from
'foreign laws' and 'foreign authorities in governing the Church of England
(Jackson, 2007). This forms the origination of the concept of sovereignty.
Other events in some parts of the World during this period also gave rise to the idea of sovereignty. For instance,
sequel to end of the Seven Years War in which Great Britain defeated France,
France's Quebec colony was taken over by Britain and recognized as her colony.
Also, in 1860 and 1861, States like South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida,
Texas, Missouri, Virginia, Kentucky, formed the Confederate of American States
and seceded from the United States. However, in 1865 the Union Army conquered
the Confederate forces and the United
States acquired these states and still rules them till date (Jackson, 2007).
These examples lay out the birth of the concept of sovereignty.
Having originated from
a French word which means "capacity to reign", Sovereignty has been
defined differently by various scholars. For instance, Robert Lansing defines
Sovereignty as a "natural product of human association affected by the
desire for its continuance" (Lansing, 1914). This human nature that
desires supremacy and authority has
spurred states to seek power over territories and obtain complete
independence and self government.
In recent years,
however, sovereignty has become far more
problematic because of the severe demand for international peace. It is
difficult to categorize Sovereignty because of its dynamic nature, it is constantly moving. By this I
mean that modern sovereignty has gone beyond (just meaning) the absolute power
and authority of a monarch as
philosophers like Thomas Hobbs, Jean Bodin perceived sovereignty. Today,
scholars and international legal practioners consider sovereignty to mean
'independence'; the ability of states not to depend on another state. Yet, no
state is such an island that it can operate independently (absolutely) without
needing anything from another state and no state can independently do whatever
it likes. Hence, can Sovereignty be
classified as ambiguous? Yes. Because all States, no matter how powerful are
subject to varying degrees of influence and pressure from other states.
Interdependence is a pivotal instrument that has enhanced state governorship,
but this need for each other has not prevented states from exercising its
sovereignty.
Several factors have
contributed to the evolution of the concept of modern sovereignty. Factors like Free trade, International trade
negotiations, democracy, military capacity, etc, are fundamental in causing the
transition to modern sovereignty. But this purpose of this paper, I would focus
on three factors: Nationalism, Human
Rights, and Globalization.
Nationalism is a major
factor that has fueled the idea of sovereignty. The United Nations Charter (Art.1,
para. 2 and Art. 55), encouraged the concept of self determination among
states. States in a bid to attain and maintain identity, unity and autonomy have progressed from just conquering
and defeating territories as was the case in the early medieval period, to
culturalizing and influencing other states to act and behave as they please.
For instance, the Palestinian government does not have the capacity to engage
the other super powers as she is not recognized in the international community
as a sovereign state. However, the head of Palestine visits the president of
the United States. This confuses the concept of sovereignty as one may wonder;
under what capacity is the head of Palestine visiting since he is not
recognized as a sovereign state? However, this further proves the desire for
actualization and nationalism by the Palestine government and this territory
will not stop until obtains its sovereignty. The principal objective of the "Declaration
on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" (1961),
was to "accommodate the legitimacy
of the struggle of the colonial peoples, and peoples under alien domination, to
exercise their right to sovereign statehood" (Pamir). This United Charter
and other agreements signed on the right of States to independence has indeed
promoted nationalism. And today the evidence is in the independence of States
like Nigeria, Ghana, Ukraine, Kenya, etc; which are sovereign states.
Since
the end of the World War II, human rights have been taken more seriously. Now
there is an international body of law that regulates how citizens of states are
treated, making it a concern of international community and not just a domestic
affair that states can handle internally. This check and scrutiny of state
conduct and State liability to sanctions by the international community has
deterred many states from 'conquering and defeating', like it was the case
prior to world war I. This emerging commitment to human rights, human dignity
has shifted the fundamentals of sovereignty. Maogoto simply asserts, "the mantle of legal
protection against the worst forms of violent abuse was to be a central
feature in the drive to clip State sovereignty, by subjecting the State to
external restraints and controls" (Maogoto, 2005). By establishing this
mechanism, it definitely gives the concept of sovereignty a new face.
Another factor which I strongly believe has influenced the concept
of sovereignty is globalization. New emerging theories and research has sprung
up in political science that signify these progression from archaic form of
understanding what sovereignty entails to this modern known form of
sovereignty. The introduction of International political economy, the Green
theory, advanced technology, to use or not to use nuclear weapons, heightened
terrorism and political violence, transnational issues like Cancer, HIV/AIDS,
etc., all contribute to the new concept of sovereignty. The World's transition
to globalism and technology, international trade has fostered a new
understanding of the idea of sovereignty. In this, States have absolute control
of their internal affairs but are subject to the international community. Hence,
we can conclude that the rise of international organizations have ultimately
contributed to the evolution of sovereignty.
The idea of sovereignty
is critical to the international sphere.
Without sovereignty, there will be no State and without States, there
will not be international law. This brings me to define Sovereignty as the fuel
that moves the international community, Sovereignty means "establishing
the exclusive competence to take legal and factual measures within that
territory and prohibiting foreign governments from exercising authority in the
same area without consent" ( Malanczuk, 2002)
Sovereignty may be
classified as internal and external control whereby internally states can
maintain constitutional autonomy by being in charge of her territory by maintaining
and establishing order legally in its territory while externally states do not
need to be legally dependent on other states within the international legal
order but can have the right to act autonomously on the international level.
The temporary inability of states to act in these capacities, i.e; either
internally or externally does not disqualify it from being a state, it does not cease to exist as a sovereign state
(Rinehart, 2014, class note). Modern
Sovereignty has made state governorship conspicuous and more of a political
discourse. The presence of the P5 and the authority of the United States,
especially, in world affairs has further emphasized the shift in the original
concept of sovereignty. Empirical analyses of several events in history and the
present clarifies the concept of sovereignty.
The Palmas case is a good example to illustrate modern sovereignty. In 1928, there was a land dispute case
between the United States and Netherland, relating to the arbitration of differences
respecting sovereignty over the Island of Palmas (or Miangas). What makes this
case important to understanding the concept of sovereignty was how the case was
resolved and how state sovereignty was interpreted, as the Permanent Court of
Arbitration asserts, "The admission of the existence of territorial
sovereignty early in the 18th century and the display of such sovereignty in the 19th century and particularly in 1906,
would not lead, as the Netherlands Government appears to suppose, by analogy
with French proved, there is a presumption for the existence of sovereignty in
the meantime. For the reasons given above, no presumptions of this kind are to
be applied in international arbitrations, except under express stipulation. It
remains for the Tribunal to decide whether or not it is satisfied of the
continuous existence of sovereignty, on the ground of evidence as to its
display at more or less long intervals" (Island of Palmas case [Reports Of
International Arbitral Awards], 2006).
Modern Sovereignty is
dependent on how it is perceived. For instance, it might be inferred that
the people of America are a substantial
evidence of popular sovereignty especially as it is a highly democratic state
where public opinion and the will of the people is paramount. The US, we are
inclined to believe, is a powerful state in international politics. However,
the US can violate the sovereignty of other states if she enforces her domestic
values on another state. The United States cannot force the people of Belgium
to use their currency, i.e., the dollar. If the US does that, she violates the
sovereignty of Belgium. Recent news show that Russia has challenged the
sovereignty of Ukraine, however, it is dangerous to predict the outcome of the
Crimean case between Russia, Ukraine, and the West. Up till date, the Biafra
sect in Eastern part Nigeria seeks to secede from Nigeria in a bid to establish
nationalistic and ethnic goals. But she
has not succeeded in achieving this sovereignty, if Biafra succeeds in breaking
away from Nigeria as Ukraine became independent of the Soviet Union, then
Nigeria would not be able to control that territory anymore. Consequently, we
can deduce that today sovereignty is a global system of authority. It is more
politically inclined as it transcends to
all cultures, civilization, religion, racial groupings, and communities.
Jackson defines modern sovereignty as "an international idea of multiple
states in relation to each other, each one occupying its own territory and
having foreign relations and dealing with others, including peaceful and
cooperative relations as well as discordant relations and periodical wars"
(Jackson, 2007). As complex as the term 'sovereignty' is, it is still evolving
by the day hence making its definition even more ambiguous.
Maogoto explains the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials as "visible symbol of the transition from the
classical Westphalian system of State sovereignty to an international system
based on the credo of “common interest” that took place in the middle of
the last century" (Maogoto, ) . This further clarifies the concept of
modern sovereignty.
Now, how does a modern state exercise its sovereignty? Having
established what modern sovereign is, it is pertinent to understand how
sovereign state operate. States exercise their sovereignty through what I call
'servitude', a term I borrowed from The American Journal of International Law,
(Oct., 1914). Servitude in international
studies signifies the legal binding status of states. States are bound by
international servitude, an element that
makes sovereignty legally accurate in times of dispute resolution especially as
regarding mining rights, fishing rights, crimes committed in international grounds.
Defacto and De Jure forms of state recognition makes the sovereignty of
states legally significant. For a state
to exercise sovereignty, the state must be recognized as a sovereign entity,
whether the state is an inchoate, dependent or independent state. There is no
principle in international law that restrains a group of people from overthrowing its present government. Thus,
states can exercise sovereignty by successfully seceding from a particular
government, establishing its recognition in the international community and must
have the characteristics of a state.
Modern States exercise sovereignty by protecting their citizens,
boundaries and making treaties binding under the international law . For
instance, at the US-Canadian border, there are forces on both ends of the
border to protect their territory from encroachment from either party. This is an
empirical evidence of how states exercise its sovereignty.
States exercise their sovereignty by establishing its kind of
regime. The regime of a state
demonstrates what kind of state it is. Research show that democracies
are less likely to go to war against each other. This emphasizes that the
regime type of a government matters in the international affairs as through
this States assert their sovereignty. The regime type of a nation is inherent in politics as
"'politics' is conceived as the reflective form of substantial ethical
life". Therefore, in politics whether a state is democratic, authoritarian
is very important in shaping its behavior towards other states. According to
Liberals, democratic programming is fashioned to attend to public opinion, the interest of the society (Habermas, 1994).
Here, politics and regime type of states are entwined to represent the
government and policies of the people. Therefore, regime type of a government
influences states behave to other
states, as states of the same regime type are likely to attract each other and
adopt the same policies. For instance, free trade inclined nations will likely
trade with free trade recipient governments. In exercising sovereignty, states
can decide whom to trade with or not, whom to go to war against or not, what
nation to have relations with and whom not to. Therefore, regime type
influences how states and whom states exercise sovereignty over.
Conclusively, I concur that sovereignty is indeed vague. It
is not static, this further makes it difficult to categorize. In characterizing
the nature of the concept of sovereignty, several factors come to mind but the
more pronounced nature is its evolving nature. The future of sovereignty cannot
be predicted, however, I would like to assert that following recent trends of
globalization, there is the tendency that state sovereignty may diminish and a
singular government may be established that oversees the affairs of all states,
with the assistance of international organizations, Multinational corporations
and Transnational Corporations. The shift towards the propagation of one
currency, global markets and state independency questions the strength of
modern sovereignty. Sovereignty has been watered down by the emergence of
insurgent groups and the need to uphold human rights and self determination
rules which are today recognized in the international sphere. Therefore, what
exactly is classified as modern sovereignty?
