The sovereignty of a state implies the independence of a state under international law and its competence and right to exercise its rules or law within its clearly defined territory at its own discretion without the intervention from outside forces. The concept also includes all matters whereby the state is permitted under international law to defend its territory and safeguard the security of its citizens without stamping upon the sovereignty of other states and the rightful authority of the state to represent its citizens abroad by engaging in treaties etc.
The concept of sovereignty is not new. It was there in the form of established traditions of international relations amongst such states as Egypt, China and Holy Roman Empire. The present concept of sovereignty of a nation has its roots in agreements which were part of the Treaties of Westphalia which took place in 1648 A.D., signed by European states. The main points of the concept of sovereignty and the rights and duties of states were laid down in Montevideo Convention in 1933. These points include the following main criteria for a state’s eligibility to be declared sovereign: that a state should have “a permanent population, a defined territory, and a functioning government” (IRDC, 13). The UN Charter basically adopts and endorses all these factors in its vision of the system of international world that it strives to maintain. The UN Charter mentions the idea of the equality of all sovereign states. This equality is the foundation over which state governments forge relations with each other and participate in different organizations. This principle of legal equality of all sovereign states has a protective advantage for smaller or weaker states so that they do not come under political pressure from the more powerful states. The United Nation’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated in 1949 that "between independent States, respect for territorial sovereignty is an essential foundation of international relations." (IRDC, 13) The International Court of Justice has also in the past referred to "the fundamental principle of state sovereignty on which the whole of international law rests." (IRDC, 13) Aggressive actions of states towards other states are viewed as negative in the international arena because they are a menace to the very structure of the international world as they violate the very concept of sovereignty of states which forms the basis of this structure. If the base is threatened then the entire structure could collapse. It is for this reason that states have used their sovereignty itself to condemn wars and conflicts which threaten world order, peace and security (IRDC, 13).
The concept of nonintervention in a state’s domestic jurisdiction is a very important aspect of sovereignty. This jurisdiction refers to the ability of the state to govern its citizens within its dominion. This jurisdiction is either “prescriptive” or “enforcement” (IRDC, 13). Prescriptive jurisdiction is the capacity of the state to create laws within and outside its borders. Enforcement jurisdiction is its ability to implement these laws within its borders. The United Nations Charter especially bans countries from intervening in the local affairs of other countries. Article 2 (7) of the Charter states that "[n]othing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter." (IRDC, 13)
We now turn our attention to the limits of sovereignty. The Charter of the United Nations protects the sovereignty of nations but it also addresses the issue of maintenance of international law and order. By Chapter VII of the charter, the Security Council of the United Nations can take actions or intervene in the affairs of sovereign states if they threaten world peace, or engage in aggressive actions (IRDC, 13). Simply put, sovereignty of states only matters as long as there is peace and stability amongst states and can surrender to the demands of world peace and security.
Secondly, Article 1 (2) of the said Charter states that "[a]ll Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter." (IRDC, 13) This means that all sovereign states of the world have international obligations, which can be customary or treaty obligations, and the mere idea that a state is sovereign does not mean that it can turn a blind eye to these obligations. The Charter also directs the member states of the United Nations to cooperate amongst themselves in solving problems related to economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian issues and achieving the basic human rights and freedoms of the people. Thus, the Charter raises these issues to an international level. Sovereignty of a state therefore does not mean that a state can violate international standards of human rights within its territory and expect to get away with it from the eyes of the international community (IRDC, 13).
A challenge to the traditional concept of state sovereignty arises in the cases of those states that are unable to exercise complete authority and control over their own people and over parts of their own territory. The ability of a state to achieve complete control over these dimensions is a core aspect for a state to be truly a sovereign nation. One analyst calls these states with weak authority as “quasi-states” (IRDC, 13). Some people even have the stance that such weak or failed states should not even be part of the United Nations which essentially comprises of members that are sovereign nations, because such weak states defy the United Nations Charter Article 4 which mentions that UN membership criteria for states requires that the states “are able to carry out” their obligations (IRDC, 13). A state’s incomplete control over its population and dominion casts doubts on its ability to be able to carry out such obligations. The state’s authority is essential for the protection of basic rights and is the foundation for local as well as international law and order. The proof of the failure of a state’s sovereignty is the existence of forces within the state’s domestic population which challenge the territorial sovereignty of the state. These forces bar the state from exercising its authority over its complete territory, preventing it from delivering fundamental public goods to its population such as establishment of public security and safety of the population’s life and property. Under such circumstances, what is seen to happen is the massive outflow of refugees towards safer places and the displacement of the local population (IRDC, 13). Such consequences can prompt the United Nations Security Council to legitimize foreign intervention in such a state, under consideration for the international peace and order.
An aspect of the concept of foreign intervention is the idea of "sovereignty as responsibility," created by Francis M. Deng, the Representative of the Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons (IRDC, 13). According to this idea, it becomes a state’s responsibility to request or accept foreign help or intervention if the state itself is unable to deliver fundamental public goods of security, justice and peace to its population. The state becomes answerable to two entities at the same time under such circumstances: the domestic population, as well as the international community whose responsibility it is to maintain world security and peace. In effect, this idea suggests that a state’s sovereignty gets temporarily discontinued under such circumstances and the responsibility of maintaining law and order in the country now falls with the international world (IRDC, 13).
Traditionally, security has been seen in terms of connections between nations. Today, the aspect of individual security of citizens is becoming the cardinal concern for states. A state is the principal provider of this security but in the case of states with weakened authority in their territories, it is the responsibility of the international community to come to the aid of the populations at risk.
We shall now look at how this concept of state sovereignty been seen to get diluted in recent years, particularly in the rapidly globalizing world.
The concept of “globalization” is related to the concept of “complex interdependence” between nations which is relevant to the topic under discussion in this paper. Today, the territorial state is being overshadowed by non-territorial factors which include multinational corporations, transnational social movements, and international organizations (Keohane & Nye, 236). Telecommunication and air travel have reduced the world into being a “global village” and the increase in social, cultural and economic transactions mean we today are seeing a world which increasingly has lesser or softened boundaries or borders (Keohane & Nye, 236). Multiple channels of contact between nations are making the divide between domestic and international politics insignificant. The policy attitude or stance of a state’s local population gets affected by contact with populations of other states, through the media and other sources, whether this communication is organized communication or otherwise. We today are seeing a world in which economic issues are the principal concern of states and where states and people are becoming increasingly culturally, socially, and economically interdependent upon each other. Globalization, according to political scientist David Held, is the “widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life” (FP, 1).
All around the globe we are seeing increasing numbers of organizations and companies connecting with people and the current recession in the world economy is not hindering them in doing so. It might even help to revive the economy in some cases to a certain extent (FP, 1). For example, the demand for the services of international charity organizations is increasing as more and more people lose their jobs in the current economic crisis. Religions and cults too may witness greater numbers of followers as hardships encourage interest in the after-life. Transnational terrorists would also not be hindered in their activities by the economic recession. Globalization is such a powerful and multiform factor in today’s world that the current economic recession cannot drastically hamper or transpose it (FP, 1).
The deeper a political situation is entrenched in the complex interdependence between nations, the more likely are the results of the political process going to be affected by transnational relations. Terrorism is one such issue in question. It is a collective problem for the whole world no matter in which part of the world a terrorist act may take place in. A nation fighting terrorism should not be left alone to deal with it, abandoned by other countries of the world. Rather that nation should be supported morally, diplomatically and militarily in its fight by the whole world.
While globalization has created new opportunities and possibilities for mankind, it has also created problems which we have never encountered before. For example, it has created new opportunities for militants to engage in acts of terrorism. The Taliban and Al Qaeda’s mobility internationally, recruitment ability, and financial resources to fund their endeavors have been aided by the factors of globalization such as greater and better communication opportunities, greater ease of travel and wider means of transportation, and permeable borders (FP 2).
In the 1990s, it was thought that economic ties were a remedy to prevent wars. Power, it was thought, would eventually pass from government hands into the hands of the private companies and NGOs. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 changed that thinking of the world. Overnight, the thinking of the world changed and these ideas went out of trend. Public security now became the topmost priority of nations. The insecurity due to the ongoing economic recession has further fuelled this cry and we have also seen an increase in public demand for greater government control in the financial sector. Skeptics of globalization argue that commercial ties amongst nations have been enfeebled due to the current global economic crisis. With the return of stronger governments, these skeptics foresee a greater intensity in the traditional power politics of the states. They cite the evidence for this in the resurgence of nationalist spirit in South Asia, Middle East, Latin America and Russia. These skeptics argue that globalization’s role in stabilizing the political situation of the world is therefore exaggerated. But we must remember that claims of a return to nationalism and strong governments are also very exaggerated. Granted that China may ally itself with Russia to counter the US in its relations with Iran, but we must not forget that Chinese and American economies are today greatly intertwined with one another (China has trillions of dollars of US debt and the US is also its main market for Chinese goods). Russia itself has been hit badly by the economic crisis and its oil revenues are falling so much so that Venezuela is calling back foreign oil companies. The crux of the skeptic’s argument is that globalization did not eliminate nationalism; rather it made it more complicated such that globalization and geopolitics exist along side each other in the modern world (FP 2).
The opposite view to these skeptics is that due to increased interdependence amongst nations as a result of globalization, the aspect of nationalism is slowly disappearing and the world today is taking on a more integrated outlook in which countries are governed more by economic and commercial concerns and the exchange of ideas and cultural and social aspects. An example is that of the European Union (EU) which comprises of nations which were formerly each other’s enemies before the late twentieth century when nationalism was on the rise. Today the countries of European Union are peaceful trade partners, working together to achieve, maximize, promote and preserve their common economic goals. The increased interaction between countries of the world has resulted in them signing more treaties with each other and becoming members of international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Asian Development Band (ADB). Signing of treaties in a way mars the sovereignty of a state because it can pose limitations on the actions of states and also raise their international obligations.
The current Pakistani leadership has been caught unsuspectingly by the numbers of Taliban as well as the intensely bitter autonomy of other militant groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba. Recently there have started a series of NATO drone attacks on Pakistani territory. These attacks on Pakistani territory are indeed a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, but we must also remember that stopping the drone attacks in the tribal areas would not be a remedy against the problem of militancy because the public in those areas does not really accept Pakistani army and the United States is not very popular with them either. Pakistan could lose even its already little sovereignty in the tribal regions if something is not done soon. Pakistan has protested against these attacks but the United States argues that Pakistan has never been truly sovereign in the Federally Administered tribal Areas (FATA) as it has never been able to fully control that region ever since its independence in 1947. The United States argues that as Pakistan itself is not able to deal with the problem of militancy in the tribal region, it should allow the foreign forces to deal with the militants. I personally think that Pakistan should allow the NATO drone attacks to take place in FATA. The Taliban are becoming an increasing source of discontent and chaos in the country. They are a nuisance not only for global peace and security but also for the survival of Pakistan itself. Any attack or war against the Taliban should be welcomed in my opinion to eradicate the threat from them forever once and for all, even if it comes at the breach of our sovereignty. What use would our argument for Pakistan’s sovereignty be if Pakistan does not survive and breaks up? That would be a greater price to pay for Pakistan if it tries to defend its sovereignty at this hour. Even if we look at the principles of sovereignty as stated in the United Nations Charter, I think the NATO attacks are reasonable because Pakistan has really failed in fighting militancy in FATA. It has been unable to successfully control the tribal region for the last sixty years. It has been incapable of providing security to the population in that area and as such it is the responsibility and the duty of the international community to take the matter of fighting militants in FATA into their hands.
In conclusion, I think the overall concept of sovereignty still holds in international politics today, even though it has been diluted much by the phenomenon of globalization. Geopolitics and globalization coexist in the modern world.
Bibliography
"Foreign Policy: Think Again: Globalization." Foreign Policy - the global magazine of economics, politics, and ideas. 11 May 2009
"1. State Sovereignty: International Development Research Centre." INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE | CENTRE DE RECHERCHES POUR LE D�VELOPPEMENT INTERNATIONAL. 11 May 2009
Keohane, Robert & Nye, Joseph. “Complex interdependence and the Role of Force” in Power and Independence: World Politics in Transition (1977). Pp 236-250.
(This article was written by me for my Pakistan's Foreign Relations class taught by Ambassador Shaharyar Khan during my Sophomore year at LUMS.)
