A CONTEMPORARY VIEW OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY

APA full citation: Filho, C. I. (2024, September 26). A Contemporary View of State Sovereignty. EBS I&D Centre. https://www.ebscentre.org/law-and-politicalscience/

Abstract

State sovereignty has been a foundational concept in international law and political theory for centuries. Traditionally conceived as the absolute authority of a state over its territory and population, modern interpretations challenge and refine this idea in response to the evolving dynamics of globalization, international institutions, and human rights. This paper seeks to explore the contemporary understanding of state sovereignty, considering its relationship with supranational organizations, transnational challenges like climate change and terrorism, and the rise of international legal norms. The analysis reveals a shift from the classical Westphalian model to a more nuanced conception where sovereignty is interdependent with global governance mechanisms and international cooperation.

Keywords: State sovereignty, international law, globalization, supranational organizations, transnational challenges, global governance

Article - A Contemporary View of State Sovereignty.pdf

Download PDF • 194KB

---

Introduction

The concept of state sovereignty, rooted in the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, has long been regarded as the cornerstone of the modern international system. Traditionally, sovereignty implied supreme authority within a state's borders, free from external interference (Philpott, 2001). However, the realities of the 21st century—marked by globalization, intergovernmental organizations, and global threats—demand a re-examination of this notion. Sovereignty is no longer seen as an unqualified right but as a contingent and shared responsibility within the global order.

Historical Background of Sovereignty

Classical notions of sovereignty trace back to thinkers like Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes, who viewed it as absolute and indivisible (Bodin, 1576/1992; Hobbes, 1651/2016). Sovereignty was framed as the unchallenged authority of the state, allowing it to maintain law and order internally and defend against external threats. The Westphalian model, which emerged from the treaties concluding the Thirty Years' War, reinforced this principle by establishing the norm of non-intervention in domestic affairs of states (Krasner, 1999).

For centuries, this view dominated the discourse of international law and politics, allowing states to act independently within their territories. However, challenges posed by inter-state conflicts, international human rights movements, and the rise of multinational entities began to erode the absoluteness of sovereignty in practice (Barkin & Cronin, 1994).

Contemporary Challenges to State Sovereignty

Globalization and Economic Interdependence

Globalization has transformed the economic and political landscapes, diluting the autonomy of nation-states. Multinational corporations, transnational trade agreements, and international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO) now play decisive roles in domestic economic policies, often superseding state decisions (Strange, 1996). States, particularly smaller ones, find themselves constrained by global market forces and economic dependencies that limit their sovereign choices.

Moreover, the rise of digital technology and global communication networks has created a new dimension of governance that transcends borders. Cybersecurity, for instance, is no longer a purely national issue; it requires international coordination and legal frameworks to address cross-border threats (Scholte, 2005). These developments signify the erosion of the traditional boundaries of sovereignty.

Supranational Organizations

The European Union (EU) represents the most advanced model of supranational governance, where member states cede a degree of sovereignty in areas such as trade, immigration, and monetary policy (Weiler, 1999). While states retain their national identities, they are subject to legal norms and regulations established at the EU level, often enforced by the European Court of Justice. This voluntary pooling of sovereignty challenges the classical model of independent, autonomous states.

Similarly, international organizations like the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the International Criminal Court (ICC) exert influence over state decisions. The UN's Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, for example, establishes a framework for international intervention in cases of gross human rights violations, which, while controversial, highlights the limits of absolute sovereignty in the face of global norms (Thakur, 2016).

Human Rights and International Legal Norms

Human rights treaties and international law increasingly impose obligations on states, constraining their domestic actions. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) requires states to adhere to specific standards regarding the treatment of individuals within their territories (Buergenthal et al., 2009). This framework introduces a shift from sovereignty as a shield for state actions to sovereignty as a responsibility for protecting human rights (Donnelly, 2013).

The International Criminal Court (ICC), established under the Rome Statute, represents a significant evolution in the sovereignty debate. By prosecuting individuals for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, the ICC challenges the traditional immunity of state actors and raises questions about the limits of sovereign jurisdiction (Sands, 2003).

Sovereignty and Global Public Goods

Transnational challenges such as climate change, pandemics, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation further complicate the traditional notion of sovereignty. These global public goods require cooperation among states, often necessitating international agreements that limit unilateral action. The Paris Agreement on climate change, for example, requires participating states to adhere to commitments aimed at reducing carbon emissions, directly impacting national policy decisions (Keohane & Victor, 2016).

In this context, sovereignty is no longer viewed solely as a right to exclude external influence but as a responsibility to contribute to global governance efforts. This shift represents a growing recognition that state sovereignty must be compatible with the global common good (Held & McGrew, 2002).

The Future of Sovereignty

The contemporary view of state sovereignty recognizes its fluidity and adaptability in response to global realities. While the state remains the primary actor in international relations, its sovereignty is increasingly conditioned by participation in international institutions and adherence to global norms (Koskenniemi, 2009). In this evolving landscape, sovereignty is not lost but redefined to accommodate the interdependent nature of the modern world.

Looking forward, the balance between state sovereignty and international cooperation will continue to evolve. Issues like digital governance, cyber warfare, and artificial intelligence governance are likely to further challenge the boundaries of state control, requiring new frameworks that reflect the complexities of a globalized world.

Conclusion

State sovereignty in the 21st century is markedly different from the absolutist concept that emerged from the Peace of Westphalia. While states retain significant authority within their borders, they operate within a complex web of international institutions, legal norms, and global challenges that condition their actions. Contemporary sovereignty is increasingly interdependent, as states must balance their national interests with responsibilities to the international community. This evolution reflects the growing need for global governance structures that address issues transcending national borders, signalling a future where sovereignty and cooperation are intertwined.

Carlos I. Filho

References

Barkin, J. S., & Cronin, B. (1994). The state and the nation: Changing norms and the rules of sovereignty in international relations. International Organization, 48(1), 107-130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300000837

Bodin, J. (1992). On sovereignty (J. Franklin, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1576).

Buergenthal, T., Shelton, D., & Stewart, D. (2009). International human rights in a nutshell (4th ed.). West Academic Publishing.

Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal human rights in theory and practice (3rd ed.). Cornell University Press.

Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2002). Globalization/anti-globalization. Polity Press.

Hobbes, T. (2016). Leviathan (J. C. A. Gaskin, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1651).

Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2016). Cooperation and discord in global climate policy.Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 570-575. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2937

Koskenniemi, M. (2009). The politics of international law. Hart Publishing.

Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.

Philpott, D. (2001). Revolutions in sovereignty: How ideas shaped modern international relations. Princeton University Press.

Sands, P. (2003). Principles of international environmental law (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Scholte, J. A. (2005). Globalization: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge University Press.

Thakur, R. (2016). The responsibility to protect: Norms, laws and the use of force in international politics. Routledge.

Weiler, J. H. H. (1999). The Constitution of Europe: "Do the new clothes have an emperor?" and other essays on European integration. Cambridge University Press.