Sovereignty

Introduction to Sovereignty

As humans, we all have an inherent need and desire to be the masters of our domain, to control
what goes on around us. We like to have agency and a sense of independence to go about our
lives without too many hindrances. Of course, there are situations where we are told what to do,
or we have to do something that we don’t want to do, and that might actually be better for
everyone. But for the most part, we like to be recognized, acknowledged, and respected for our
role and position in society. And that goes for individuals, as well as organizations. States are no
different. They, too, want to be left alone to rule themselves without too much interference from
other states or organizations. Think of your school as a state. It would be strange if another
school told your school what curriculum to study, what students can or cannot do at lunchtime, or
when you can leave school. This brings about the concept of sovereignty.
While sovereignty is, as we will see, used in various ways, at its core, it means “supreme
authority within a territory.” In the context of Global Politics, we will focus specifically on the
supreme authority of the state.

States and nations

Before exploring possible conceptions of sovereignty, it is important to clarify the terminology

related to the sovereign areas that we will be referring to. In particular, a state often differs from
a nation. Recall that a nation is more of a cultural and ethnic concept. It refers to a group of
people who share common cultural elements such as language, religion, history, traditions, and
often a common ethnic origin. A nation does not necessarily have political or geographic
boundaries and often evokes a sense of belonging and community among its members. A good
example of a nation that is not a recognized state is the Kurds, who span several countries in the
Middle East. Note that not all states are composed of a single nation (like Canada, a multicultural
state with multiple national identities).
On the other hand, a state (often called a country) refers to a political entity characterized by a
defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the ability to enter into relations
with other states. It's a legal and political organization with sovereignty over its internal and
external affairs. States are recognized as such in the international system, and their boundaries
and governance structures are defined by international law.
QUESTIONS – Constructive and Destructive Nature of Nationalism

1. What are the differences between a country and a nation?

2. What are two different ways of looking at (defining) nationalism?
3. In what ways can nationalism be a force for good?
4. Describe how both extreme nationalism and exclusive nationalism can be negative.
Provide one current for each.
5. Why do you think negative nationalism and populism are so often linked?
6. What is the irony of the recent rise in nationalism in the world today?

QUESTIONS – What is Sovereignty ([Link]

1. How does internal sovereignty differ from external sovereignty?
2. At what point can one country or international global organization violate the sovereignty
of another state?
3. What determines whether a nation can claim sovereignty and become its own state?
4. How has globalization made sovereignty more complicated?
Defining Sovereignty
Sovereignty seems to have at least three central aspects:
 the absoluteness of sovereignty
 territoriality
 the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty.
The holder of sovereignty is superior to all other authorities under it. This authority applies to all
individuals and entities, such as corporations, who are within those borders, irrespective of the
system of governance in place. Furthermore, a holder of sovereignty possesses the right to
command and to be obeyed, with the term “right” implying that those doing the “commanding”
have legitimacy. As we will explore in our next topic, several sources of legitimacy can exist.
However, what is foundational is that the citizens and residents of a state concede that the heads
of government have (or have been given) the authority to have supreme authority over an area.
This means that the government can implement and enforce its laws, penalize lawbreakers, and is
acknowledged by its citizenry to have this authority. Moreover, the government should be able to
manage its borders and oversee the movement of goods and people in and out of its territory.
Another element of sovereignty is territoriality. Territoriality is a principle by which members of
a community are to be defined. Membership comes from living within a geographic territory
where sovereigns (typically, some form of national government or authoritarian) are supremely
authoritative. By living within certain geographic borders, those people belong to the state and
fall under the authority of its ruler. It is important to realize that the ‘state’ differs from ‘the
government.’ Governments are temporary holders of state office, directing state power. They are
how state authority is created. In many ways, the state is simply a theoretical concept.
Finally, we need to consider two aspects of sovereignty: internal and external. A state gains
sovereignty when, internally, the citizens and residents of a country consent to their sovereign
authority and externally when supreme authority over a geographic area is acknowledged by
other sovereign states, generally through the establishment of embassies, exchange of diplomats,
and participation in treaty agreements. The United Nations General Assembly consists only of
states that meet these internal and external notions of sovereignty. Currently, the United Nations
recognizes the sovereignty of 193 states.
Internal sovereignty can be defined as states being independent and responsible for what happens
inside their borders. For example, they create the laws they choose, collect taxes, spend money to
pave roads, build hospitals and schools, and do all the other things governments set out to do.
External sovereignty is how states interact with other states and international organizations. They
respect each other’s borders and right to rule within them, so they shouldn’t interfere with what’s
happening outside their borders.
Internal sovereignty is when the state has an entity (a body like a parliament or an individual like
a Queen) within it that can effectively command the rest of the society. External sovereignty
means that any force outside of the state cannot command this political entity. These two aspects,
making decisions or creating laws that will be obeyed by a population within a state (internal
sovereignty) and noninterference by those outside the state (external sovereignty), are the two
key components of sovereignty.
In short, internal sovereignty is a matter of supremacy; external sovereignty is a matter of
independence. External sovereignty is independence, or freedom from interference, not only in
relation to any international authority but also in relation to other states.
Declarative Theory of Sovereignty
The current expectation for a state to be deemed sovereign by other states and external
institutions is often called the Westphalian System because they were born out of the Treaty of
Westphalia in 1648. However, the 1933 Montevideo Convention lays out specific criteria to be
met to be considered a sovereign state:
1. A permanent population: No minimum number of people must exist together to constitute
a state. Tuvalu has just over 11,000 people, whereas India has over 1.4 billion.
2. A defined territory and borders: As with population, there is no minimum size for
statehood. For example, Liechtenstein is only 160 square kilometres, and Canada is just
under 1 million square kilometres.
3. The ability to enter into relations with other states: How many and with whom (big and
powerful often trump many) is a matter of debate, but this is an important criterion. It is
also tricky because some non-recognized states have agreements with states. For
example, Hong Kong hosts consulates for various states. However, Hong Kong is not
sovereign. It is a special administrative region (SAR) of China.
4. Functioning government: This is related to both external and internal sovereignty (and is
related to legitimacy as well). First, a state will not be recognized by other states if it
doesn’t have a functioning government at the time of recognition, though this may not be
the case after the fact. A state can give itself whatever constitutional and political system
it likes and has the right to construct and impose laws free of any external involvement,
but the important element is that no other state or international organization has the right
under normal circumstances to determine the internal political arrangements of a state.
This is often referred to as legal sovereignty. On the other hand, practical sovereignty
refers to the practical ability to ensure that the state's laws are obeyed throughout its
territory. If the state is not providing for its population, its practical sovereignty may be
questioned.
Constitutive Theory of Statehood
The above criteria are also referred to as the Declaratory Theory of Statehood. It can get a little
confusing, however, because there are countries/territories that meet all of the above criteria but
are not considered sovereign states. Think of Scotland, The Vatican, and Palestine. That’s where
the issue of recognition comes into play. The Constitutive Theory of Statehood asserts that
sovereignty is defined by how many other states recognize a state as sovereign. The principle of
recognition is important, as it can determine things such as membership status in international
organizations such as the EU or the UN. It must be recognized as a fellow sovereign state by
‘enough’ of the other members of the international system, especially the most powerful states.
In theory, wealthy or poor, strong or weak, every sovereign state is legally equal in international
law. But the reality is that some states are more powerful than others and will have greater sway
in determining the recognition of a state.
Statehood at the UN
According to the United Nations, “the recognition of a new State or Government is an act that
only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to
assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a government and,
therefore, does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an
organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the
credentials of the representatives of a new Government.
The procedure is briefly as follows:
 The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating
that it accepts the obligations under the Charter.
 The Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must
receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of
its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have
voted against the application.
 If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General
Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for
admission of a new State.
 Membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted.
At each session, the General Assembly considers the credentials of all representatives of Member
States participating in that session. During such consideration…the issue can be raised whether a
particular representative has been accredited by the Government actually in power. This issue is
ultimately decided by a majority vote in the Assembly. It should be noted that the normal change
of Governments, as through a democratic election, does not raise any issues concerning the
credentials of the representative of the State concerned."
Self Determination
Another aspect related to sovereignty is self-determination—the belief that people should have
the right to decide if they want their own independent country. Many countries have diverse
groups based on religion, language, or tribal affiliations. This raises questions about who should
be an independent country and who gets to set those rules. There's no global agreement on this.
Take Taiwan, for example. It meets all the criteria for being an independent state: its own
government, military, and central bank. However, because China claims it as part of its territory,
only a few countries officially recognize Taiwan as a separate country. Similarly, while the
United States and over a hundred other nations see Kosovo as an independent state, several
countries, including China, Russia, and Kosovo's neighbour Serbia, do not.
Sovereignty extends beyond domestic boundaries to have global implications. In the
international arena, sovereignty embodies the principle of equality among nations. Regardless of
a country's size, population, influence, or financial resources, all states are considered equal in
their rights—most importantly, the right to have their territorial boundaries respected by other
nations. The principle of “non-interference” in another state's internal matters is a key element of
sovereignty and is foundational to the existing international order.

QUESTIONS – Challenges to Sovereignty ([Link]

1. How does sovereignty define the role and authority of states within their borders?
2. How did the emergence of the concept of sovereignty about four centuries ago change the
nature of international conflict and relations?
3. In what ways has sovereignty been challenged recently?
4. How does the 'responsibility to protect' doctrine challenge the traditional concept of
sovereignty and
5. What are the implications of this challenge for international relations?
Is Sovereignty Absolute?
Sovereignty is generally viewed as being almost, but not completely, absolute. A continuing
discussion revolves around the issue of whether there should be justifiable reasons for
intervening in another country's domestic affairs, possibly even using military force. One such
reason might be to halt genocide. Central to the debate is whether the concept of international
order should go beyond simply governing relationships between states and consider the internal
activities within states.
Recently, there's been a move towards rethinking the balance between the state's authority and
individual citizens' rights. According to this perspective, sovereignty is an agreement between the
government, its populace, and other states. If a government fails to meet its obligations, it may
lose certain privileges traditionally associated with sovereignty. One such privilege is the general
expectation of non-interference in its internal affairs.
Responsibility to Protect
An explicit call to revise the concept of sovereignty to allow for internationally sanctioned
intervention arose with The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a document written and produced in
2001 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, a commission that
the Government of Canada convened at the request of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
R2P proposes revising the concept of non-interference. As described above, sovereignty involves
a “responsibility to protect” on the part of a state towards its own citizens, a responsibility that
outsiders may assume when a state perpetrates massive injustice or cannot protect its own
citizens. This framework lays the groundwork for external interventions—whether through
diplomatic dialogue, economic sanctions, or even military action—when a state commits or fails
to prevent large-scale human rights abuses within its borders. Responsibility to Protect has
garnered wide international attention and highlights how sovereignty is not absolute and can be
conditional upon outside obligations.
In real-world scenarios, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine hasn't succeeded as hoped. For
example, the U.S. and NATO used R2P as the reason for intervening in Libya in 2011. However,
countries like China and Russia grew sceptical when the mission, which started as a
humanitarian effort, seemed to evolve into an attempt to remove the existing government.
Implementing R2P can also be extremely challenging and expensive, which may be why global
action was limited when around 500,000 Syrians died during the civil war. Most of the
population was displaced due to a conflict largely fuelled by its own government. Additionally,
countries shy away from making exceptions to the principle of complete sovereignty. They worry
that this could set a precedent limiting their freedom to act within their borders.
The following summarizes the core principles of responsibility to protect:
 Responsibility to protect: States have the primary responsibility to protect their citizens
from mass atrocities, such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against
humanity. If a state is unable or unwilling to protect its people, the international
community has a responsibility to intervene.
  Responsibility to respect: States should respect the human rights and dignity of their
citizens, including the rights to life, liberty, and security. This also means that states
should not engage in or support activities that violate these rights.
 Responsibility to prevent: States should actively work to prevent conflicts and crises that
could lead to mass atrocities or human rights abuses within their borders and in the wider
international community.
 Responsibility to act: States should take appropriate actions, individually or collectively,
to address situations that threaten peace, security, or the well-being of their citizens or the
global community.
Responsible Sovereignty
Responsible Sovereignty emphasizes the importance of states being not only sovereign but also
responsible for the welfare of their citizens and the impact of their actions on the global
community. This idea challenges the traditional notion of sovereignty, which primarily focuses
on the authority and independence of states. Responsible sovereignty goes beyond this by
stressing the need for states to be domestically and internationally accountable for their actions
and policies.
The former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, introduced responsible
sovereignty in his 1999 speech to the General Assembly. The idea behind responsible
sovereignty is that sovereignty is not an absolute right but rather a responsibility that states have
to their citizens and the international community.
Annan argued that in today's world, where issues such as terrorism, environmental degradation,
and human rights violations can have global consequences, states cannot simply act in their own
self-interest without regard for the impact of their actions on others. Instead, states have a
responsibility to exercise their sovereignty in a way that considers the needs and interests of
others and contributes to the collective good.
According to Annan, responsible sovereignty involves three main principles: first, states have a
responsibility to protect their citizens from harm; second, states have a responsibility to respect
the sovereignty of other states; and third, states have a responsibility to cooperate with each other
to address global challenges. However, some argue that the notion of responsible
sovereignty places too much emphasis on state responsibility and not enough on individual rights
and freedoms.
Pooled Sovereignty
A way in which sovereignty has been seen to be challenged is through European integration.
European integration began in 1950 when six states formed the European Coal and Steel
Community in the Treaty of Paris. The community established joint international authority over
these six countries' coal and steel industries. This same model was expanded to a general
economic zone in the Treaty of Rome in 1957. A judicial body further enhanced it, the European
Court of Justice, and a legislature, the European Parliament, a directly elected Europe-wide
legislature. European integration has widened, as the institution now consists of twenty-seven
members. It deepened with the 1991 Maastricht Treaty, which expanded the institution’s powers
and reconfigured it as the European Union.
Far from replacing states, the European Union “pools” important aspects of their sovereignty into
a “supranational” institution in which their freedom of action is constrained. European Union
states are no longer absolutely sovereign. In recent years, European integration has continued to
advance in important respects. On December 1, 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon came into full force,
pooling sovereignty further by strengthening the Council of Ministers and the European
Parliament, creating a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
to represent a unified European Union position, and making the European Union’s Charter of
Fundamental Human Rights legally binding.
However, strains on European integration have also emerged in recent years. A treaty
establishing a Constitution for Europe was signed by the European Union’s member states in
2004, but referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005 rejected it and prevented its
ratification. Then, in 2016, a referendum in the United Kingdom resulted in a victory for the
U.K.’s withdrawal from the European Union, popularly known as “Brexit.”
A similar situation exists within the World Trade Organization. In these cases, countries believe
they're better off participating in collective decision-making, even if they don't agree with every
decision. Importantly, as was demonstrated by Brexit, this sharing of sovereignty is partial and
voluntary and can be reversed if necessary.
Challenges by Nonstate Actors
Sovereignty might also be called into question if a government lets a terrorist organization
operate within its borders. It can't expect other countries to respect its sovereignty if they allow
these aggressive, sovereignty-violating activities to occur within their borders. This was the
situation with Afghanistan, led by the Taliban, which allowed al-Qaeda to plan the 9/11 attacks
on U.S. soil. When one country violates another's sovereignty—whether through military
invasion or cyberattacks—it opens the door for some form of retaliation by the victim country.
It's important to note that sovereign states aren't the only players in global politics. There are
corporations and NGOs like Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, Greenpeace,
foundations, journalists, religious leaders, local politicians, and global and regional
organizations. There are also actors like terrorists, drug cartels, and pirates. While countries
generally have more power and influence, they're not alone in impacting global events. They
can't always stop other actors from making their presence felt. This makes the world less of a
place where state sovereignty is an absolute reality and more of a place where it's a guiding
principle.
The current realities of global politics have challenged the notion of national sovereignty. With
increased economic integration and interconnectivity, a policy of isolationism is a non-starter
today. Furthermore, the increasingly detrimental human impact on the environment, which does
not recognize borders, will continue challenging notions of sovereignty.
Most states have attempted to address challenges to their sovereignty by entering into mutual
agreements. Furthermore, they have used agreements to further their economies and to benefit
the world more broadly. However, these agreements also seem to represent a loss of sovereignty.
They usually involve states tying themselves to agreements that may partially result in losing
control of their decision-making capabilities. This is not to say that these agreements may not be
in a state's best interests, but they may be for a state to do something they may not want to do
and, therefore, chip away at a small piece of a state’s sovereignty.
Economic Influence on Sovereignty
In today's world, economic factors often interfere with a country's operations. This is particularly
true for poorer countries when wealthier countries influence them. When a country is much
weaker economically than others, it raises a question: Can it still be considered legally sovereign
and equal to other countries? Extreme economic differences and the pressure they create can
limit a country's legal sovereignty. If a country is economically weak, it might be forced to make
decisions not because it wants to but because of the pressure from more powerful countries.
Think of it like personal freedom. Normally, your choices are your own, even if others influence
them. But if someone forces you to choose (like a robber saying "your money or your life"),
you're not really free in your decision. Similarly, if a country is under too much economic
pressure, its ability to make free legal decisions is compromised, just like your freedom in the
face of coercion. So, while all countries have legal sovereignty, the reality is that economic
power can heavily influence the decisions of economically weaker countries, challenging their
ability to make truly independent choices.
International Law and Sovereignty
International law has grown alongside increased global economic integration, affecting states'
independence. It's used by states to manage the impact of outside interference. By agreeing to
international laws, states voluntarily accept certain restrictions to avoid greater negative impacts
from actions they can't control. This seems to challenge the idea of a state's complete legal
freedom (legal sovereignty).
However, some argue that international law doesn’t conflict with a state's legal sovereignty.
International law differs from local law because it's only binding when states agree to it. So,
when a state agrees to international law, it’s actually exercising its sovereignty.
International law enforcement comes through pressure from other states or groups, not through a
single powerful authority. If a state breaks an international agreement, it might face
consequences like reprisals from other states, but these are not as forceful as legal penalties
within a country. This pressure is a way for other countries to influence the state.
Even with international agreements, a state still has legal independence because it chooses to
comply with the law. While there can be significant consequences for not following international
agreements, these are not usually forceful enough to make a state lose its legal independence.
However, if international law becomes extensive and the consequences of not following it
become severe, then a state's legal sovereignty might be threatened. But we're not at that point
yet.
In summary, while international law does place some limits on states, it's generally seen as a way
for states to exercise their sovereignty rather than lose it. Compliance is mostly voluntary, and
the consequences for not following international laws are usually less severe than domestic legal
penalties, keeping a state's legal independence intact.
The Future of Sovereignty
Today, the world is deeply interconnected, with vast amounts of money, goods, and people
moving across international borders yearly. Local issues have become global, exemplified by
climate change, where the greenhouse gas emissions of one nation can pose a global threat. In
this era, there's a growing debate among experts about whether the traditional concept of
sovereignty is still relevant. They're considering if there's a need for a new definition of
sovereignty, where governments are responsible not just for their own citizens but also for the
impact of their actions on people in other countries.
Sovereignty is further questioned by the rise of entities other than states, like non-governmental
organizations, multinational corporations, terrorist organizations, and inter-governmental
organizations. However, most of these groups don't have the same level of power as states.
Furthermore, only a few see themselves as directly challenging state sovereignty. While some
terrorist groups aim to challenge state power to establish a new state or radically change an
existing one to suit their goals, most of these groups recognize the importance of working within
state frameworks and influencing state policies to achieve their objectives.

QUESTIONS – Fires in the Amazon ([Link]

1. How do modern global challenges, like the Amazon fires, affect traditional concepts of
sovereignty?
Modern global challenges show that the decisions of one country can affect the international
world and compel other countries from interfering therefore challenging the traditional
concept of sovereignty.
2. What international responses were observed in reaction to the Amazon fires, and how did
Brazil initially respond?
The G7 offered an incentive by giving Brazil $22 million to help extinguish the fires. Brazil
initially refused, but then accepted the aid and extinguished the fire.
3. How might future global challenges require a rethinking of traditional sovereignty
concepts?
Future global challenges such as climate change, that aren’t concerned with international
borders, will require a rethinking of traditional sovereignty because the international world
will need to interfere in global challenges that negatively affect them without violating the
traditional views of sovereignty.