Assignment: State and Sovereignty
Name: PRIYANSHU BAGHEL
Roll No: 23BAD056
Subject: International Relations – Concept and Issues in IR
Course: B.A. Programme (Section-D)
Introduction
The concepts of state and sovereignty are fundamental units in
international relations. From the perspective of international
relations, the state is a major player, and sovereignty symbolises its
independence and authority. The concept of state has evolved over
centuries, while sovereignty, particularly after the Treaty of
Westphalia (1648), became a central principle, granting states full
rights and independence within their borders. However, in the
globalised era, these concepts face multiple challenges and
reinterpretations, making their study crucial to understanding world
politics.
State: Definition and Attributes
A state is “a community of persons permanently occupying a definite
portion of territory, independent of external control, and possessing
an organised government”. According to Weber, it is the entity with a
“monopoly of the legitimate use of violence” within its borders. Key
attributes of a state include:
1. Population: a stable community of people.
2. Territory: land with recognised boundaries.
3. Government: institutions (executive, legislature, judiciary) that
exercise authority.
4. Sovereignty: ultimate domestic authority, unshared with any
higher power.
5. Recognition: other states’ acknowledgement (important but not
strictly required by definition).
These elements were formally stated in the Montevideo Convention
(1933), which remains the most accepted legal definition of a state.
Together, these features give the state its political identity and legal
personality in international law.
Modern state is a sovereign state, means it is able to exercise
absolute and legitimate authority within its territorial jurisdiction
without any challenges. State and sovereignty are thus understood as
mutually constituted subject.
Sovereignty: Meaning and Types
Sovereignty refers to the supreme authority of the state within its
territory and independence in external affairs. In political theory, it is
“the ultimate overseer or authority in the decision-making process of
the state”. Hobbes stated that any true state requires an “ultimate
and absolute authority” (a Leviathan) or it descends into chaos.
Sovereignty has two main dimensions:
1. Internal Sovereignty: Internal sovereignty means the state’s
government is the supreme authority over its people and territory,
unchallenged by rival powers.
2. External Sovereignty: External sovereignty (or independence)
means other states recognize it as having no foreign overlord and
equal rights in diplomacy.
Theoretical Understandings of sovereignty:
• Westphalian Sovereignty: Originates from the 1648 Treaty of
Westphalia; emphasizes territorial integrity and non-intervention.
• Legal or International Sovereignty: Refers to a formal recognition
of a state by other states in the international community.
• Popular or Democratic Sovereignty: Derives from the will of the
people (Rousseau’s idea).
Theoretical Perspectives in IR
Different IR theories interpret the state and sovereignty in distinct
ways.
Realism: Realists view sovereign states as the main actors in an
anarchic world system, emphasizing power and security. With no
authority above states, sovereignty becomes essential for survival.
Thinkers like Morgenthau and Waltz argue that states act rationally to
safeguard their interests, while early realists like Thucydides and
Machiavelli highlighted power politics as the enduring nature of
international relations.
Liberalism: Liberals accept the importance of states but stress
cooperation through institutions, trade, and law. They argue that
organizations like the UN or WTO enable mutual benefits, softening
absolute sovereignty. Liberals believe sovereignty can be pooled (as
in the EU) or limited by shared norms such as human rights and
democracy. The democratic peace theory reflects this belief that
democratic states voluntarily restrain their use of sovereign power.
Constructivism: Constructivists emphasize ideas, identities, and
norms over material forces. According to Alexander Wendt, state
interests and sovereignty are socially constructed rather than fixed.
This means sovereignty can evolve with changing global norms—like
the humanitarian intervention principle (R2P), which redefines
sovereignty as responsibility rather than control.
English School and Others: The English School views the world as a
society of states governed by shared norms like sovereignty and non-
interference. Critical perspectives—Marxist, feminist, postcolonial—
question whether sovereignty equally empowers all states and
peoples.
In summary Realists see sovereignty as fixed and vital for state
survival, liberals as flexible and shareable, and constructivists as
evolving with social norms and ideas.
Issues of State and Sovereignty in International Relations
In today’s world, the traditional idea of complete state sovereignty is
facing many challenges. Global events, organizations, and problems
that cross borders make it harder for states to act fully independent.
Some key issues are:
1. Globalization and Interdependence
Globalization connects countries through trade, money, and
information. This connection limits how much control a state has
over its economy and decisions.
For example, big multinational companies and international
organizations like the UN or EU make countries follow common rules,
even if it means giving up a little independence.
Also, international human rights laws make governments responsible
for treating their people fairly — they can’t always claim
“sovereignty” as a shield to avoid criticism.
2. Transboundary Challenges (Climate Change, Pandemics,
Terrorism)
Some problems do not stop at borders — like climate change, global
health crises, and cyber threats.
For instance, rising sea levels, floods, and droughts affect many
countries at once, changing coastlines and even displacing
populations.
Climate change, according to studies, challenges the basic ideas of
sovereignty like fixed territory and permanent population.
Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic showed both sides: countries had
to work together through the WHO, but they also closed borders to
protect citizens — showing tension between global cooperation and
national control.
Cyberattacks and online misinformation also break through borders,
raising new questions about digital sovereignty.
3. Humanitarian Intervention and Human Rights
The idea of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) says that if a government
harms its own citizens, the international community can step in.
A major example is the 2011 Libya intervention, where the UN
Security Council allowed NATO to use force to protect civilians from
Gaddafi’s regime.
This saved many lives but also raised a big question — does
protecting people justify breaking a country’s sovereignty?
After Libya, countries like Russia and China became cautious about
supporting such actions, fearing it could be misused.
4. Secession and Territorial Disputes
When regions or ethnic groups try to form their own states, it directly
challenges the parent country’s sovereignty.
For example:
In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine — most
countries called it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008 — some
countries recognized it, but others still support Serbia’s claim.
Similar tensions exist in Catalonia (Spain), Kurdistan (Iraq), and
Scotland (UK) — all showing how sovereignty continues to be
debated.
5. Non-State Actors
Not only countries, but also non-state actors influence international
politics today.
Multinational companies (like Apple, Google) can affect
government policies.
NGOs (like Amnesty International) hold states accountable for
human rights.
Terrorist groups (like ISIS) can even control parts of territory,
reducing a state’s internal control.
These actors blur the old boundaries of what it means to have full
sovereignty.
These issues show that sovereignty today is not absolute but often
shared or adjusted. States still have strong control inside their
borders, but they sometimes have to give up or share parts of their
power in real situations. Global problems like climate change,
diseases, and terrorism — along with global values like human rights
and democracy — make countries balance their independence with
cooperation and international rules.
Implications for International Relations
State and sovereignty are still the main pillars of international
relations, but their meaning is changing with time. Today, countries
must balance their independence with global cooperation. For
example, issues like climate change and pandemics need joint efforts
beyond national borders, while human rights concerns often
challenge the idea of absolute sovereignty.
In the modern world, states are still the key players, but organizations
like the UN, EU, and NGOs, along with global companies, also affect
decisions. This has led to ideas like shared or pooled sovereignty,
where countries work together and give up some control for a larger
goal. Conflicts such as Russia’s actions in Crimea or debates over
interventions like in Libya show how sovereignty is often tested.
Overall, sovereignty today is not absolute—it is flexible and
continuously reshaped by politics, cooperation, and global norms.
How countries choose to protect, share, or redefine their sovereignty
will decide the future of world order.
Conclusion
State and sovereignty are the foundation of international relations. A
state means a defined area with its own government and authority,
while sovereignty is the state’s full right to make decisions without
outside control. Thinkers like Bodin and Weber gave shape to these
ideas.
Today, globalization, human rights, and global issues like climate
change and terrorism challenge complete independence. Still,
sovereignty remains an important principle — though in practice,
countries often balance between being independent and working
together. Understanding how state and sovereignty work, and how
they are changing, is key to understanding world politics today.