Argue the case both for and against the suggestion that sovereignty is of declining significance in international relations Essay Example

Argue the case both for and against the suggestion that sovereignty is of declining significance in international relations Essay Example Argue the case both for and against the suggestion that sovereignty is of declining significance in international relations Essay Argue the case both for and against the suggestion that sovereignty is of declining significance in international relations Essay It is too facile to claim that, in a globalised world, the age of state is dead, although it is also now much harder to sustain the argument that the state is all-powerful (McCrone quoted in Tierney, 2005, 171) Realists claim the sovereign state the central actor in international politics. Indeed, most theories of international relations recognize the sovereign state as the dominant entity in the international society. Nevertheless, the rise of international institutions and worldwide economic integration is questioning the very viability of the sovereign state (Brown, 2005, 3). This essay will elaborate on the existence of state sovereignty in todays globalized world. It will bring forth arguments pro the suggestion that sovereignty is of declining significance in international relations, as well as con. Firstly, the concept of sovereignty is briefly evaluated. Secondly, it is contended that sovereignty consists of four identities and that these for identities are disconnected. Thirdly, challenges to state sovereignty will be divided into three dimensions 1) the emergence of supra-national states 2) sub-state nationalism 3) globalization and primarily economic integration. Lastly, this essay will reason that these challenges are threatening different elements of sovereignty, arguing their relative significance. Due to reason of space and the vastness and controversy of this essay topic, limitations are inevitable. The essay is majorly dealing with contemporary issues related to the debate and the reader should bear in mind that the essay is elusive in the sense that arguments are only dealt with cursorily. The concept of sovereignty Before examining how state sovereignty may be withering away, it is imperative to understand how sovereignty has been traditionally conceived. Since the late 16th century sovereignty has been strictly linked to the concept of states and Bodin undeniably referred to the supreme authority conferred on the state. Albeit, in medieval France souverain could refer to any authority which had no other authority above itself (Oppenheim, 1912, 111) and therefore its highest court were at that time entitled Cours Soverains (Pemberton, 2009, 1). Sovereignty in absolute terms reflects the status secured at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the constitution recognized the following definition: within its borders the state or government has entitlement to supreme, unqualified and exclusive political and legal authority (McGrew, 2006, 29). In reality, sovereignty is an indefinite phenomenon, mirroring the complex system of how states function today (Pemberton, 2009, 1). Nuanced identifications of sovereignty commonly refer to it as not an organic whole but a container of both legal and political elements (Brown, 2005, 116). More specifically, Krasner identifies four different ways of conceptualizing sovereignty. Firstly, Domestic sovereignty refers to the authoritarian organization within the state and its effectiveness. Secondly, Interdependence sovereignty is the ability of a state to control the movements of goods, people, capital and ideas across its borders. Thirdly, International legal sovereignty refers to the recognition as a sovereign state in the international society. For example, an internationally legal sovereign state can sit in the United Nation and voluntarily sign treaties. Lastly, Westphalian sovereignty has according to Krasner nothing to do with the Peace of Westphalia. It refers to authoritative external influences being absent, in other words, not to intervene in other sovereign states internal affairs (Krasner, 1999, 3-5). If nothing else stated, forthcoming discussion will refer to sovereignty as incorporating all these elements. Sovereignty a container of elements In terms of sovereignty, the world has never really worked in the way people assert it has. Krasner claim that domestic, interdependence, legal international and Westphalian sovereignty are disconnected and hardly any state embodies all four of them, the United States might be one of the rare cases (Krasner, 1999, 5-10). Hong Kong is one amongst many problematic examples. As a member of the World Trade Organization Hong Kong to some extent has international legal sovereignty, however, it does not have Westphalian sovereignty as China at any time can intervene. Additionally, Somalia is a very common example of a so-called failing state. It obviously does not have effective domestic sovereignty and disputably it might or might not have Westphalian sovereignty. Still, like other failing states in Sub-Saharan Africa, it has international legal sovereignty and thus recognized as a sovereign state (Krasner, 2008, 1-5) (McCall Smith 2001, 83-90) States do not have to be failing or oddities like Hong Kong to lack one element of the four identities. Krasners argument that there are fewer countries than we think which actually consist of all elements supports the idea of sovereignty as not a narrow positivist construction. Additionally, one can argue that some aspects of sovereignty are of more or less importance in todays world. Three challenges to sovereignty According to Stephen Tierney, there are three rival sites of authority contesting the construction of the sate as supreme site of territorial sovereignty (Tierney, 2005, 175). Supra-states Firstly, the emergence of supra-state political and lawful orders of which the European Union is the most frequent example; another less institutionally sophisticated examples is the World Trade Organization (Tierney, 2005, 164-166). Indisputably, the pre-eminence of EU law contravene the sovereignty of the Member States. Law-making power is one of the key features of sovereignty and on principle the EU courts decisions have direct effects on Member States. This is argued a loss of Westphalian sovereignty, however, all Member Sates have voluntarily signed the constitution. In that sense, state sovereignty as a whole remains intact as any member can, although unfeasibly, decide to leave the union (Pemberton, 2009, 2-6) (Conversation with Stephen D. Krasner, 2003). With the emergence of supra-national orders (NAFTA, ASEAN etc.), states increasingly limit their Westphalian Sovereignty. On the contrary, Member Sates of supra-national orders have not been giving up international legal sovereignty (they are still individually represented in the UN), stressing its recurrent significance. Therefore McGrew argues sovereignty no longer a legal claim to absolute power but a tool of bargaining with other agencies and social impetuses (McGrew, 2006, 33). As a response to arguments that states are forfeiting power, Tierney contends supra-states (as well as sub-state movements) represent the reallocation of state power to alternative territorial sites. Hence, it is not a loss of power from the state but rather the redistribution within it (Tierney 2005, 172). Sub-sate nationalism During the last three decades, sub-state national societies have emerged within a number of liberal democracies; three outstanding examples are Scotland (United Kingdom), Quebec (Canada) and Catalonia (Spain). Not only have they re-declared their national distinctiveness but also called upon constitutional recognitions (Tierney, 2005, 167). It is often wrongly believed that sub-state nationalism is driven by the same impetus as existing states and built on the same dynamics. Likewise supra-states sub-state nationalism is territorially based, but at the same time distinctly different as it first and foremost operates within the state, nevertheless acting beyond its borders. Ergo, sub-state nationalism poses structural challenges to the coherence Westphalian nation-state model and the monistic concept of it. Furthermore, embodies a similar amount of authority akin to the two challenges mentioned above (Tierney, 2005, 166-169). Sub-state movements disputably subvert domestic sovereignty. Even though Tierney argue secessionist movements in decline, if a particular sub-national group no longer want to be apart of the parent state, it may perforce lead to erosion of confidence in state leadership. Indeed, the government ability to exercise domestic sovereignty will be impeded by the need to direct resources to quell riots and the lack of confidence (Cohan, 2006, 932). Globalization and economic integration Tierney refers to the sectoral level as primarily economic challenges through the extra-territorial dimension often referred to as globalization (Tierney, 2005, 165). Globalization is an ambiguous phenomenon open to a myriad of interpretations; McGrew refers to it as an increasing sense of interconnectedness, driven by various economic factors, technological innovation, changes in policy and cultural preferences (McGrew, 2006, 22). Disputably, globalization is subverting the authority of the state as the importance of the borders and boundaries that disaggregate the word into its some 193 states are diminishing (McGrew, 2006, 22). With a shrinking world, issues such as terrorism, nuclear weapons, and the environment have become of global concern because of their likelihood to have worldwide consequences. Thus, with increased interconnectedness Cohan argues globalization leads to the inability of the state to use unfettered powers (Cohan, 2006, 910). Multinational corporations, which can move factories in and out of countries or impose demands upon the state before investing, is one amongst many examples demonstrating how global integration external pressure is restricting the power of the sovereign state. Both the East Asian crisis in 1997 and the financial collapse of the American economy in 2008 had disastrous worldwide consequences (McGrew, 2006, 20). As for a current issue, if no solution is cooperated, the European debt crisis will have severe international ramifications (The Economist, 17 September 2011). Such crises undeniably depict how integrated the world financial system has become and how sensitive markets and states are to one another. Consequently, Susan Strange suggests that market forces are controlling the state governments rather than the opposite (Simpson, 2008, 59). As stressed above, global forces are undermining government control over national economies and their societies, leading to a comparative denationalization of power and a world with shared social space (McGrew, 2006, 24). Hence, one can proclaim that globalization is fundamentally questioning interdependence sovereignty. Nevertheless, critics believe that sectoral confrontations lead to a diffusion of certain powers to de-territorialised sites but not necessarily a demise of the sovereign state as a whole (Tierney 2005, 172). Challenges to state sovereignty not a new phenomenon Notwithstanding supra-national institutions, globalization and the emergence of sub-state nationalism, threats to state sovereignty are not new phenomena. Indeed, violations reach back all the way to the very creation of the concept itself. Recalling Krasners four identities of sovereignty the existence of two chief dimensions, Westphalian sovereignty and to a lesser extent international legal sovereignty, have been frequently challenged (Conversation with Stephen D. Krasner, 2003). In an interview by Harry Kreisler, Krasner emphasises the challenges to Westphalian sovereignty have involved alternative norms. The four most salient have been religious toleration (17th and 18th century), minority rights (19th and first half of 20th century), human rights (last half of 20th and the 21st century) and lastly international stability (Conversation with Stephen D. Krasner, 2003). It is plausible that these challenges to sovereignty emerge because not only does sovereignty include rights but also responsibilities and therefore, the exercise of state sovereignty becomes restricted. It is highly contested that sovereignty should not be respected when a state is not living up to these international norms. For instance, the right to intervene if a state government is committing genocide (Haines, 2009, 102). Notwithstanding the history of state sovereignty, challenges may be of more or less threatening remark. It is argued that forces confronting state sovereignty today are of such prodigious dimensions that it inevitably leads to sovereignty becoming a moribund institution (McGrew, 2006, 25). However, this essay has argued that some of the four elements of sovereignty have been more or less challenged. Indeed, international legal sovereignty seem not have been threatened but rather increased in significance, arguably because states still value international recognition. Calling to mind not only the newly created state of the Republic of South Sudan but also the heated dispute over Palestinian sovereignty. Conclusion One can argue that whereas some identities of sovereignty are of declining significance (and relatively so) others are not. Firstly, interdependence sovereignty is profoundly challenged by globalization and economic integration. Secondly, sub-state nationalism is challenging the monolithic tone of Westphalian sovereignty and if these movements turn secessionist it will perforce lead to a decline in domestic sovereignty. Thirdly, Westphalian sovereignty is limited by the emergence of supra-states such as the EU. As a matter of fact, interdependence sovereignty and Westphalian sovereignty seem to be the most contested, the former because of the vastness of globalization and economic integration. The latter has not only historically been highly disputed but also presently as external threats such as supra-national orders and sub-state nationalism are gaining momentum. On the contrary, international legal sovereignty is undeniably recurrent, calling to mind newly created states such as South Sudan. Furthermore, recollecting that Member Sates of the EU and other supra-national orders have been willing to limit some dimension of sovereignty, however, they are all still recognized as individual states. Mindful the dissonance of the four dimensions of sovereignty, neither can it be argued that sovereignty is of waning significance nor of increased importance. Perhaps it is more of a ringing bell stressing the need for an alteration of the term Sovereignty in order to reflect the world reality.