Sovereignty and international relations

Sovereignty is the ability of a nation or state to have, and maintain its own laws that are independent of outside influence. This could be considered the core of international relations, as many times countries try and impose their will on foreign entities based on their own laws. One example would be the Geneva Convention, as chemical weapons used in a foreign country normally invite outside influence. This has made the world more connected, with power projection influencing and sometimes direct intervention being a constant factor in how a country is maintaining their sovereignty (Krasner,2001). Countries can no longer afford to be ignorant of international relations, as anything they do in their country is under direct scrutiny from their peers. Although, according to Heywood “In no meaningful sense has politics at the global level transcended politics at the national, local or, for that matter, any other level. In effect, sovereignty is directly correlated with international relations, as other countries are always influencing each other, and it’s the state that tries to remain independent of this outside influence.

The concept of state of sovereignty and why it forms the basis of international relations is primarily to promote peaceful coexistence amongst states.  It is essential to note that one of the key purposes of sovereignty is to allow for countries to be peaceful although the political systems of the countries might be different (Schreuer, 1993).  I would say that with peace in mind that is what makes sovereignty important to each country’s political system, and because country’s desire peace, makes it a foundation for international relations. With increased globalization, it has become essential to develop the concept of sovereignty as more and more states increase interdependence amongst them.

The concept of sovereignty has been a widely accepted principle for centuries. After the 1648 Peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years’ War, it was instilled as the foundation for international relations (Walker, 2002). It helped create a system that promoted peace by separating feuding populations and bringing together those that believe in the same values. Empowering smaller nations, sovereignty grants smaller nations specific rights. In 1945, the Charter of the United Nations solidified these rights. They include the right of equality, the right of existence, and noninterference in the domestic affairs of other states (Al-Rfouh, 2000). By granting these rights to smaller states, the U.N. was able to equalize international relations. Smaller states no longer had to fear unwarranted invasion or inadequate representation.
Sovereignty is intertwined with many democratic principles. It recognizes international borders and the right of the nation’s people to participate in the region’s government. According to Walker (2002), sovereignty defines “the political entity and…the source of the individual’s democratic rights”. It helps create a voice for the population and leverage for the smaller state. As the world developed, sovereignty was instrumental in how nations recognized and treated each other. It is just as important to the people as it is to the nation as a whole.

Why state sovereignty has become more ambiguous since the 1990s

The issue of state sovereignty has been an important issue especially with the increased globalization where interdependence and interactions between states is inevitable. Nevertheless, it is prudent to point out that state sovereignty has become more ambiguous since 1990s as a result of several factors. First you must clearly define what a state is. As defined by the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a state must possess four qualifying properties: a defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government, and the ’capacity to enter into relations with other states’. (Heywood 2011). This has largely blurred the lines of state sovereignty as in some regions of the world, territories have become somewhat fluid, as factions on one side or another of a conflict take over. As with populations, many countries are either receiving a large influx from outside, or a large exodus from inside the country, as with the economic migrants from turkey, and North Africa. Many of these places receiving the large influx and having large exoduses is countries with largely ineffectual governments. Another way state sovereignty has changed is the fact that corporations or political movements can have ripple effects across borders, largely independent of government influence. Many times these collective goals that are largely independent of the government are actually in the best interest of the state (Annan 1999). With the world being so interconnected through devices and Internet, the access to information, real or otherwise is abundant. This has real lasting effects that the State largely has no control over short of cutting off outside influence, much like North Korea.

Also, there is a sense of ambiguous nature happening with the formation of globalization in regards to international relations. As a matter of fact, “globalizing tendencies have not only cast doubt over the continued relevance of the principle of state sovereignty, but also, arguably, reshaped the nature and the role of the state itself”, (Heywood, 2011, p.118). Basically, what this means is that sovereign states have been subjected to a transformation where they are slowly being blurred out to where it is hard to distinguish what a sovereign states looks like, (Heywood, 2011, p119). That is scary thought because sovereign states are created to be able to control their own countries as to the way they see fit, (Heywood, 2011, p112). However, if this sense of ambiguity continues to form, I personally believe that it is unlikely that we will continue to see sovereign states still existent

References

Christoph Schreuer, “The Waning of the Sovereign State: Towards a New Paradigm for International Law?”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1993)  p. 448.

Geoffrey De Q. Walker, ‘Why Sovereignty Still Matters: The Erosion of Democracy’, The Heywood, A. (2011). Global politics. Houndmills, Basingstoke Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Pg 2.

National Observer, No. 51 (Summer 2002), p. 33.

Kofi Annan, “Two Concepts of Sovereignty”, The Economist, 18 Sept. 1999.

UN General Assembly Resolution 63/308, 7 Oct. 2009, paras. 138 and 139.

Stephen D. Krasner, “Sovereignty”, Foreign Affairs, No. 122 (Jan-Feb 2001), p. 26.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?