Sovereignty in the International System
International relations comprises of a wide range of theories that are concerned with the issues circulating in the political world. All these are collectively discussed under sovereignty. The ability of the governing body to gather the full power and rights over itself without the interference from the outside sources is a crucial aspect in international law. The world’s government always possess the complete control of their territorial and geographical limits. Sovereignty plays critical to international relations. In many occasions, we witness news on social media and various media outlets about border conflicts. The international system operates in a way that every government has sovereign power over its borders with other countries. Sovereignty is the recent development in international relations. For decades now, the concept of sovereignty has become the subject of many discussions of how it impacts on the international relations and international law for various countries. For many countries, sovereignty can be found in power to rule and set the underlying rules and laws that depend on the political facts of a nation. The concept of sovereignty in the legal context of war has helped in shaping the current international relations many countries enjoy today. In this regard, some of the underlying questions for answering will include; could sovereignty be restricted, and how has it changed over time? Is war legal, and when is the humanitarian intervention legal?
Sovereignty in the International Law
The important factor in sovereignty is the degree of absoluteness. Therefore, a sovereign power only enjoys absolute sovereignty when it is not restricted by the existing constitution of the land, by customs, by the laws of its predecessors, and that no law or policy areas are in its outside reservation for control. The greatest influence of sovereignty regards the relations between the states (Koskenniemi, 109). In 1576, Jean Bodin used the new concept of sovereignty to support the French King over the revolutionary forces from the feudal lords. Bodin mentioned that a sovereign who makes the law cannot be bounded by the same laws he makes (Trauger, 137). In this regard, it is not obvious that sovereignty can be restricted. The international rule and the rule of international law state implies authority over subjects. A legitimate international law has the legitimate rights to rule, and the right to create duties to be obeyed by the subjects. The sovereign states are the prime subjects when it comes to binding international laws.
The constitutional law of a state can restrict sovereignty. Border protection and the legal frameworks found in the prime documents of each state determines to what extent sovereignty could be restricted. However, no state can be restricted under the concept of sovereignty on it controls its internal affairs (Koskenniemi, 112). Sovereignty can grant or limit the powers of a state. In this regard, sovereignty restricts the influence states have on one another. In cases where sovereignty gives powers to a country, it is usually meant for peacekeeping purposes, and maintaining international relations. The concept of sovereignty legalizes war regarding the International Humanitarian Laws (IHL). The primary purpose of the IHL is to maintain some of humanity in armed conflict areas, saving lives and reducing human sufferings (Burley, 15). For example, the AMISOM soldiers in Somalia were sent by the United Nations for purposes of protecting humanity from the armed Al-Shabaab militants. In East Africa, Kenya joined the AMISOM forces to protect its borders, which was leeway for the militants. The efforts by the AMISOM will help to foster international relations between Somalia and other global courtiers if the peacekeeping forces succeed in restoring peace in Somalia. According to the Geneva Conventions, the rules of war are universal but have been ratified by almost 196 states. The Geneva Conventions are the core elements enshrined in the IHL. Any country fighting war needs to respect the IHL; otherwise, the war is illegal.
Changes in sovereignty over time
The nature of sovereignty has seemingly changed from endowing states with certain rights to granting specific responsibilities. The concept of sovereignty has changed over time due to the growth witnessed in civil society, and the expansion of international organizations. These changes have led to a condition of pooled sovereignty where a country strengthens its resources by combining them with the partnering countries. Some states have transferred some powers from the national governments to international bodies such as the European Union (Burley, 17). After the combination, the international bodies respond by exerting a higher degree of influence of the sovereign states. From this example, it is arguable that the concept of sovereignty has evolved into pooled sovereignty. This evolution has made certain powers to be shared between the states and the civil society (Koskenniemi, 107). These changes can be compared to the sovereignty that existed during the Cold War. During the periods of the Cold Wars, the military could not intervene in the affairs of another state. Otherwise, it would be termed as violation of the non-intervention norm. Three instances during the Cold War period was India’s intervention in East Pakistan in 1971, Vietnam’s in Cambodia in 1979, and Tanzania’s intervention in Uganda in 1978.
Legal aspects of War
Humanitarian intervention always aims at ending the human rights violations in a state. Humanitarian interventions have been justified to be legal based on the primary notion of the “Responsibility to protect (R2P).” Nevertheless, in many cases, the international communities have either responded recklessly or adequately, thus putting the very human life it seeks to protect at stake (Burley, 21). In 2011, UN Security Council intervened in Libya to prevent unprecedented civilian attacks, which almost amounted to a crime against humanity (Koskenniemi, 110). The Security Council demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya under the rule of then Gaddafi. NATO forces responded to the calls by the Security Council, and they began striking Gaddafi’s forces. Similarly, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2003 and 2001 were justified on the grounds of protecting humanity because Saddam Hussein had been pressing the rights of the Kurds. Taliban had been restricting the rights of women, and these events necessitated and legalized war.
What is of greater importance for the international system?
Every government in today’s planet claims to be paying allegiance to human rights, and the respect for international laws. Human rights are susceptible to violation than state sovereignty. Any discourse in human rights can potentially undermine the governments’ claims about the inviolability of state sovereignty (Trauger, 137). Therefore, human rights are of greater importance to the international system than state sovereignty. In many instances, international bodies have always intervened in severe cases when humanity is treated with respect. On the other hand, the international bodies such as the UN Security Council hardly intervene on border issues until there is a violation of human rights due to the ongoing wars.
Conclusion
In conclusion, sovereignty can be restricted by the constitutional law of a state even though no state can be reprimanded on how to control its internal affairs. From this argument, Bodin mentioned that it’s not apparent to restrict sovereignty because a sovereign who makes the laws cannot be bounded by the same laws he makes. Sovereignty has changed over time from the Cold War periods. The sovereignty has gradually changed into pooled sovereignty where there is a combination of resources with the partnering countries for strengthening purposes. From the requires of the international law statues, international bodies such as the UN security council may intervene in a war if human rights are being violated. Such wars are legal and further legalizes humanitarian intervention.
References
Burley, A.M.S., 2017. International law and international relations theory: a dual agenda. In The Nature of International Law (pp. 11-46). Routledge.
Koskenniemi, M., 2016. Expanding Histories of International Law. American Journal of Legal History, 56(1), pp.104-112.
Trauger, A. ed., 2015. Food sovereignty in international context: discourse, politics and practice of place (pp. 134-145). Routledge.