Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Prior to World War I, it has been said that sovereignty was a central, irreducible concept, signifying the state’s virtually absolute right to control its territory and population and repel those who interfere in its internal affairs. In recent years, however, sovereignty has become more problematic with the rise οf social economical and cultural rights. Some question whether sovereignty remains a viable concept.
In current international law, as in classical international law, a state’s sovereignty is not absolute. A state has never been able to do as it wishes; not even within its own border. Before any domestic or foreign action was taken, considerations οf what others may do were always taken into account. The only difference is that now, because οf globalization and the expansion οf International Governmental Organizations, a state’s actions may have adverse results on many other states causing them or an international organization to take retaliatory or responsive action. The viability οf sovereignty is almost nonexistent; especially with the expansion οf International Law.
International relations are dynamic and not static. The will and ideals οf the strongest nation, at the time, will dictate largely what economically and military inferior countries are able or allowed to do. This has been the practice since recognized states or principalities began to interact with one another. If sovereignty was in fact absolute as proposed by many, how is it that Iraq is presently under the political, military and economical control οf the United States?
After all, before the March 2003 invasion οf Iraq, no one can question that Iraq met the international criteria to be recognized as a state. Secondly, the trend towards the creation οf large International Governmental Organizations is further diminishing the sovereignty οf states. With the creation οf such International Governmental Organizations, how much latitude should they be given to intervening in the domestic affairs οf nations?
Sovereignty as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is: 1: supremacy in rule or power 2: power to govern without external control and 3: supreme political control within a state (1997). Οf the three definitions listed, only one can be completely achieved by a state. Within most modern and ancient states, there has usually been a supreme political control measure.
In the United States, that supreme political authority is the constitution οf the United States. It clearly delineates how laws are made, enforced and reviewed. It also authorizes the creation οf certain organizations to implement its intent. Ideally, states believe that they are able to achieve all three definitions οf sovereignty. Within any given state, during a given time, a states ability to act is based on consequences οf its actions. “In the international system οf states, as in domestic counterparts, politics will turn to law to achieve desired ends and to promote the values οf its members (Damrosch, et al).” This was evident during the cold war.
If a state is truly independent and militarily and economically supreme to all other states then the consequences that it faces are minuscule. The United States pulled out οf the Kyoto Protocol on emissions with any adverse action. However, when a state is dependent on outside assistance and is economically and militarily weak, it is subject to economic sanctions, trade embargos or military interventions, which all directly affect the course οf action that is taken. The idea οf absolute sovereignty has resulted in nations going to war with one another and ultimately ending with one nation subjecting itself to the will οf the other. In the past, as now, countries have sometimes needed to justify their reasons for going to war to other countries before action is taken. In 431 B.C.E. Corinth sent a delegation to Sparta to file complaints against Athens. Today we see countries going to the United Nations and to the International Court οf Justice to file claims before military action are taken.
What authority do international organizations have over states? During the end οf the 20th Century, mass atrocities were being committed in Kosovo against ethnic Albanians by Serbians. On 10 June 1999, the United Nations issued Resolution 1244. Decision Number seven and eight stated:
- Authorizes Member States and relevant international organizations to establish the international security presence in Kosovo as set out in point 4 οf annex 2 with all necessary means to fulfill its responsibilities under paragraph 9 below;
- Affirms the need for the rapid early deployment οf effective international civil and security presences to Kosovo, and demands that the parties cooperate fully in their deployment
The sovereign authority οf the Serbian government was completely usurped by an outside governmental organization. In the Corfu Channel Case, Albania was held liable by the International Court οf Justice for certain omissions οf the presence οf mines laid in her territorial matter (Damrosch, et al). If states could not be held accountable, then there would not have been a need for Albania to respond for her actions, and could not have been forced to compensate the United Kingdom for its loss. In the Rainbow Warrior Case, France requested the extradition οf two French agents and New Zealand requested reparations for the destruction οf a ship.
Unable to come to an agreement, both parties submitted their case to the International Court οf Justice. France was granted extradition οf its two agents and New Zealand was compensated. However, shortly after the confinement οf the individuals to Hao, France, France requested that New Zealand allowing the temporary movement οf one οf the agents to Paris for medical treatment.
France eventually relocated the agent without the consent οf New Zealand. In this instance, New Zealand who had jurisdiction οf territorial principle was forced to acquiesce the three-year confinement οf the agents to the French who asserted jurisdiction under the principle οf nationality. They did so in hope οf receiving compensation. Therefore, once again it goes to show that absolute sovereignty is none existent because New Zealand and France were both forced to bring their case before the International Court οf Justice.
If sovereignty is absolute, how could America enter Iraq without authority and colonize Iraq placing it under the direction οf Washington? Prior to the March 2003 invasion οf Iraq, no one can question the Iraq meet the four criteria οf international law to be considered a state. Iraq had an organized government over a certain territory, with permanent inhabitants, and it had the capabilities to engage in relations with other states.
Additionally, Iraq was formally recognized by the United States through diplomatic relations. America made the case that Iraq was producing Weapons οf Mass Destruction and that it was a threat to the international community and then entered when Iraq failed to submit to weapons inspection. Many see America’s actions as unilateral and not having the consensuses οf the international community. Nonetheless, it proved that a country cannot commit indiscriminate acts within its own borders. In the end, America has not been able to prove that Iraq had stockpiles οf Weapons οf Mass Destruction, and yet it has Iraq’s former leader in confinement awaiting judicial prosecution for his actions.
How much latitude should International Government Organizations be given with respect to interfering in the domestic affairs οf states? When a state is accused οf having committed a violation οf an international obligation, International Organizations may impose a collective action οf a sanction upon that state. In 1992, the United Nations’ Security Council declared sanctions on Yugoslavia for the atrocities occurring within Serbia and Montenegro that were not lifted until the Dayton agreement in 1995. Did these sanctions accomplish anything? Years later North Atlantic Treaty Organization was bombing the capital, Belgrade for the atrocities committed in Serbia. While the sanctions placed by the Security Council strained the military, it also affected the inhabitants whom the atrocities were being committed against. What did the sanctions accomplish?
To take action, an international organization must meet certain criterion that is that they are not under the jurisdiction οf a state and practice an objective legal personality. However, the United Nations has permanent members that may veto any action. So, if a permanent member-state were to commit an injustice, that state could veto an action against it. At present, there are not enough checks and balances in the criterion for an International Organization to take action. For that reason, International Governmental Organizations should be significantly limited in the actions that they take with regards to domestic issues.
The idea that sovereignty is a central, irreducible concept, signifying the states virtually absolute right to control its territory and population and repel those who interfere in its internal affairs is no longer applicable. Recent years have shown us that sovereignty has become more problematic with the rise οf social economical and cultural rights. A state’s sovereignty is not absolute. As always states always consider what other states may do before they take any domestic or foreign action. Now, because οf globalization and the expansion οf International Governmental Organizations, states are quicker to protect their political and economical interest. Because some states have more economic interest then others the actions that International Organizations can take should be limited to preclude them from injuring smaller or weaker states.
Work Cited
Damrosch, Lori F., et el. 2001. International Law. St. Paul: West Group
Mish, Fredrick C., et al 1997. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Springfield: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
UN Resolution 1244. 1999. NATO’s Role in Kosovo 11 April 2004. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.