What is State Sovereignty and Why is it Important

in International Politics?

Politics Beyond the Nation State – December 2001

As globalisation shrinks our world and trade barriers fall the traditional form of state government has

come under close scrutiny as it attempts to justify its present existence but also balancing and

countering influence from international bodies. In this essay I will outline the origins and

characteristics of state sovereignty and then assess its role and significance in past and contemporary

international politics.

Prior to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 there was no official recognition of leaders who

ruled over a certain territory. Populations were governed by whoever was in control of the area at the

time. There were no formal borders and the Thirty – Years War had ravaged Europe. Representatives

of the warring parties came together and legally recognised each other and their raison d’être and

therefore a mutual recognition of borders was reached through compromise. Thus the concept of

sovereign states was realised.

The Westphalian model dictates a sovereign state has legitimate, total and absolute authority

over its citizens within its own, defined and legally recognised boundaries. It also introduced states to

religious toleration and by agreeing that the Church had to act though the state’s political institutions

dramatically reduced its power that it previously asserted as a transnational entity. A state could now

impose its will on its subjects without concern about threats from other states regarding domestic

policy. To make the sovereign state successful it was necessary to gain internal recognition. To achieve

this, the state used its monopoly of power; politically, economically and militarily to coerce and

persuade the population to accept the authority’s position. Once competing authorities were put down

and the state became the recognised and legitimate power external security could be maximised. The

fundamentals of this system remain today although occasionally state sovereignty is compromised

despite Chapter I, Article II of the Charter of the United Nations:

“The Organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”
United Nation membership is often regarded as unofficial recognition of a legitimate state. Currently

this stands at 189 members but it is doubtful that all members recognise each other as sovereign states.

In international politics near universal recognition of a state’s raison d’être enables diplomatic

relationships to begin and hence new opportunities to arise. The paradox of the sovereign state’s

success is the diminishing power it can wield once trade agreements, ententes, accords and

memberships are gained. One example of this is Great Britain in the Edwardian era. The British

Empire’s interest in the Mediterranean was secured by the Entente Cordiale in 1904 which recognised

Britain’s claim to Egypt and France’s to Morocco. Germany interest in Morocco increased and French

pressure on the British to support its claim was reluctant as peace is Europe was desirable but Egypt

was crucial to the Empire. The UK government had its hands tied while on the opposite side of the

Atlantic the USA was enjoying a purer form of sovereignty in isolation. Also, German EU membership

enables it to be a powerful broker in Europe at the expense of contributing the most amount of funds to

the EU budget. These IGOs (International Governmental Organisations) are perceived as a threat to

state sovereignty and the power of governments to conduct their own policy. Already many EU laws

over rule domestic laws and if EU citizens are not satisfied by judgement in their own member state

they can apply for a hearing in the European Court of Human Rights. The overruling of sovereign

states power by other more powerful states, IGOs, but also persuasion by public opinion, lobbyists,

Multi National Corporations and NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) have persuaded some the

power of the state is rapidly diluting and hence its importance is in question.

Sovereignty enables to the state to perform its function of survival though self-help. By

possessing a monopoly of power internal descent and detrimental forces can be rapidly destroyed and

therefore deterred thereby reducing a threat to the state’s existence. Domestic policy can be legislated

without hindrance from foreign powers who may disagree with the state but respect its legitimate claim

and hence its right to exist. A stable sovereign state can conduct foreign policy in which its position to

survive is strengthened through cooperation both military and economically via trade agreements.

Sovereignty which produces strong states which have influence on an international front and so can

increase its survival position by affecting international issues in its own favour although in the EU case

influence is paid by an acceptance of certain regulations and legislations that over rules domestic

legislation. Is a sovereign state the victim of its own success? The mass mutual recognition of other

states has led to many IGOs being created which to exist in a purposeful manner must have power to
act. Power is relinquished by the now ‘less sovereign state’ and possibly into the control of an

executive who do not regard the state’s interest as paramount.

It is undeniable that sovereign states’ roles have changed massively in the post WWII era and

especially in the last decade. Fifty years ago nationalisation was widespread throughout the UK. Many

utilities, industries such as coal and steel as well as health were under government control. The

international community then moved towards an increasingly non-interventionist agenda letting free

market forces gradually run these bodies. State power was sacrificed in the cause of improved

standards of living through increased profits. The flow of money world wide is now under lax

government regulation as is information such as through the internet which falls in a variety of state

jurisdictions and is increasingly difficult to police by a force that operates only in one state when

criminal threats to state security base themselves all over the globe. Trans-border pollution has also

shown how states have the inability to control both incoming and outgoing pollutants across their

defined boundaries.

Liberalism accompanied the non-interventionist tactics of western governments. Free speech

and the ability to challenge government policy have enabled a rapid emergence of NGOs such as

Greenpeace and Amnesty International. State tolerance of their existence has led to critical but peaceful

opposition of policy.

“Amnesty International is urging members of the Russian State Duma (parliament) to take steps towards

fully abolishing the death penalty.”

www.amnesty.org (Accessed 10th December 2001)

In turn their existence has attracted media attention which in turn attracts increased public opinion.

The main NGOs are transnational incorporating common ideologies across the world. These shared

values bring citizens of different states together and by doing so create a large important body which

represents a multi national consensus. To debate and counter this movement states have to address the

body together as they themselves are being campaigned against as a collection of states. Thus the

shrinking of the world continues. A human rights violation is still a human rights violation wherever it

is in the world. As the current UN Secretary General notes:

 “Humanity, after all, is indivisible.”

Kofi Annan

There is a growing sense that we are all citizens of the world. Three things have increased this global

mentality. Firstly, Multi national corporations have created universal language spanning a diverse

range of states. Coca- Cola and McDonalds are recognisable which increase this common identity but

also there are corporations that governments rely on for new technology. This reliance for new

technology in weapons underlines the fact that states no longer can act in isolation to survive. The

recent US fighter plane contract relies on UK jobs in the private sector. Some may argue that the Bush

Administration’s decision not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is partly due to his election campaign

financing from large oil companies. It is argued that Multinational companies have much influence on

states and therefore undermine the independence from external influence of a sovereign state. Thirdly

mass media has had a huge impact on the shrinking of the globe. The BBC, CNN and Reuters all have

thousands of employees anticipating events across the planet ever ready to transmit the details over a

variety of media such as TV, radio and newest arrival and perhaps crucial component of globalisation,

the internet. News is now much more accessible than the six ‘clock news. It is on demand from a

variety of sources and formats. The battle for ratings has led to new technologies showing us far

reaching countries in hopefully objective ways that governments do not have the power to intervene

what their populations are seeing.

IGOs, especially the EU are heavily criticised for interfering in domestic affairs. It is easy to

understand why. The entire concept of a sovereign state to conduct its own affairs has been altered

dramatically. In January 2000 12 states relinquished control of monetary policy in order to join the

EMU. These governments can no longer set interest rates and hence are under an external influence

that can inflict huge affects on their economies. Euro sceptics argue that state sovereignty is being

eroded while Pro-Europe parties it is in the self interest of the state. The EU is unique that it does

remove power from state governments and states do lose control of certain power and hence a decline

in sovereignty. Where other IGOs differ is membership is not dependant on a transfer of power to a

higher authority. Previously there had been a no higher authority and the international system was

anarchic. The UN and NATO members can act under the IGOs umbrella in an issue but single states
can still declare war themselves without backing from these IGOs as the UK did in the Falklands.

Sovereign states usually seek approval from the UN or if not some sort of coalition of allies before

declaring war on another sovereign state even though this may break UN and international law.

The end of the Cold War and Globalisation as well as increased interdependence of states

through international bodies has redefined states’ responsibilities to less fortunate states under control

by western perceptions of ‘bad’ leadership. The ‘double edged sword’ of the ‘CNN factor’ of mass

coverage of crisis brings in aid and stirs public opinion for action while domestic servicemen being

brought home in coffins can as quickly cease aid and support as it arrived. Governments are much

more sensitive to public opinion and its perception that violent human rights abuses must be stopped

regardless of international law.

“Just as we have learnt that the world cannot stand aside when gross and systematic violations of human

rights are taking place, we have also learnt that, if it is to enjoy the sustained support of the world’s

peoples, intervention must be based on legitimate and universal principles.”

Kofi Annan

There is a near global consensus, a conscience of what is right or wrong and it is this belief that

pressures governments into humanitarian just wars. By doing so they contradict the notion that a state

will only war in its self –interest. On the declaration of war in Europe since WWII Tony Blair said:

“we know from our own history and from our own character that there are times when we have to stand

up and fight for peace, when force is the final resort of those who know that the only peace that ever

lasts is a just peace, a peace based on justice.”

Without a UN mandate NATO declared war on Yugoslavia under humanitarian pretences. The Prime

Minister called it a ‘just’ war and there seemed to be no abuse of the situation to exploit self –interest.

The key issue in Kosovo was the relationship of state sovereignty to human rights. The UN charter

says:

“Armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest.”

Was Kosovo in the common interest? Rwanda showed the world ‘the consequences of inaction’ but as

Kofi Annan argues an equally important question about the

“consequences of action without international consensus and clear legal authority.”

Art Eggleton (Canadian Minister for National Defence) argues that the allies force did not ‘have the

luxury’ of waiting for a UN mandate:

“What Kosovo did show, however, was that under pressing circumstances, gridlock in the UN will not

be allowed to thwart the determination of the international community to overt humanitarian tragedies.”

The importance of state sovereignty is still a fundamental part of apparatus of politics in the

21st Century. The emergence of Globalisation, Non state actors and IGOs have decreased the power one

state can have over its people especially with the EU but also human rights abuses and the UN. Its

importance is high but foreign policy is conducted through many bodies and groups and not just the

state. The time when states were free to treat their people in a way they saw how is over:

“Our actions in Kosovo declared,…, that mass murder is an act of moral repugnance, not the prerogative

of a sovereign state.”

“Certain fundamental rights are not the privilege of citizenship but the birthright of humanity.”

Art Eggelton
Bibliography

Annan,K.A.(1999) “Two concepts of state sovereignty”, The Economist, London, The Economist

Newspaper Limited.

Baylis,J. & Smith,S. (2001) The Globalization of World Politics, New York, Oxford University Press.

McLean, I. (1996) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Websites

http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~carman/carman/nato_proposal.html - accessed 8th December 2001.

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/strategic/hzl_t_of_w_0599.html - accessed 8th December 2001.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/sceptred_isle/ - accessed 8th December 2001.

http://www.amnesty.org - accessed 8th December 2001.

http://www.un.org - accessed 8th December 2001.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_303000/303648.stm - accessed 8th December 2001.