Ever since the term global village became fashionable and the idea of a shrinking world became universally accepted as a positive move, the concept of sovereignty has been considered outdated. After the two devastating World Wars the UN was set up to uphold the common goals of humanity and to ensure all nations would act in the best interest of all mankind and have common purposes in global matters. Therefore, those who considered the element of sovereignty as essential for the creation, existence and identification of nations were often questioned for upholding the theory and criticised for being antiquated in a world that was promoting and celebrating multilateralism. Nations, which had thus far acted independently for self gain, seemed to agree to act in concerted moves to promote multilateralism.
Following the two World Wars, nations sought to come together to build a safe world ensuring peace and security for all mankind. The outcome of this excitement was that countries and their leaders began to believe that for the well-being of all people, they should no longer think solely in terms of national issues and that global concerns should be paramount in framing national policies. Elated analysts regarded these actions as the end of the narrow reading of the principle of sovereignty as recognised by international law. The world, it seemed, had moved beyond national self-interest and finally recognised interdependence for existence, even when other countries lay beyond their regions and were not in geographical proximity to each other.
However, the concept of sovereignty is the essence of the existence of nations. It is the ultimate power, authority and jurisdiction of the ruling entity over a territory and its people. The ruling authority may be created or may exist in diverse forms as monarchy, autocracy or democracy. A sovereign authority is recognised as the power that can administer its own territory and create laws without external influence subject to equity and justice and with regard to established principles of international law. In that sense, it means no foreign power has any authority within the territorial limits of a country or upon its citizens within the territory. It is based on the simple theory that nations have a right to rule their territory and a duty to protect their territorial integrity and ensure the safety and security of their citizens and within that reasonable power, do all such actions required to ensure it. Along with these powers international law placed upon nations the responsibility to ensure no actions take place within their territory that damage others. The power is restricted by principles that recognise and govern areas held as “common heritage of all mankind”, such as the high seas.
The backlash for the erosion of the unassailable doctrine of sovereignty is evident now, though many still do not accept the absolute need to maintain the principle in international relations. It is impossible to reject the need to restrict the immunity of state authorities in all actions, especially in issues that deal directly with civil, political and human rights. However, the interference of global powers in the guise of supporting self-determination and freedom in the internal affairs of less strong and strife-torn nations can hardly be accepted as acting for global good. The unilateralism of the two superpowers with least regard to the cultural, ethnic and religious diversity of nations facing internal strife has led to the current situation. While countries tried to grapple with extremism and political, ethnic or religious violence, the operations conducted by these powers have exacerbated the conflicts. Although the operations have been termed as humanitarian interventions and securing freedom for those suffering under repressing regimes and have also been explained as curtailing impunity of the state, clearly these actions have invariably resulted in a vacuum that non-state actors like terrorists and extremists have ensconced in. Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine are countries that are in disarray and while the world has tired itself out with their problems, for the people of these countries the terrible sense of hopelessness persist. Therefore, relegating the principles of sovereignty to multilateralism and consigning it to textbooks of international law has proved to be a threat to the existence of less powerful and smaller nations. Global studies have shown that hegemonic powers have consistently eroded the autonomy assured to every nation under the principle of territorial sovereignty.
Developed countries have also used the whittling down of the principle of sovereignty to extend their influence and hold on global economics and trade to benefit themselves and their allies. They did this by creating international institutions, which at the time of their inception had apparently laudable principles but in reality were skewed in favour of the technologically advanced and economically strong nations. Thus emerged financial institutions and global trade organisations that have ensured markets for the advanced nations, leaving emerging Asian economies and the resource-rich but ravaged post-colonial African countries in a defensive economic position. With state sovereignty on the wane and the ability to create regulations within its territory curtailed by global economic issues, it would seem MNCs have emerged as the new policy-makers. In the new era global strategies and foreign relations of nations are driven not by sovereign authorities acting in national interests but by trade-linked priorities of major state-owned or private corporations.
Every nation has not only an interest in the use of all natural resources but also an obligation in its rightful exploitation. Environmental concerns and ecological interdependency are real but the manner in which a nation chooses to deal with resources within its territory cannot be dictated by other powers. International law in its principles and various cases brought by nations before the International Court of Justice has reiterated that no nation can allow action within their territory that causes damage to others. The power is further restricted by principles that recognise and govern areas regarded as “common heritage of all mankind”. Most nations are parties to agreements and even non-signatories are bound by obligations under international law.
Sovereignty, the ability of nations to rule themselves, should be reinforced. To resolve several issues that concern nations dealing with internal strife and conflicts or failing economies, these nations should be allowed to act with autonomy restricted only by obligations recognised by international law, not by imposition by other nations of what they deem good for that country.
The writer is an expert in international law and founding member of Centre for Security Analysis, Chennai. Email:dr.geetamadhavan@gmail.com