How State Sovereignty is Challenged Today Essay

Since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the concept of a sovereign has become apparent and seems to be accepted as a matter-of-course. It can be seen as a force establishing peace in the world and letting states lead their policy freely. However, in political science, the latest notion of sovereignty has been challenged continuously. There are many reasons for the critique, such as the impossibility to follow the prescribed behavior model, being Europe biased, and inconsistency with global processes. The main problem of the sovereignty principle is that it is contradictory to the processes happening in reality.

To start with, sovereignty is a feature of a state which characterizes its status as a country. The definition is inherited from the Peace of Westphalia, which was established to regulate the relationship between European countries after the Thirty Years’ War. The concept is close to independence, but, crucially, this independence should be recognized by another state (Scott, 2017). Apart from recognition, a sovereign state holds territory and population. Moreover, to be sovereign, a state must have its constitution, and there should be no superior legal force except for the constitution (Scott, 2017). Thus, there are four main characteristics of a sovereign state.

Although granting state sovereignty should lead to its complete independence and self-sufficiency, some challenges prevent the execution of the principle of sovereignty. First of all, the idea seems to contradict itself when the formulation states that sovereignty should be recognized. In other words, international law proceeds from the premise that no state is independent per se. Since Peace is accepted within the European context, this was not a problem for the European countries. However, the principle of sovereignty was claimed to be followed by international law, which is also initiated in Europe, and therefore it was automatically spread to non-European countries.

According to Anghie (2006), this policy led to claiming non-European countries to lack sovereignty. If some states recognize themselves as independent and claim that others do not possess the same privilege, they declare a vertical model with superior and inferior states contradicting the right of self-determination of each state. Therefore, the very definition causes a collision violating the principles of international justice.

Furthermore, being sovereign does not grant independence from other states. Instead, it is likely to cause diplomatic relationships between the mutually recognized states (Scott, 2017). Therefore, the states have to function taking into account the existence of other countries, which means refusing independence at least partly. It seems that international law, along with the Peace of Westphalia, believed in the illusion that the state can supply itself and failed to catch the impossibility to avoid interaction between countries. This logical mistake is in line with what Slaughter (2004) called the ineffectiveness challenges. Thus, the concept of sovereignty ignores the inevitability of interstate interaction.

Another aspect that sovereignty contradicts is the tolerance to cultural diversity. Anghie (2006) argues that the formulation of sovereignty is derived from European mentality and conflicts non-European values. In other words, the fact that the view on sovereignty was developed within European historical changes also means that it follows European ideology. Therefore, if other countries want to be recognized on the international scene, they have to reject their philosophy and accept the European outlook.

Noteworthy, some cultures are so diverse from Europe that it is hardly possible for them to grasp its, as well as European culture, cannot catch some different philosophy. Moreover, by establishing the superiority of some states, the principle of sovereignty justified colonization policy (Anghie, 2006). This bias a priory leads to excluding some states from the sovereign countries.

Paradoxically, the difference between the cultures does not prevent global interaction at individual and community levels. Tourism is getting cheaper and safer, and people travel more and more, which forces diplomacy and economics.

For some countries, tourism has become the primary source of income, but it is questionable if it makes them lose their sovereignty. On the one hand, they are dependent on the international touristic flow, but on the other hand, the tourists need to experience a particular culture. Traveling increases the life satisfaction of the tourists, and the home state of these people is likely to be interested in it. Therefore, even though the countries and nations are different, globalization keeps gathering pace.

Given the above, the idea of a sovereign state demands revision. Some researchers suggest it should concentrate on “a capacity to engage rather than a right to resist” (Slaughter, 2004, p. 325). Thus, sovereignty must admit the necessity of the states to support each other and to cooperate. Real sovereignty, therefore, recognizes the members as parts of the community rather than independent individuals. Otherwise, the current concept of sovereignty signifies the legislation of imperial ambitions and causes more conflicts (Anghie, 2006). It is essential to take into account the global processes happening now to establish a relevant political regulation.

To conclude, the notion of sovereignty had been challenged by many scientists because of its inconsistency with the reality of international relations of the states. Specifically, it contradicts the equality of cultural identities and forces the adoption of European values. Although, by definition, a sovereign state is self-sufficient, globalization increases because it is economically and politically beneficial, not to mention that it is inevitable with the growth of tourism and migration even among sovereign countries. The scientists suggested ways to revise and adjust the definition in order to provide more reasonable international regulations.

Reference List

Anghie, A. (2006) ‘The evolution of international law: Colonial and postcolonial realities’, Third World Quarterly, 27(5), pp. 739–753.

Scott, S. V (2017) ‘States’, in International Law in World Politics: an Introduction. 3rd edn. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers, pp. 19–31.

Slaughter, A. M. (2004) ‘Sovereignty and Power in a Networked World Order’, Stanford Journal of International Law, 40(2), pp. 283–327.