National governments are responsible for addressing the needs of all individuals within their borders in addition to ensuring their security, justice, and safety. However, a utopian society is still a dream that is far from reach because of threats from external powers with conflicting interests and internal players whose ambitions do not align with citizens’ welfare. Nevertheless, the sovereignty of national governments provides several solutions to ensure the welfare of individuals residing within their borders. Like national governments, non-state actors such as transnational institutions, international NGOs, and internal governance structures, including city, federal, and provincial entities, are responsible for advocating for and facilitating a supportive environment for populations to thrive. Regardless, states can better ensure the safety and security of their citizens due to access to financial and military resources, diplomatic recognition, and constitutional powers that allow them to design policies and strategies to uphold the rule of law.
States have access to economic and military resources that allow them to reinforce their sovereignty and protect their people compared to local authorities and NGOs that may lack the means to deal with arising issues. For example, a country can deploy its military to secure its borders from threats and invest in cutting-edge surveillance technologies to observe crimes perpetrated by criminal conglomerates and external threats (Acharya & Buzan, 2019). In addition, countries can leverage the support of their allies and bilateral or multi-lateral security agreements to ensure their citizens’ safety and reduce their exposure to harm. Moreover, states can adopt strategies such as cutting trade ties and imposing economic sanctions on those threatening their stability, thus giving them the power to retaliate against countries that impose on their affairs (Mingst et al., 2018). As a result, states are well-equipped to ensure the safety and security of individuals depending on them at a higher level than international organizations and local authorities.
Compared to national governments, international organizations and local players do not yield power over military and financial resources in countries. As a result, they experience significant hurdles, especially in obtaining sufficient resources to spearhead their advancement initiatives. For example, organizations like the United Nations’ (UN) primary funding source is voluntary contributions, which limits the scope of its activities and the amount of assistance it can provide to those in need (Keohane, 2020). Similarly, local authorities may receive government funding but may need help to afford to invest in cutting-edge security solutions due to other priorities in their regions. Moreover, these institutions do not have absolute over national matters, thus limiting them from making decisions regarding economic and military initiatives. In addition, other countries are never obligated to assist INGOs and local governments in other states as they have no formal agreements or deals reinforced by treaties (Keohane, 2020). Hence, their interventions might not be as effective as those initiated by state governments.
Similarly, states have the authority to establish rules and regulations that govern social welfare and international interactions, allowing them to design an environment where individuals can thrive and take action against law-breakers. Democratic states abide by the tenets stipulated in their constitution and reinforced by various government authorities such as criminal courts and law enforcement (Acharya & Buzan, 2019). As a result, they can decide how internal and external players should operate concerning their citizens’ needs and prosecute other states on behalf of their people in the International Court of Justice. In addition, states have functional governments dedicated to ensuring security as dictated by laws (Acharya & Buzan, 2019). Thus, they occasionally leverage these strengths to deal with individuals responsible for violations and deter actions that go against their people’s welfare and security. Hence, these powers allow states to address individuals’ concerns and ensure their wellness effectively.
Unlike states, international organizations and local authorities do not have the power to alter rules and regulations as they see fit to protect individuals in various territories. Instead, NGOs rely on rules established by International Law, while local government institutions adhere to stipulations provided by their constitution (Keohane, 2020). Additionally, while local authorities can oversee adherence to the rule of law using government aid and resources, international organizations have no control over the legal principles that govern territories and instead depend on soft laws to oversee their initiatives in various countries (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). As a result, they are limited in taking action against proprietors of human crimes and are instead obligated to collaborate with governments, other international bodies, and institutions with constitutional powers when dealing with various issues. Therefore, their inability to impose legal action on actors erodes their effectiveness in assuring individuals’ safety and security on a broader scale.
Moreover, states enjoy diplomatic recognition from other countries and are dedicated to overseeing their people’s interests over their needs by any means necessary. As a result, countries separated by territorial borders respect each other’s wishes and collaborate toward positive developments. For example, states can declare specific regulations to protect their borders and limit external influence without opposition. Strict immigration and border patrol laws in developed countries are designed to limit the influx of alien citizens due to associated adversities (Estevens, 2018). Therefore, whether strict or not, other countries and international bodies must adhere to and respect stipulated standards. On the other hand, states do not recognize international organizations as sovereign entities, thus preventing them from adopting effective mechanisms and strategies to promote their agendas(Keohane, 2020). For this reason, local authorities and international organizations are limited in their ability to effect notable changes in national security policies and assure the safety and well-being of individuals in various territories.
However, sovereignty has its fair share of limitations due to states’ power struggle and limited resources to facilitate development objectives in some countries. States rise by gaining more power and resources to oversee their interests. As a result, powerful countries can easily take advantage of others using temporary incentives while they drain away their remaining resources (Acharya & Buzan, 2019). In addition, states sovereignty and self-governance means they are expected to deal with various issues firsthand with assistance from other countries and international bodies (Keohane, 2020). As a result, some states are exposed to the atrocities of others who do not adhere to International Law, especially if they are not members of security treaties, as in the case of Russia and Ukraine. Moreover, some countries experience civil conflicts that lead to strife and occasionally suffer from the implications of natural calamities. Thus, their sovereignty limits their assistance from external parties because the government is responsible for its people.
Although states pose the most significant risks to the democracies and stability of others, non-state actors can go against moral standards and impose suffering on individuals. As a result, countries may fail to reach their safety and security goals due to the erosion of their initiatives by individuals with selfish interests. Lipinsky et al. (2019) suggest that corruption and the involvement of top national executives in activities that exploit their people are limitations that contribute to the suffering of marginalized communities. Thus, although states might uphold the basic human rights principles, including free speech and the right to own property, they might suffer due to a lack of income opportunities, pollution, poverty, and high crime rates (Lipinsky et al., 2019). Nevertheless, citizens have the ultimate power in democratic countries because they can decide whether to acknowledge their governments’ powers and support their existence. Hence, people can always come together through activism and involve other players from the international community to revolt against corrupt or authoritarian governments and fight for their freedoms.
From a historical perspective, power and supremacy have always dictated the levels of states’ engagement and approaches to international relations. Therefore, countries’ continuous fight for the leading economic, social, and military position can justify the independent nature of states as their limitations and possibilities keep them in check and prevent them from defying and openly attacking others before trying other solutions (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). Many countries have rebelled against imperialists and influences threatening their development to gain control of regional resources and use them to benefit their communities. However, the power struggle is still a feature that introduces discourse between countries and prevents them from collaborating to enhance advancements. For example, Russia and the US engaged in an extensive Cold War that destabilized the global community after WWII. Today, America and China battle for supremacy and are slowly transitioning to a Cold War situation due to escalating disputes (Johnston, 2019). Hence, countries would not respect others’ territories or constitutions without this framework.
States’ position as international actors allows them to adopt several solutions to secure and ensure the safety of their citizens. However, strict rules and regulations against activities that may harm their citizens effectively deter the negative implications of officials and players with self-centered interests (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). National policies and laws aim to assign individuals various responsibilities in government and describe unalienable human rights and liberties that all individuals should enjoy regardless of their attributes. Therefore, countries should develop legal frameworks that comprehensively address issues because they have the power and authority to dictate the initiatives of institutions within their borders. The Bible specifies in Romans 13:1 that God has ordained all authority among his people (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). Therefore, anyone who defies this power brings judgment upon themselves. Thus, states should utilize their abilities to secure their borders and thrive.
The security and safety of citizens is a top priority for national governments due to their focus on addressing people’s critical needs. However, several internal and external threats pose risks to individuals due to others’ selfish or conflicting interests. Nevertheless, states can adopt various strategies to ensure the welfare of their citizens due to their access to military and financial resources, diplomatic recognition, and sovereignty, which allows for establishing and effecting regulations. As a result, they are in better positions to facilitate safety and security than NGOs and local authorities. However, countries’ struggle for supremacy and corrupt and self-serving governments are limitations that prevent states from achieving their democratic goals. Countries should utilize their constitutions and legal systems to facilitate positive changes. In addition, they should use treaties and partnerships to secure their borders and elevate the living standards of individuals residing within them.
References
Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2019). The making of global international relations. Cambridge University Press.
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. Web.
Estevens, J. (2018). Migration crisis in the EU: developing a framework for analysis of national security and defence strategies. Comparative migration studies, 6(1), 1-21. Web.
Johnston, A. I. (2019). China in a world of orders: Rethinking compliance and challenge in Beijing’s international relations. International Security, 44(2), 9–60. Web.
Keohane, R. O. (2020). International institutions and state power: Essays in international relations theory. Routledge.
Lipinsky, D. A., Musatkina, A. A., Stankin, A. N., & Chuklova, E. V. (2019). Corruption Risks as a threat to the national security: A comparative analysis of their prevention and minimization. Amazonia Investiga, 8(20), 354-364. Web.
Mingst, K. A., McKibben, H. E., & Arreguin-Toft, I. M. (2018). Essentials of international relations. WW Norton & Company.
Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. (2019). International relations theory. Rowman & Littlefield.