by John Lee
At first reading, this question would appear to have one simple answer: no. Why? Because if sovereign is defined as supreme or without higher authority, it indicates that when applied to a state, there is no superior controller of that state’s actions and it is therefore unfettered in what it may or may not get up to on the world stage. But this essay will argue that such an interpretation is too crude. While acknowledging the historical input of Machiavelli and Bodin in establishing the norm of summa potestas – the sum or totality of power i.e. sovereignty – it will point out that in today’s international politics, sovereignty has a rather different definition. According to Alan James the irreducible minimum requirement of sovereignty in a global context is being constitutionally self-contained as well as having equality with other states in international law. Certain rights come with such status, but also responsibilities to respect international law and to not interfere with the rights of others. This essay will highlight the several factors which affect a state’s capacity to exercise sovereign power, examine the claim by pluralists such as John Burton that sovereignty has little relevance in today’s interdependent world and put into context the roles of nationalism and national interest in defining sovereign states’ behaviour.
With the disintegration of medieval feudalism, the barons and warlords arrogated titles such as duke, prince or king to themselves. Territories recognisable as future sovereign states began to be established and in Machiavelli’s The Prince, the rulers of these territories had a manual of how to conduct their statecraft. Jean Bodin’s De Republica further provided a theory of how to validate sovereign power. He said that a ruler’s power was God-given and he was entitled to deference as the supreme authority. If a ruler acknowledged no superior, was this not also true of his state? And if so, did that not mean a state was free to do whatever it desired? Well, not quite. As will be seen, Bodin’s theory of unlimited sovereignty does not stand up to scrutiny in the modern world.
It was with the Westphalian settlement of 1648 that the criteria of sovereign status were established: fixed territory with defined boundaries; a permanent population; and a government capable of exercising control and of observing international obligations. However, simply meeting these criteria is not enough. In order to be regarded as legally sovereign, a state must be recognised as such which, on the world stage throws up a number of anomalies. Take two Chinese cases. After the collapse of imperial China, Tibet claimed sovereign status yet was never accepted by the wider international community. Taiwan, too, claims sovereign status yet few others recognise it as not constitutionally joined to Beijing. It therefore finds itself limited in what it can legally achieve as a ‘sovereign’ entity.
Along with constitutional self-containment, a sovereign state has equality with other states in international law. This allows it to: control its own domestic affairs; act in self-defence; enjoy freedom from intervention (other than in UN-sanctioned situations); create laws; and take part in international diplomacy. Legal rights come with responsibilities to observe those rules – yet more constraints on a sovereign state. Legal equality does not necessarily imply absolute equality to act on the world stage, either. A number of factors exist to make some states more sovereign than others. And it is these factors that limit what a sovereign state can and cannot do.
Military capability is widely regarded as a key indicator of a state’s standing and is inextricably bound to the concept of national interest. For Hans Morgenthau, the acquisition of power is the primary national interest. Hobbesian realism would concur with this. But some sovereign states have accrued more of this power than others and therefore a greater capability to act without limit. The sole superpower, the United States, or Great Powers such as Britain, China and Russia are capable of militarily influencing events on a global scale. The same cannot be said of small powers such as Singapore which, even though it is a sovereign state, is limited in what it can achieve. The alternative for such a state is to employ ‘soft power’ – economic, diplomatic and political – in an effort to reach its goals.
The issues of military power and the limits of action are thrown into sharp focus when it comes to intervention. Can the use of uninvited military action by one or a number of sovereign states within the borders of another sovereign state ever be justified? Realists such as Morgenthau and John Mearsheimer would likely say ‘No’. Rationalists on the other hand would answer with a qualified ‘Yes’, the qualification being that such intervention would need to be on humanitarian grounds. That is, where there is a massive loss of life either through genocide or government collapse or where peace is threatened. A further qualification would be that any action would require the assent of the UN.
While military capability may be seen as the primary limit on a state’s capacity to exercise power, it is far from the only one. A country’s geography – it’s size, climate, frontiers and location on the world map – are crucial, as is its ethnic mix and political culture. Economic strength must also be taken into account: states with a powerful, fully-functioning economy are clearly in a better position to attain their objectives than those without. Diplomacy, too, plays a key role with membership of IGOs cuch as the UN, the EU, ASEAN or the WTO giving a state leverage on the world stage.
Over and above endogenous limitations, there are supranational factors which affect a state’s capabilities. As pluralist John Burton indicates, sovereignty’s relevance is diminishing in an interdependent world. He asserts that military and technological developments have destroyed the notion of sovereign self-reliance: Bodin’s theory of unlimited sovereignty is blown out of the water. With the march of globalisation, all policy-making has domestic as well as foreign implications which means further constraint on activity. The growth of nationalism since the 18th Century can further be seen as threatening the concept of the sovereign state. This comes in the form of secessionism, with the parent state being diminished by the breakaway and the scarcely viable states that come into existence having little ability to exercise sovereignty.
So it can be seen that there are numerous limits to what a sovereign state can do. As CAW Manning points out, by seeking and attaining sovereign status, a state agrees to be bound by international law, which necessarily means constraining action in order to abide by the rules. If a state is in breach of international law while trying to reach its own goals, the international community is then at liberty to take interventionist action. And in any case, simply desiring a certain outcome does not necessarily mean it can be achieved. Military capability, economic strength, place on the world map and membership of IGOs or military alliances all help determine a state’s chances of achieving a certain aim. Pluralists such as Burton and Rosenau also point out that in an increasingly interdependent world, where nationalism is still in the ascendancy, the very concept of sovereignty is undermined. All of which leads to the conclusion that Bodin’s 16th Century view of a state’s absolute superiority does not hold in the 21st Century and that there are indeed limits to what a sovereign state can do.
No comments:
Post a Comment