Florence Mbithe Ngei (626458)
Sarooshi D. (2005). International Organizations and their Exercise of Sovereign Powers. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Introduction
‘International Organizations and their Exercise of Sovereign Powers’ (Sarooshi 2005), show how international organizations are able to exercise sovereign powers within states. The book is aimed at providing conceptual and legal analysis of the exercise of sovereign powers by international organizations. The sovereign powers exercised by the international organizations have been conferred to them by states. Some of the ways in which a state can confer its powers to an organization is by delegation of powers, transfer of powers and cases of agency relationships (p.1). The book also offers an exploration of the circumstances in which the organization exercise of power is most likely to be contested by domestic actors.
Theoretical Premise
The book has adopted a western liberal tradition, though the author recognizes the realism tradition on the important of state sovereignty (p. 9). Under western liberal tradition, he states that the range of actors has widened and so are the values such as legitimacy, autonomy, self-determination, freedom, accountability, security and equality. He points that values provide sovereignty with a normative character which can be used to evaluate a state of affairs within a society or in international organization. According to western liberals, for an organization to be said to exercise sovereign power it must ensure that it is in accord with sovereign values. This is to mean that it has adopted the sovereign values as well as practice them.
Central Thesis
The main conceptual problem that the author seeks to address is to find out what s...
... middle of paper ...
...esponsible for running of the organization; they also make rules and regulations that are biding to all the member state. Hence if the international organizations become sovereign bodies, will the states loose the power to be sovereign and will their influence to the organization valid and applicable? These are some of the questions that the author has not clarified or addressed, despite being important concerns.
Lastly, the author does not provide the mechanism to determine the degree of sovereignty held by different organizations. This will help to know how powerful an organization in hence the amount of influence it has on other states as well as international organizations. Also different states possess different approaches to values of sovereignty and the ability and legitimacy of an international organization to exercise sovereign powers become problematic.
George Kennan says, “Morality in governmental method, as a matter of conscience and preference on the part of our people – yes.” He goes on to say that morality as a criterion for measuring and comparing the behavior of states is flawed. Morality is a preference, not a requirement to govern in the international anarchic system, Kennan argues. Ethics and justice in the international system are measured by how states satisfy varying moral requirements. These moral requirements are defined by a variety of schools of thought, including: Realists, Morality of States theorists, and Cosmopolitans. Realists may validate some action where morality of state theorists and cosmopolitans are fundamentally opposed. In this paper I will examine such examples and detail the key differences between realists, morality of state theorists, and cosmopolitans. I will compare and contrast realists with the other two non-realists perspectives and explore how these theories apply to an international system of states and how these theories shape the way one state acts or reacts in an anarchic system.
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
...). Therefore, if liberty rights and rights to goods and services are violated in various states, then how can Nussbaum expect to see the central capabilities guaranteed in such states? Another negative aspect about placing obligations or establishing guarantees from states is that some may lack the power to fulfill those obligations (O’Neill 435) For example, underdeveloped states or the deemed failed states lack the economic resources and political stability to do so. Others don’t necessarily need to be in a similar situation for failing as duty-bearers. States regarded as being strong in the international community may encounter enforcement problems. Even so when they cannot guarantee liberty rights to their constituents as do many authoritarian regimes. As a result, O’Neill suggests reconsidering whether all second-order obligations should be assigned to states.
The League of Nations was an Intergovernmental Organisation which persisted from 1919 up until 1946 where it was formally replaced with the United Nations towards the end of the Second World War. Many consider the League as one of the International Systems greatest failures due to it being widely regarded as an ‘ineffective instrument to tackle aggressors’ (Catterall, 1999, p. 52) and its inherent failure to prevent international conflict. However,
According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems.
Willetts, P. (2011), ‘Transnational actors and International Organisations in Global Politics’ in Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds) The Globalization of World Politics. An Introduction to International Relations. 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press
...ty exclusive of external authorities. Second, in terms of domestic sovereignty, for fairly long time the political structures of states have been following the global trends, from monarchy, to republics, to democratic states most recently. From above we can see that both domestic sovereignty and Westphalian sovereignty are facing challenges all the time, which are not new, but characteristic from time to time. Since sovereignty is the core value of a state, it is reasonable to conclude that nation-state is challenged by globalization but its power is not undermined.
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
Wendt, A. (1992). “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, 46(2), pp. 391-425.
...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
Globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors have shifted the position of states, the traditional “main players” in global governance. However, whether this change undermines states is debatable. In one sense, states’ roles have somewhat diminished: Non-governmental entities – namely transnational corporations (TNC), but also global non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others – have an increasing voice in global policy debates, which may lessen states’ influence in governmental affairs. But in several other key ways, states’ retain their powerful role. For example, states remain the key negotiators and entities in major global governance entities. Additionally, states retain compulsory power over their subjects or constituents, a form of control that new players in global governments have generally not obtained.
...ment and well-being. It is clear that without the ongoing presence and work of international organisations, the international system would be in a far worse and more chaotic state, with a far greater chance for a civil war to breakout. They also are a major player in helping develop states political and economical systems.
THE SOVEREIGNITY OF NATIONS From the international law point of view, a sovereign state is independent and free from external control; enjoys full legal equality; governs its own territory; selects its own political, social, economic systems; and has the power to enter into agreements with other nations. It is extension of national laws beyond a country's borders that much of the conflict in international business arises. Nations can and do abridge specific aspects of their sovereign rights in order to coexist with other countries.... ... middle of paper ...
Globalization has effect the role of the state immensely; as the process of present’s challenges to state sovereignty and autonomy. In spite of borders becoming more ill-defined and fluid in as a result of the process of globalization (Weiss 2000, 2-3). The state will remain relevant and necessary because citizens need a place to cast their votes, taxes have to be paid to particular authorities, which can be held accountable for pub...
Before we delve deeper into this topic, it is imperative to properly provide a definition of sovereignty and lay down some foundation on this topic. There are four different definitions of sovereignty – international legal sovereignty, Westphalia sovereignty, domestic sovereignty and interdependence sovereignty. International legal sovereignty deals with “the practices associated with mutual recognition, usually between territorial entities that have formal juridical independence” (Krasner 4). The main definition of sovereignty that this paper will use is the ...