THE NEW SOVEREIGNTY IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
THE NEW SOVEREIGNTY IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
How have connections that have formed below the level of the state influenced the Westphalia notion of sovereignty?
Westphalian sovereignty as defined in the classical model cannot remain anymore in the international system because of the changes that have occurred in international relations. Nowadays the anarchic states are connected to each other. Any move by one of them, is felt by all the others. Therefore, Westphalian sovereignty as described by the classical model is obsolete, and needs to be improved in order to be efficient in the international system.
According to the classical model, sovereignty is defined as “The existence of a supreme authority over a certain territory, and each state is independent with no authority above and equal of all other sovereign states”.
The mutual dependency of the anarchic states does not support the classical definition of Westphalia notion of the sovereignty. The states were influenced by the changes that occurred in international relations.
Classical realists, who inherited the European states system, stated that sovereignty is understood as a practical matter to have arisen in and around the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which ended thirty year’s of war, and denoted the existence of a supreme authority over a certain territory. As we have seen, the key idea is that sovereignty requires a single political hierarchy.
Externally, sovereignty implies that each state is independent, with no authority above the state, and that each state is formally the equal of all other sovereign states. In this perspective sovereignty is clearly an absolu...
... middle of paper ...
...eir sovereignty, in order to gain certain benefits, and to the strong states from coercing weaker states.
We have demonstrated how treaties, agreements, coercion and imposition, as well as specific cases have influenced the world system, and that the deviations set forth in Westphalian sovereignty according to Lake, aggregated external restrictions. Those external restrictions constituted hierarchical authority which is not coercive, Certain conflicts could be resolved based on this implicit hierarchical authority that already existed in international relations. However, a new sovereignty incorporating explicitly hierarchical authoritative relationships would improve the international system. Therefore, this new sovereignty could contribute to the creation of many original forms of institutions, and build a more stable and peaceful international system.
...ntric and sovereignty-focused set of rules. However, these implications should be handled carefully as sovereign equality of states is still, and it remains so in the foreseeable future, the dominant feature of international relations.
When asked about the definition of a sovereign nation, Selma Buckwheat (September 25, 2013), elder member of the Anishinabeg tribe, explains by stating, “We govern ourselves and have our own laws” (personal communication). They have a lot of meetings that help understand most of the sovereign nations. In other words, a sovereign nation is power or a territory existing as an independent s...
Geopolitics has been a major obsession of nation-s¬tates throughout history and even today. The strategies that nation-states use to assert their position in relation to other states are complex and changing with the new nature of states and power in the World. Mackinder originally formulated one of the most crucial geopolitical models in order to capture the way in which states vie for power over space, which has seen renewed relevance as Afghanistan continues to be at the heart of a world power struggle. Whilst organic theories of how nation-states behave and exist in a manner similar to that of organism(relating to geopolitical actions and ambitions) were penned by early German writers such as Ratzel and Haushofer(though have existed before this), that have tended to be adopted by authoritarian regimes and have been extended to the utilisation of repression. These models can be seen to work in conjunction with one another and are at the backbone of geopolitical theory and can be widely applied. However they were originally ideas that were conceived with a very different world in mind when compared with the present. So it would be interesting to see whether the modern nation states in the face of globalisation (whereby the states’ own role have been redefined) still adhere to these theoretical frameworks in regard to how they conduct geopolitical activity.
From the realist point of view, the international political system is considered as anarchic. There is a lack of external authority among states that ensures peace, stability and balance of power. In the analyzed document, the author's main thesis states that changes of the system would alter the international political system. However, changes within the system will maintain its anarchism. In order to support his thesis, the author replies to liberal critics, who consider the neorealism as obsolete taking into account three important arguments against the neorealism.
The focus of this paper will be on criticizing the argument. He effectively explains what justifies the authority of the state by giving reasons that anarchy is better for autonomous nature of man. One might agree that the state can command an individual to obey the rule even if it is against the person’s moral beliefs. His argument, however, seems to undermine the
(2) Second raises questions about whether sovereignty requires the acquisition of full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less than statehood suffices. Although sovereignty is often taken to mean full statehood, some possible exceptions have been recognized. Some authors even
The idea that colonialism is crucial to the formation of international law and that international law has always been enlivened by the mission of civilizing, governing and transforming non-European peoples. Was international law a creation of Europe and western theories to ease the occupation of sovereign societies throughout the history? Looking back at the history of international law development in the period from the 1648 Peace of Westphalia to the First World War parallel to the political events taking place at that time, one can find that many international law doctrines and principles that were formed in Europe emerged out of European history and experience. These doctrines, invariably, were created and altered by Europeans for their own aims.
The belief of a nation running their own state is a right for most of us. However, this is only a new conviction. The right for one to sovereign their own nation has come due with hard work. Illicit imperialism has stricken humanity for numerous years. Due to the aspiration of power certain nations today do not self-govern their own state. But why would there be a desire for this power? Some of the main items include natural resources, increased assets, and military expansion. Ideally this is great if this is voluntary external rule, but when it’s no longer voluntary this is when the boundary has been crossed. This is why every nation should have control over their own state if they desire.
...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)
This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage on foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics.
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
In fact, it is precisely this problem that various world powers and political theorists have sought to address, specifically in the fields of international relations and just war theory—namely, whether or not a nation is ever morally justified in declaring war. If so, we must determine what the rules and requirements are for engaging in war, how a country is to conduct itself during war, and, most of all, how to maintain peace before and after war. Over time, various treaties, charters, and organizations have been established in an attempt to address these issues. One of the more prominent of these is the United Nations, an organization aimed largely at maintaining peace throughout the world through the enactment of a formal charter. In this essay, I will briefly examine the effectiveness of this organization and its charter in regard to maintaining international peace.
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 ...
Without International laws and customs, it is difficult for states to sustain associations on the foundation of peace, harmony and mutual co-operation. Globalization has not only boosted the significance of international law, but also, the complication of international legal concerns. Switzerland, who is not a key influencer politically or militarily, is dedicated to ensuring that international relations are ruled by law and not by force. Due to this, it takes an effective part in the growth of international law. In the contemporary age, international law is more significant than ever. Even the most influential countries of the world rely on it, comply with it, and undergo consequences if they disregard it. International law governs associations among states. It offers the foundation for peace and stability and tends to safeguard and guarantee the welfare of