185

DOES SOVEREIGNTY REMAIN AS THE FOUNDATIONAL

PRINCIPLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM?

Raquel Maria de Almeida Rocha

PhD candidate at the Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil and holds a MA in International

Studies (International Peacekeeping) from the University of Birmingham, UK. She is a

lecturer at the undergraduate program of International Relations from Escola Superior de

Propaganda e Marketing (ESPM), Brazil. raquel.rocha@espm.br

186

Does sovereignty remain as the foundational principle of

the international system?

Jean Bodin was the first to bring up sovereignty as the internal element

to the notion of Republic, developing the first concept of sovereignty. The

concept consisted in: any political community or state must have a sovereign

authority with decisive and recognized power as the base of authority within its

territory (Held, 2002, p.3). The concern was over maintaining domestic order,

which was believed to be the prerequisite for justice at the time (Krasner, 2001,

p.21). The modern State, what we now know now as state, is known to be

constituted of territory, people and the inherent power of the state (Fischbach,

1915, p.72). Later, in 1648 the negotiations of Westphalia had a fundamental

role in the configuration of the concept of Nation-State and its intrinsic

sovereignty, when sovereignty was made a foundational principle to the

understandings of international politics. Nonetheless, it was only around the

early 19th century that “(…) territorial sovereignty, the formal equality of states,

non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other recognized states, and state

consent as the basis of international legal obligation became the core principles

of international society” (Held, 2002, p.4) through a normative path within

international law.

In this paper I will address the question whether sovereignty still is the

foundational principle of the international system. This will commence with a

brief overview of the debates over the concept of sovereignty, territorial

187

sovereignty, the principle of non intervention, state, recognition, territory,

globalization and human rights issues within main stream lines of thought of

International Relations while also engaging my arguments on the evolvement of

this concepts within the broader spectrum of the international system. In

concluding, I shall show that sovereignty is still a foundational principle of the

international system, however it cannot be seen and discussed as the same

principle envisioned in 1648 any longer, as it has suffered significant changes

along side with the constant shifts of the international reality and system.

State x Sovereignty

Sovereignty is known to be a controversial concept, however it

sometimes is taken as ‘a given’ by scholars, what should not occur. Liberal

interdependence defines sovereignty as the state’s aptitude “to control actors

and activities within and across its borders” (Thompson, 1995, p.213) while

realists argue that the real meaning of sovereignty is the state’s aptitude to

undertake authoritative decisions, or in last resort, to make war (Thompson,

1995, p.213). Taking these two schools of thought’s claims, it makes it clear why

sovereignty is such a controversial concept in the post-Cold War scenario.

Certainly, there is the need to regard “(…) the reconfiguration of the proper

form and limits of political power and the changing connotation of legitimate

political authority” (Held, 2002, p.2). Continuing on Held’s (2002) line of thought

that politics occur in a stream of constant change, so does the proper nature

and form of sovereignty, making apparent the need for further debates over the

concept of sovereignty.

188

States as the main, sole and sovereign actor of the international system

and their coexistence in anarchy is one of the main assumptions of International

Relations. Within international relation’s theory, sovereignty relies with the

state but scholars have questioned what was meant by the usage of ‘the state’.

Halliday (cited in Thomson, 1995, 220) stated that it is a holistic viewing of a

country with all that is within: territory, government, people and society. It is

relevant to observe that the term state as we know today is a product of our

historical evolution within the political and sociological fields and that the

simple existence of the state has juridical implications, to its territory and to its

relations with other states (Pellet, 2003, p.438 and 445).

Once we have that in mind, or even if we simply assume that states are

one of the main actors of the international system, how will we commence any

sort of debate over the international system without having sovereignty directly

connected? Even trying to step away from the realist approach to IR,

mainstream theories have the state as a centre actor of the international

system even when considering different actors or structures. So how is it

possible to address the international system without referring to States? With

this being said, how can you then part states from sovereignty? Even if taking

the approach argued by Paul (1996, p.226) of sovereignty being equal to

independence there are still broader meanings to that concept that inflict in the

internal functions of a state. Do we simply disregard the concepts of internal

and external sovereignty completely?

It is argued by Paul (1999) that as we move away from the notion of the

state as the only actor in the system to multiple actors we also move away from

189

the “Westphalian blind alley” and survival as we start to move forward to a

more sophisticated approach of the relations between those multiple actors. I

have to argue, still, that even if we are able to move to the multiple actor

model, the state will always be priority as it is the main responsible for

guarantying internal order, human rights (Weiss, 2001, p.24) and will always

remain as the sovereign power that rules over its people and territory, not to

mention the one with the power over the use of force.

Both realism and liberal interdependence see sovereignty through a

unitary and national state point of view (Thomson, 1995, p.214). It is

understood by Krasner (1988, p.66-67) that for more than 500 years “(…) the

sovereign state has been a powerful instrument of human progress, or, at

minimum, human progress has occurred while sovereign states have been the

dominant mode of political organization”. State’s practices or interstate

relations will constitute the sovereign state in the same way as will the relations

between each state and their societies (Thomson, 1995, p.214). Indeed, it is

possible to affirm that this model of organization and order of the international

system has brought development to the world.

Ruggie and Ashley (cited in Thomson, 1995, p.218) argue that sovereignty

is a way of ordering global politics within the modern state rather than being a

timeless attribute of it, they also argue that sovereignty involves “possession of

self and the exclusion of others” and “the limitation of self in the respect of

others, for its authority presupposes the recognition of others who, per force of

their recognition, agree to be so excluded”. Ashley (cited in Thomson, 1995,

p.218) claims that sovereignty is about who “is to be a power” in global politics

190

and James (cited in Thomson, 1995, pg 218) would state that sovereignty is

what gives the state the eligibility to be a part of international relations.

Recognition

The single fact of being recognized as sovereign gives the state the

prerogative, as a jus cogens norm, that there will not be interventions in its

internal affairs and, at the same time, that it will be treated as equal in your

foreign relations by the others states of the international community. Being

sovereign is to rule itself by itself - internal aspect - and with no dependence of

any foreign entity - external aspect (Vedross, 1995, p.10). Waltz (cited in

Thomson, 1995, p.220) even claims that the main question of sovereignty is that

states have to decide on their own how to cope with its internal and external

problems, in other words, its capabilities. Sovereignty means that political

authorities may be in international agreements and are free to support any

treaty that may be appealing (Krasner, 2001, p.21) to their interest.

It is said by Ashley and Miller (cited in Thompson, 1995, p.219) that

sovereignty is attributed to the state by other rulers and states instead of being

an attribute of the state through recognition. The fact that states recognize each

other as equal authorities is what makes the modern state system unique, once

they are recognized as being judicially equal even when differing in size, power

capabilities and/or statehood (Thomson, 1995, p.219). Every state is

acknowledged with its own final and exclusive authority to coerce within its

territorial borders (Thomson, 1995, p.219) and Krasner (1988, p.86) completes

this by stating that sovereignty needs independence from outside powers and

final authority over any people within its territory.

191

When analyzing the international system it is possible to realize that it is

the own international system that gives a state autonomy, especially through its

international organizations, international law and diplomacy, empowering and

legitimizing the state to practice policing (Thomson, 1995, p.226). The

acknowledgment of sovereignty has as a consequence the search for equality in

the relations between states. One of the pillars of the UN Charter, fundamental

document to International Relations and International Law, is the combination

of article 1, paragraph 2 and article 2, paragraph 1 which verse over the

principle of equality between its Member-States and its purpose of developing

friendly relations between nations though equality and self determination of its

peoples (United Nations, 1945).

Krasner (1988, p.74) even stated that the notion we have of citizenship is

directly linked to the existence of sovereign states. Thomson (1995, p.228)

argues that this is how human beings can be told apart, by their unique relation

with their state that produces their own identity in the world.

Globalization

In the early 80’s there existed questionings over state-centric paradigms

and some assumptions that state sovereignty was being weakened by economic

interdependence, technological improvements and democracy (Thomson, 1995,

p.215). In recent periods there have been scholars arguing that the rules of the

international political system are shifting and that a new order is arising. In the

opposite side there are scholars that are skeptical of such assumption, when

states remain the main source of all international rules, the politics of a

sovereign state (Held, 2002, p.1). Slaughter (1997, p.184) argues somewhere in

192

between this by saying that what is happening is the state is disaggregating into

separate, functionally distinct parts and these parts are networking with their

counterparts abroad, creating a web of relations and a new transgovernmental

order. In addition to her line of though I argue that power politics still is the

main activity within international relations and the international scenario is in

fact in constant change and principles within may change, adapt or even be

extinguished.

It was argued that states couldn’t control their borders any longer, that

technology was empowering non state actors allowing flows of people, money,

foods and information and the production of weapons of mass destruction

(Thomson, 1995, p.215). Nevertheless, it can be argued that the flows of people,

information and capital are not reasonably any greater that the ones we have

seen in the late nineteenth century and it has become easier rather than harder

to control flows of goods and services (Krasner, 2001, p.24). Held (2002, p.14)

argues that the expand of liberal ideals, intensification of the reach for human

rights instruments and international law throughout the international system

cannot be seen barely by weakening the state’s activities, demise of the state or

erosion of its powers.

Krasner (1988, p.86) also suggests that other options to sovereignty

would be a world where no clear boundaries exist or one that has no final

authority within a given territory and it is clear that in any of these two

hypotheses, no actual order would exist. Territory can simply be looked at as

lines on a map, as physical borders on a geographic space, but when sovereignty

is combined with it, states can recognize one’s exclusive authority over that

193

demarked space. In this sense, territorial dimension with sovereignty is not only

the defense of boundaries but also the close links between the state and its

citizens (Thomson, 1995, p.227). Its importance is also enshrined in the 1949

International Court of Justice, “between independent States, respect for

territorial sovereignty is an essential foundation of international relations” and

even stated that “the fundamental principle of state sovereignty on which the

whole of international law rests” (Weiss, 2002, p.23). Even those that believe

that globalization has erased our borders would have to agree that this is only

something metaphorical as we are closer as a world but no country would

actually give up a piece of its territory or not police it. Within the EU, which is

the closest example of challenging sovereignty, the boundaries are still properly

established and policed. There has been an agreement not to proceed with

migration between most of them but the inspection of goods is still in practice

also.

Held (2002, p.14) claims that the modifications that are in place only

represent the classical liberal intention to define limits, forms and scope of the

state “in the face of the processes, opportunities and flux of civil life”. Or even if

you would still argue on those grounds, it would only be a result of state power

as these transborder flows can only take place when states provide the

framework for such activities to develop as claimed by Carr and Gilpin

(Thomson, 1995, p.215). “In the extension of the delimitation of public powers,

states’ competencies and capacities have been, and are being, reconstituted or

reconfigured—not merely eroded” (Held, 2002, p.14). Krasner (2001, p.20)

claims that the economic globalization and transnational norms are altering the

194

scope of state authority rather than generating any new organization of political

life.

Final remarks

States are responsible to protect and maintain the security and welfare

of its people and the resort to force should only be used as last resort (Held,

2002, p.14). It is relevant to raise the fact that in some cases, sovereignty may

be a fiction as there is no political capacity within the state. As they do not show

the ability or capacity to control its territory, it is even claimed that failed states

violate the membership requirements of the United Nations as stated on Article

4 of the Charter that they able to engage in their obligations (Weiss, 2002, p.27).

In sub-Saharan Africa is the largest number of examples of control and authority

crisis (Krasner, 2001, p.25). This is where international organizations try to

adjust to the present scenario and as not wanting to lose the concept of

equality in the international system end up overseeing the fact that these

countries do have a full functioning state anymore, and hope for its Member-

States to take action in the matter.

There is the need to bear in mind that sovereignty is about state

authority and not state control, so the question would be over the state’s

aptitude to make authoritative political decisions or if the ultimate political

authority has shifted from the state to non state actors or institutions

(Thomson, 1995, p.216) rather than if sovereignty is still a foundational principle

of the international system. I argue that it is clear that states still detain control

as it does not make sense to affirm that interdependence and democracy have

undermined state control from duties that were not attained to begin with, “it is

195

ahistorical to suggest that states are losing control, that sovereignty is eroding,

because states cannot now fulfill functions they never had, or have assumed

only recently” (Thomson, 1995, p.216).

Former Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan (1999, p.1),

has said that the most basic sense of state sovereignty is in a process of

redefinition by globalization and international cooperation, that states are being

understood as instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa and

also brings up ‘individual sovereignty’, the freedom of each individual, which

has enhanced the consciousness of individual rights within concepts of human

security and humanitarian intervention. Moreover, Slaughter (1997, p.196) even

implies that transgovernmentalism is strengthening the state as the primary

player in the system and that sovereignty has been redefined as membership to

the regimes that constitute international life. These thoughts only add to the

arguments that have been exposed in this paper, while attempting to

demonstrate that sovereignty is showing different facets as our world is

evolving but has not in any way lost its relevance as a foundational principle in

international relations.

The power of recognition of a state is as secure as ever, an example is the

States emerging from the fall of the Soviet empire and Yugoslavia, noticeably

dependent on recognition of other states to exist in the international system

and its institutions (Thomson, 1995, p.229).Territorial borders are also as secure

as ever, even with the proliferation of international organizations, they are

institutions built on state sovereignty and are not superior or outside the state

system, as states dominate them. Citizens are not shifting their loyalties to some

196

institution other than their state, even if some scholars say that some

Europeans are increasingly identifying themselves with the European Union, this

is not a non state actor (Thomson, 1995, p.229).

After the end of the Cold War, we have seen may calls for collective

interventions for humanitarian purposes and the great powers have gone over

the principle of non intervention when it was in their interest to do so trying to

act collectively if possible but unilaterally if required. Nevertheless, an

intervention is taken not to destroy a sovereign state but aiming to stabilize

certain situations (Thomson, 1995, p.229). In a sense, humanitarian intervention

is seen as war, as a last resort and in any way undermines sovereignty as it is

concerned over individual sovereignty.

Conclusion

I claim that once a state is in full form, possessing: permanent

population, defined territory/ territorial sovereignty, government and capacity

to engage in international relations, as stated on the 1993 Montevideo

Convention on Rights and Duties of States (Malanczuk, 2006, p.75), it makes

clear the difficulty of separating the concept of state from sovereignty, or even

independence as portrayed by some scholars. Therefore, if sovereignty cannot

be separated from the state and the state is one of the main actors of the

international system, to say the least, sovereignty is still a foundational principle

of the international system.

In this paper I have discussed whether or not sovereignty can still be

considered the foundational principle of the international system. It is possible

197

to see that within the shifts our system has been through, such as the

disintegration of the Soviet Union and the integration of the European Union

the concept of sovereignty would not have been left untouched. The existence

of the European Union itself will continue to challenge and question the

principle. It might have gotten stronger in some senses and weak in others but

states continue to exercise sovereignty in international organizations.

It is possible to see, however, that the relationship between the state

and its citizens has changed, as we have seen the constant increase of relevancy

to human rights and individual sovereignty. As Krasner (1988, p.76) has well put

it “(…) there is little reason to believe that it will be easy to replace sovereign

states with some alternative structure for organizing human political life”, for as

long as sovereign state continues to rule our societies and international system

is the period in which sovereignty will remain being a foundational principle of

the international system. If sovereignty was not still a foundational principle of

international relations, China would not have the prerogative or legitimacy to

conduct their politics through coercion as they do. Moreover, other states

would have already intervened many years ago into the conflict in the Middle

East if this was the case, and we would not be seeing the violence that has only

escalated between Israel and Palestine over the last few years.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FISHBACH, Oscar Georg. Teoria General del Estado, Barcelona, Espana: Editorial

Labor, 1915.

198

HELD, David. Law of States, Law of Peoples: Three Models of Sovereignty, Legal

Theory, 8, pg 1-44, 2002.

KRASNER, Stephen. Sovereignty: An institutional perspective, Comparative

Political Studies, April, 21, pg 66-94, 1988.

__________________. Sovereignty, Carnegie Endowment for International

Peace, Jan-Feb, 122, pg 20-29, 2001.

MALANCZUK, Peter. Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (7th

edn) London: Routledge, 2006.

PAUL, Daryl. Sovereignty, Survival, and the Westphalian Blind Alley, Review of

International Studies 25(2), pg 217-231, 1999.

PELLET, Alain; DINH, Nguyen Quoc & DAILLIER, Patrick. Direito Internacional

Público, Lisboa, Portugal: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 2003.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. The Real New Order, Foreign Affairs, Vol 76, n 5, pg 183-

197, 1997.

THOMSON, Janice E. State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridginng the

Gap Between Theory and Empirical Research, International Studies Quarterly,

Vol 39, n 2, pg 213-233, 1995.

UNITED NATIONS. United Nations Charter, 1945. Available at

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/. Last access: 19/09/2013.

VEDROSS, Alfred. Derecho Internacional Publico, Madri, Espana: Aguilar, 1995.

199

WEISS, Thomas & HUBERT, Don. The Responsibility to protect: Research,

Bibliography, Background Supplementary Volume to the Report of the

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 2001.

Available at http://www.idrc.ca/fr/ev-9439-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html. Last access:

19/09/2013.

ROCHA, Raquel Maria de Almeida. Does sovereignty remain as the

foundational principle of the international system? New York: Lawinter

Review, Volume IV, Issue 2, December 2013, p. 185/199.