SubscriberWrites: Are all nation-states equally sovereign

Sovereignty, traditionally, means independence in domestic and foreign affairs, but today's global trade reduces countries to being sovereign only in theory, not in practice.

United Nations Logo | (Photo/X@UN)

Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.

Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/

As per definition of International Law there are two parts to it. Which includes being sovereign and equal. There is no world government but only an international organization in the form of UN. Due to a lack of world government every nation-state does make a claim of being independent in their world view while managing their domestic and foreign affairs. The terminology nation-state is as per definition of International Law. So, it basically means a country capable of managing its governance domestically with the resident people having a similar national sentiment.

As time passed over centuries the idea of sovereignty has become so widely used in theory and practice of International Relations that it is more of a postulate than a principle, which is the core assumption of the individual entity in International Law. In the Lotus case the Permanent Court of International Justice declared that “International Law governs relations between independent States. The rules of law abiding upon States therefore emanate from their own free will as expressed in conventions or by usages generally accepted as expressing principles of law and established in order to regulate the relations between these co-existing independent communities or with a view the achievement of common aims.” International Law still has to overcome many obstructions laid down by member States of the UN in order to reach a level where institutions function like the ICJ by ensuring its orders are legally binding.

So, the agency whatever shape and form it is existing has to move out of dysfunctionality and be adequate to secure the rights of everyone. Because generally powerful and big States do easily bully countries as has been recently observed in Eastern Europe and Asia in general. At times the difficulty with respect to the anarchic situation for self-help were resolved by the factor of balance of power in order to ensure till the extent possible an equally distributed power among nation-states. James Leslie Brierly, a great British scholar of International Law, has said regarding complete State sovereignty, that a State can not be dealt by International Law, is wrong. Brierly always had the belief that this argument does not synergize with the reality of International Relations.

His orientation exhibits how much important International Law is in order to regulate the behavior of a State while maintaining a certain world order. This orientation is particularly relevant in today’s globalized world, in which cooperation and adherence to International Law is critical to address all challenges that the world is right now facing. Prof. Brierly has said “To the extent that sovereignty has come to imply that there is something inherent in the nature of States that makes it impossible for them to be subjected to law, it is a false document which the facts of international relations do not support. But to the extent that it reminds us that the subjection of States to law is an aim as yet only very imperfectly realized, and one which presents the most formidable difficulties, it is a doctrine which we can not afford to disregard”.

It is very obvious that the independence of small States (or relatively small State with respect to its big neighbor) in recent years has been violated so brazenly that to some observers the complete principles of equal protection before law appears to be completely abstract. In the present day International Law, the way it operates has no legislature mechanism in order to impose a legal bind on a State who does dissent. In the current state of world it is Cold War 2.0 along with a very intense economic interdependence. This has led to the conclusion that no one country can completely manufacture everything as it is not financially viable. Therefore, it has led in many ways to testing times of the supply chain especially during pandemic and its resilience in bilateral trade. So, it has led to proliferation of sovereignty among nation-states.

Traditional definition of sovereignty means to be independent in both domestic and foreign affairs but today the kind of global trade that is in progress is only making countries sovereign in theory and not practice. So, if nation-states do not have sovereignty, then they are not equal to each other both in theory and practice. And also, it must be understood that as long as the threat or use of force is not controlled, as well as a judiciously prepared means for settling a dispute is not availed, then as per classical realism (domain of International Relations) might is right and it will dominate. World leaders and foreign ministers of countries have to use the correct language, for example there is nothing called ‘rules based order’, instead one must say ‘adherence to International Law’; world order has to develop.

These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.