State Sovereignty in Post-Cold War Era - Essay Example

Sovereignty is a "coeval" of the and its constant companion. Since the sixteenth century when in Augsburg agreement "The Peace of Augsburg" between The Holy Roman Emperor and the forces of the Schmalkaldic League, an alliance of Lutheran princes, for the first time the rule of non-interference to spiritual affairs of monarchs-neighbours has been registered, and the principle of the sovereignty has started to get into political consciousness of West-Europeans, overmastering not only a political-and-philosophical ideas, but also international law. The concept of the sovereignty constantly evolved, developed, and enriched with new senses. The idea of the sovereignty offered by French political thinker Jean Bodin as the justification of centralization of power in princedoms divided by feudalism, has appeared to be in-demand for philosophers of international law, who have developed a principle of inviolability of the [internal] sovereignty, that is non-interference of one state to affairs of another one (Bodin & Franklin, 1992). Though the sovereignty of an epoch of Modernity became the final decision of fundamental problems of "the war of all against all - bellum omnium contra omnes", fear and violence, it has turned to a corner stone of a system of international relations, which have established the minimal set of rules regulating the questions of war and peace between states. Relations inside of political communities are in a constant development, as well as contacts between the states. No matter how the sovereignty is treated today - as political feature of the state, a legal category, a principle of international law, it is obvious that modernist interpretation of the sovereignty in many respects have become outdated. They do not answer modern realities and ignore a number of new phenomena and circumstances. However, considering the value of idea of the sovereignty for political legitimization, the dominating view of the sovereignty remains conservative. In the first part of this work we shall consider the widespread concepts of the sovereignty. In the second one we shall concern factors, which stimulate a kind of audit of traditional understanding of the sovereignty. In the third part we shall outline a circle of "alternative" approaches available. Political being of the concept of the sovereignty is so lengthy (almost four centuries), its role is so significant, and the cores positions are so solid, that it is quite possible to assimilate the sovereignty to a political-legal monument, which has embodied the features of concrete political relations during a concrete epoch and reproduces them to the present day. The sovereignty did not possess universality initially: it has arisen as historically concrete, deeply contextual phenomenon first from the struggle of the European monarchs and princes, and then from the aspiration to stop this struggle. With strengthening the national states the concept of the sovereignty was fixed in the political theory and practice, and finally having turned in some kind of apanage of the state. In its basic features the sovereignty survived in the initial form down to today: it is indivisible and inviolable. In other words in the analysis of modern political reality we continue to apply sample concept of the 16th - 17 th centuries, when there were neither systems of international law, nor movement for human rights, when standards of public administration mismatched modern perceptions about norms of democracy and freedom . The sovereignty is first of all functional. It provides the certain level of political freedom inside of the state that is it gives the right to establish laws, defines possible exception to the rules, provides international legal protection of a sovereign from intervention from outside, etc. The way of understanding of the sovereignty depends on what criteria of its estimation are selected as the core ones. For today there are some classifications of the sovereignty in the literature. One of the most known authors studying issues of the sovereignty is American scientist Stephen D. Krasner. In his works he suggests to consider the sovereignty in four aspects: (1) domestic sovereignty as a principle of the organization of public authority in the state and the control over it from the side of society; (2) sovereignty of interdependence (interdependence sovereignty), allowing to supervise trans-boundary movements; (3) international legal sovereignty approving equality of the states on international scene; (4) Westphalian sovereignty, forbidding external actors to interfere with distribution of power authorization inside of the state (Krasner, 1999, p.3). Whether it is possible to develop a uniform concept of sovereignty? It is important to understand how much perceptions about the sovereignty correspond to the surrounding political validity, and also in what measure they take into consideration new phenomenon. In other words, it is necessary to understand, whether the perceptions about the sovereignty keep their normative kernel. The sovereignty is immanently connected with the state. Any attempt to look at the sovereignty in a new fashion is reflected in the theory of State, and transformations inside of the state affect perceptions about the sovereignty. But behind an identification of the sovereignty with the state it is important not to lose understanding of that the sovereignty first of all reflects relations of authority between people in society and between societies. It must necessarily follow that the sovereignty in that measure, in which it is a "cast" taken from political relations in a society, depends on the state of public interaction and the processes developing inside of an institute of the state. So it is important to look at those changes, which have occurred in the political life of the states for the last half a century. One of the most visible changes after the World War II became the accelerated growth of individual freedom, expansion of human rights and democracies. Certainly, powerful impulse has been given to this process by tragic experience of world war. Since 1942 up to 1962 the quantity of democracies has increased from 12 up to 36 states. It is paradoxical, but democracy in the world developed, in spite of the fact that the significant part of the states belonging "the Soviet block", mismatched the most modest standards of democracy, and the world has been divided into two poles. In the end 1940es - the beginning of 1950es it has been created human rights "infrastructure" of the modern world: in 1948 it have been accepted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in 1950 - the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, also known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Strengthening humanistic components in views of the international relations and as consequence, in the system of international law, it has become the powerful stimulus to criticism of the sovereignty, to search of opportunities of its restriction. In opinion of British researcher Karin Fierke, the probability of collision between the sovereignty and human rights today is rather high, as the international community is not ready to force to observance of human rights, paying for the infringement of world balance (Fierke, 2005, pp. 66-67). It is necessary to note that the degree of criticality in relation to the sovereignty in scientific community increases. It is caused, on the one hand, by the turn of the USA towards quasi-imperial policy, on the other hand, by the unwillingness of liberal and democracy oriented politicians and researchers "to not notice" or to abide outrage on human rights in many states of the world. This criticism turned against the international institutes as for now mentions the sovereignty only indirectly. The todays reality consists of the public international law presented by the European convention of human rights, the rights of the European Union. How existence of these "rights" is combined with the "habit" of mankind for the state? Whether we should search in these systems features of statehood or we are compelled to recognize that the state is not ever-present? It is obvious that the erosion of traditional political forms and the origin of new ones conduct to weakening of the sovereignty. The right of lawmaking is limited, and theorists of the sovereignty collide with a difficult problem of political identification of new law systems and correction of views of classical political communities. As the factor which has affected and continuing to influence modern approaches to the sovereignty, it is necessary to consider experience of the European integration which during all of this fifty years history can be regarded as experimentalism with the sovereignty. However the fact that the new sovereign order, which has arisen in the Europe deserves studying, has been recognized rather recently. Formally uniform Europe corresponds to all criteria of a sovereign community, except for the one - the European Union does not recognized as a state neither by the international community, nor by Europeans. British diplomat Robert Cooper sees the reason of the European well-being and prosperity in ability of Europeans to cede the sovereignty and to limit it. The degree of the sovereignty, in his opinion, is so important parameter that it can act as criterion for classification of the states. Cooper has suggested subdividing the states on postmodernist, modernist and pre-modernist (Cooper, 2003, pp. 32-33) The new post-modern system of states is best characterized by the EC. It exhibits the following characteristics: The breakdown of the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs Mutual interference in (traditional) domestic affairs and mutual surveillance The rejection of force for resolving disputes and the consequent codification of rules of behaviour, rules that are self-enforced because all EC states have an interest in maintaining the rule of law. The growing irrelevance of borders Security is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability (Cooper, 2000, pp. 19-20) For other British lawyer and politician Neil McCormick (1999) the basic mark in development of the sovereignty in the Europe is the occurrence of a new legal order (for the author it de facto means the new sovereignty) - free from the national legal regimes, not being a sub-system of international law. This regime grows from obligatory to observation international agreements, which are incorporated in the national law of member-states and are approved by referendum or parliamentary discussion. Norms of this new law are immediately applicable norms; they are above the national law and are accumulated in each subsequent agreement, which all together form acquis communautaire - legal base, a kind of independent constitution of Community. The classical sovereignty of modernity epoch has arisen during the decision of the problem of the bloodshed termination both inside of the state and between the states. The sovereignty, however, has not eliminated violence, but "has organized violence and fear within the framework of internally consistent and stable political order". The "sovereign master" has turned to a unique legitimate source of the violence directed on own citizens or on sovereign of other states. As traditional sovereignty does not cope with the problem of suppression of global chaos even in a small degree, in opinion of researchers, we need the other, world-wide form of the sovereignty. This new sovereignty should correspond to the imperative of democracy, which (here they follow Kant) is a unique effective "medicine for the war". Liberal democracies have a number of internal mechanisms complicating unleashing of wars: they are removability of governments, and separation of branches of power, awareness of citizens on their rights, and an opportunity of free trade. To open a way to this new sovereignty, Hardt and Negri (2004) suggest first to destroy the traditional sovereignty: "The first and the main task... is destruction of the sovereignty for the sake of the statement of democracy". Simultaneously with destruction of the sovereignty it is necessary to build new, democratic institutes which, being combined with communicative networks of joint actions, constantly make and reproduce public life. What does it mean in practice? Being first of all theorists of the new world, M. Hardt and Negri (2004) not enough and reluctantly speak about the practice. However separate practical recommendations though and not without effort it is possible to find in their book. It is impossible to destroy the sovereignty, having kept inviolable the system of international institutes, and consequently philosophers suggest beginning with cardinal reform of the United Nations Organization. So let us make a conclusion. The sovereignty concerns to number of those categories, which by virtue of special, interdisciplinary position besides initial meaning "have got" a set of other values. Actually, the researcher is free to understand the sovereignty in his own way. The sovereignty is both a principle, and a status, and a property of the state, and the relations of authority with other subjects. Such polysemy can testify two things: whether the concept terminologically is not enough explored, or the phenomenon is enriched with senses more quickly, than the terminological device develops. The sovereignty as one of key categories of the political science and international law experiences the period of reconsideration, specification of the value. Within the limits of the European Union and a number of other parts of the world the state experiences serious and, most likely, irreversible transformations, conceding political space to new forms of political self-organization and the organization. One way or another self-value and autonomy of the sovereignty, which always remained derivative of the states is called into question. Traditional views of the sovereignty are widely presented. What approaches - conservative or revisionist - will appear correct, will show time and experience of development of new political forms. Works cited: BODIN, J., & FRANKLIN, J. H. (1992). On sovereignty: four chapters from the six books of the commonwealth. Cambridge texts in the history of political thought. Cambridge [England], Cambridge University Press. COOPER, R. (2000) The postmodern state and the world order. London: Demos, The Foreign Policy Centre. COOPER, R. (2003). The breaking of nations: order and chaos in the twenty-first century. London, Atlantic. FIERKE, K. M. (2005). Diplomatic interventions: conflict and change in a globalizing world. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan. HARDT, M., & NEGRI, A. (2004). Multitude: war and democracy in the age of Empire. New York, The Penguin Press. HEINZE. (2002). Krasner, Stephen D., ed. Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities. PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICAL SCIENCE. 31, 121. KRASNER, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. MACCORMICK, N. (1999). Questioning sovereignty: law, state, and nation in the European Commonwealth. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Read More