The Doctrine of National Sovereignty - Term Paper Example

The Doctrine of National Sovereignty Introduction Sovereignty is base on having authority that is independent over set geographical area. A state is said to be sovereign when it can make its own rules that are based on the political facts. Sovereignty in legal terms is primarily viewed as a phenomenon of the state’s authority which is usually centralized. The authority plays a role of enacting irrevocable legislation as well executing laws over a particular area. The concept of sovereignty has been present throughout history. It has also changed its concept severally in the past to present. Its definition and also application has also changed. These changes commonly occurred in the age of enlightenment. In the present state the word sovereignty consists of the aspects of territory, authority and also the population of a given states (Hoffman 1998, p4). The term sovereignty can be broken down into four different types. The first type is the national sovereignty. This is a control over a given nation exercised by an organized authority within this particular state. Interdependence sovereignty is the second sovereignty. This is a control of movement across the borders of the states. The assumption of the existence of borders is usually made when this form of sovereignty is being exercised. The third sovereignty is the international legal sovereignty. This can be defined as a formal recognition usually exercised by other states that are sovereign. The final class of sovereignty is the Westphalian sovereignty. This sovereignty is characterized by lacking authority over the state rather than the national authority (Krasner 2001, p25). Discussion The UN Charter has dealt with sovereignty as a concept in different ways. The charter formulated several principles that would act as the guidelines to the UN member states. The first principle that supports the idea of sovereignty is their members to have equal rights. The charter based this principle on the sovereignty of all the member states on the basis of equality. The charter also offered a condition that all the member states have to fulfill the expectations set upon them by the charter. This should be done in good faith. The member states are needed fully to comply with the charter of the United Nations (Hoffman 1998, p6). The charter set the principle that all its members should use peaceful methods to settle their disputes. This was to be complied with by all the member states. The charter’s idea was to ensure that there will be prevailing peace, justice and the security is not endangered. The charter also discourages the use of force or military action on one of its member states. This was meant to protect the territorial integrity and also the political independence of the member states. The United Nations shall receive the support of the member states on the actions they take that are in accordance with the charter. All the member states shall not give assistance to the states that are against the United Nations (Thakur 2006).  The charter states that countries that are not United Nations' members are needed to act as per the charter of the United Nations. This is to ensure that the sovereignty is achieved hence the achievement and maintenance of the international peace. The charter that is followed by the United Nations refrain this body to interfere in the domestic matters of the member states. They shall not require the states to hand over these cases to them for settlement. However, this principle does not hinder the United Nations from applying measures that enforces peace (Krasner 2001, p27). In attempts of the United Nations to reconcile itself with the member states’ basis of sovereignty, the United Nations restricted itself from interfering with the internal matters of the member states. This is despite the refinement of the concept of national sovereignty in a period of many years. This issue was seen in the peace making process of the Westphalia and has remained since then. One of the observations was the respect to the state in making decisions for its own citizens. There was also a need to make general rules that apply to all states. This was to ensure civilization of the country flourished (Hoffman 1998, p7). As one way of the United Nations to reconcile with the member states, the article two of the United Nations’ charter prohibits this body from the intervention of the country’s domestic matters. This includes matters that are within the jurisdiction of the member states. It is by this principle that the member states feel that their sovereignty is recognized. Indeed had this provision not made the United Nations would not have been formed or rather no country would have joined the body. The horrific wars in the sovereign states led to the establishment of the United Nations. The main agenda of the establishment of this body was to prevent this carnage. This is made clear in the article one of the United Nations charter (Krasner 2001, p28). However, when the member states are involved in cases of war, the United Nations can intervene. This is because the civil war falls outside the jurisdiction of the individual country. This is clearly explained in the United Nations’ article one of the charters. The main idea of this article is to outline the main purposes that the united nations are obligated to in case of war erupts. The united nations are supposed to take the collective measures towards the prevention as well as the removal of all the peace threats (Hoffman 1998, p8). They are also required to suppress the aggression acts as well as breaches peace. This requirement is very essential in bringing back peace in the member states that may be involved in any form of war. The principle of the sovereignty of the member states’ national matters has greatly hampered the operations of the United Nations. To start with there is confusion between the enforcement action and the peace keeping process. There is a risk of thee United Nations to slide it operation from the intended peace keeping action to enforcement action. A common example to this view is the confusion that erupted in the United Nations engagement in Somalia, Yugoslavia and also Liberia. Disastrous consequences were witnessed in all the three cases. This principle has caused the development of a grey zone in the relations between the body and the member states (Krasner 2001, p29). The grey zone has created a challenge in the United Nations response to matters related to the domestic context of the individual member states. Apparently there is no effective mechanism that has been formulated to counter this problem. This has adversely affected the extent to which the United Nations can intervene on the issues of the member states. There are problems that have erupted as a result of the grey zone. Armed factions that are present in conflicts have been a hindrance to the humanitarian aid. There are also the challenges that are faced by the peacekeepers in the states that are experiencing civil wars. This has lead to the United Nations withdrawing the peacekeepers from these states. The principle has also led to the violation of the no-fly zone aspect. This has led to the United Nations failure to reach some destinations when their help is required since they would be restricted from that area (Hoffman 1998, p11). After the cold war had been terminated, many changes occurred in the operation of the United Nations. There have been recorded a remarkable growth in the operations of the United Nations as far as peace operations are concerned. This is in the attempt of protecting the humanitarian rights. The operations of the United Nations shifted in the peacekeeping operations. One of the changes in the peace keeping process is the expansion of the peacekeeping tasks to incorporate the demobilization, the reintegration into civilian life from the combatants. The tasks were also inclusive of the disarmament operations in the affected countries (Krasner 2001, p32). The tasks also included offering assistance towards returning the displaced individuals and the refugees to their original homes as well as the supervision the election conduction in the affected territories. Since the cold war ended, the peacekeeping operations began including more multidimensional forms and non-military elements than those the traditional operations of peacekeeping that were used during the cold war. There is a conventional assumption that the end of the cold war provided a significant transformation in the peace operations across the globe. The bipolar world collapsed during the end of the cold war (Thakur 2006).  The collapse of the bipolar world brought about freedom to the states that were regarded as small a great freedom of fighting. This collapse did not only offer this state’s freedom fighting, but they could also fight without being hampered. The collapse also gave permission of resolving many conflicts that existed and had been fueled by the rivalry that existed between the superpowers. Partly, it can be argued that the end cold war led to the occurrence of many conflicts. However, in this argument there is something could be missing as far as the explanation of the transformation is concerned (Hoffman 1998, p13). Another evolution that occurred after the termination of the cold war is the standards change. This development of standards made it possible for the launching of peace operations. These operations were in the support of democracy service and humanitarian rights. This development led to increase of peace supply operations and hence an improved humanitarian intervention by the United Nations. The termination of the cold war gave the media an opportunity of covering the human rights atrocities and violations. This created many pressures that resulted to increased peace operations supply whose aims were to promote both humanitarian and democracy objectives (Thakur 2006).  The United Nations’ responsibility to Protect was not also left behind as far as change is concerned after the end of the cold war. The United Nations gained power of running and monitoring elections of the states experiencing civil war. An example to this happened in countries such Angola, El Salvador, Namibia, Mozambique and Cambodia. The United Nations can also protect the inhabitants of its member states from being threatened or to be used forcefully. This includes even by the state of the individual country. An example to this is the availability of protected areas of the countries in Croatia. They also protect the safe areas from being attacked. They also ensure there is demilitarization of specific areas (Hoffman 1998, p14). The principle of sovereignty is not relevant in the age of globalization. This is because globalization undermines the state of sovereignty. This is as a result of the evolving world politics. It can also be as a result of the broadness of the term globalization. There is also the idea that there is a demise of the sovereign state as a result of globalization. There is an aspect of undermining the ability of the state in the control of their economy and also the society. There have been many emphases on the participation of the countries in the economics of the world. Argument states that geopolitics is key issues in establishing the world order in the present. When the aspect globalization is analyzed on both the national and also the international perspective it will be observed that the state of sovereignty is always undermined by the view of globalization. One key aspect resulting from globalization is that it widens an also deepens the interconnectedness of the world (Hoffman 1998, p15). This process of globalization is growing in a greater rate and for this reason it grows intensively and also quickly and it is making a great impact in the world today. The interconnectedness of this perspective is seen in all the spheres of the country, this includes the economists and also the cultures. By this perspective, the interconnectedness of globalization has led to the dissolution of the sovereignty principle in the member countries (Krasner 2001, p33). There is a high urge to maintain sovereignty in the countries of the world. This is because the countries have an assured status of being at peace. Peace is a paramount aspect that each state requires. If countries fail to observe sovereignty the prevailing peace may be a day dream to many countries no matter the economic stability of the respective countries. The state sovereignty allows for the actions to be taken in case of occurrence of crises. It also allows preventive measures towards a threat to peace to be taken. Among the state of sovereignty is the principle of justice and also the international law which sovereignty ensures they are kept in the different member states (Thakur 2006).  The state of sovereignty should also be seen up to the present day as it ensures that there are friendly relations among the member states. This happened on the basis of the fact that the respective states have the respect on the principle of self determination and also the equality of rights. This state also ensures that appropriate measures are taken and also enforced in the efforts of strengthening the universal peace. The relations among the member countries are based on this principle of sovereignty; therefore, it should be recognized. The state of national sovereignty also achieves the cooperation among the member states. This is essential when it come to the problem solving of the international problems. This includes social problems humanitarian and also cultural (Hoffman 1998, p16). Sovereignty is a critical aspect in the world today and it has to be fully adhered. This is the sole way that international peace can be achieved. This brings the point that this is the only way and there cannot be any other way to achieve harmonization and peace of the world. When there is respect of the sovereignty of among United Nations' member states and they hence learn to live in peace. It is, therefore, evident that there can’t be another version that can replace the aspect of sovereignty (Krasner 2001, p34). There are suggestions that it is worth making several changes in the United Nations' charter concerning the aspect of sovereignty. According to the African countries, there is an urge to redefine the term sovereignty within the United Nations context. This is the logic in that there is an aim to avoid the genocides that have been experienced in the African states. However, the African union is supposed to act on such a case without the consent of waiting for the United Nations to respond. It is the responsibility of the bodies like the African union, United Nations among others to respond and prevent the loss of lives in the respective countries (Krasner 2001, p35). Sovereignty of the country should not be at the hands of another body. When sovereignty lies on the hand of an international body there will be chance that some countries will be marginalized. This is because there are chances that this body will be under the control of some countries. This will take place at the marginalized countries' cost. This may lead to civil wars especially the superior countries may attack the weak countries. Sovereignty should, therefore, be rested upon the individual member states and should not be handed to and international body (Hoffman 1998, p18). References list Hoffman, J. (1998). Sovereignty. Minneapolis, Minn, University of Minnesota Press. Pp.4-18 Krasner, S. D. (2001). Sovereignty Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Pp.25-35 Thakur, R. (2006). The United Nations, peace and security from collective security to the responsibility to protect. New York, Cambridge University Press. Read More