Sovereignty and International Law

According to international law, sovereignty is the ability of a state to act independently of other states in both domestic and foreign affairs. 1 This refers to the state’s independence both inside and outside its borders as well as its internal independence. A sovereign state is also not constrained by anything other than the additional sovereign rights of other states, general international law, and freely accepted international obligations. According to Königová, sovereignty has two crucial components. Elements inside a given territory, regardless of how they are grouped. 2 The second component is right-creation, which is characterised by the fact that all activities are governed by laws that are acknowledged by state authority. Three significant characteristics define sovereignty. The first characteristic is the power, the ability to command and simultaneously be obeyed by the state’s laws. Power should not be confused with authority. The difference between authority and power is that the former is exercised by someone with the capacity to persuade others against his own interests. In addition to authority and power, territoriality and supremacy are also parts of sovereignty. An authority within the bounds of a territory is known as sovereign.

Theory of sovereignty

The theory of sovereignty has significantly influenced changes within states, but its impact on interstate relations has been greatest. The issues here stem from Bodin’s assertion that sovereigns who create laws are not subject to those laws (majestas est summa in cives ac subditos legibusque soluta potestas). This phrase has frequently been taken to suggest that a sovereign has no obligations to anyone and is not constrained by any laws. A more thorough reading of Bodin’s writings, however, contradicts this interpretation. He stressed that even with regard to their own citizens, sovereigns are required to abide by a number of fundamental laws that are derived from the divine law, the law of nature or reason, and the law that is shared by all nations (jus gentium), as well as the basic laws of the state that establish who is the sovereign, who succeeds to sovereignty, and what limits the sovereign power. Bodin’s sovereign was thus constrained by both the state’s constitution and the higher law, which was regarded as being applicable to all people. In reality, many of the standards that later became part of international law were articulated by Bodin as being obligatory on governments. However, his arguments have been employed to defend anarchy in the international domain and absolutism in the domestic political order.

In Leviathan (1651), Hobbes brought this idea to a logical conclusion by identifying the sovereign with might rather than law. Due to the unlimited nature of sovereign power, law cannot restrict what sovereigns can do. As sovereigns attempted to impose their will via force on all other sovereigns, this situation resulted in an ongoing state of war on a global scale. Little has changed in this regard over time, as sovereign states continue to assert their right to decide their own disputes, to enforce their own ideas of rights through force, to treat their own citizens however they see fit, and to regulate their economic lives with complete disregard for potential effects on other states.

Significant limitations on states’ freedom to act started to emerge during the 20th century. The Hague treaties of 1899 and 1907 set comprehensive guidelines for how to conduct land and marine warfare. The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 forbade the use of war as a tool of national policy and for the settlement of international disputes. The League of Nations Covenant, the forerunner to the United Nations (UN), placed restrictions on the right to wage war. They were followed by the UN Charter, which added the stipulation that all members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force,” as well as the obligation on member states to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered” (Article 2). However, the UN is “founded on the principle of sovereign equality of all its Members,” according to the Charter.

As a result of these developments, sovereignty was no longer equated with unchecked authority. States have consented to a sizable body of law restricting their ability to exercise their sovereign rights. Those limitations on sovereignty are typically explained as resulting from auto limitation or consent, but it is simple to show that in some instances, states have been held to be bound by specific principles of international law despite the absence of sufficient evidence that these principles were explicitly or implicitly accepted by them. On the other hand, new laws often cannot be imposed on a state against its will by the will of other states. In this way, a balance between the demands of the global community and the aspirations of states to safeguard their sovereignty to the fullest extent feasible has been attained.

Associated States

Under UN law, the distinction made in the 19th century between fully sovereign states and various types of less sovereign groups is no longer significant. Instead of focusing on the legal distinctions between colonies, protected states, protectorates, and states under the suzerainty of another state, self-governing and non-self-governing territories were highlighted. Non-self-governing territories were declared “a sacred trust” under the UN Charter, and the governments in charge of managing them pledged to work toward their eventual self-government. Some of these areas were given UN Trusteeship Council status, which allowed the UN to more closely monitor their administration and hastened their transition to self-rule or independence. Despite not achieving independence, once a territory gained self-government as defined by General Assembly decisions, UN oversight ended.

Separate sovereignties

The idea of unrestricted, total sovereignty did not hold sway for very long, either nationally or internationally. The rise of democracy placed significant restrictions on the authority of the monarchy and the ruling classes. The notion that might is right in international affairs was constrained by the growing interdependence of states. The widespread consensus among citizens and policymakers is that there cannot be peace without law and that there cannot be law without some restrictions on sovereign power. Thus, organisations like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the European Union (EU) began to pool their sovereignties to the extent necessary to maintain peace and prosperity, and sovereignty was increasingly exercised on behalf of the peoples of the world by regional and international organisations as well as national governments. As a result, the doctrine of divided sovereignty, which was first formulated in federal states, started to apply in the global context.

Governmental Authority and Global Legitimacy

The consequences of Jeremy Waldron’s defence of the legitimacy of international law are the subject of my first series of remarks. I will go into detail on what residual autonomy sovereign states may assert in the name of state sovereignty after defining how international law may have legal power over them.

The rightful dominance of international law

International law is the governing body, and its application denotes control over its subjects. However, international law’s authority is only justified or legitimate if it possesses “the right to rule,” or the right to impose obligations on its subjects.

The main targets of legally obligatory international standards are sovereign governments. It’s interesting to note that one of the primary arguments against the legitimacy of international law is that it purportedly fails to respect state sovereignty by encroaching into areas where they should be allowed to decide for themselves. State sovereignty is frequently interpreted in international law as a competence, immunity, or power, and in particular as the ability to make autonomous decisions, by way of analogy with individual autonomy (so-called sovereign autonomy). The legitimate authority of international law is interpreted to be in opposition to state sovereignty, much as the legitimate authority of domestic law is frequently opposed to individual autonomy.

Conclusion

It’s interesting to note that even when the prerequisites for international law’s legitimacy over sovereign nations are met, there may still be some issues where a state’s right to self-determination is more crucial. This is similar to what applies to individuals: it is important that, at least in some circumstances, a person comes to her own decision and acts on it rather than deferring to the instructions of a putative authority, even if the latter would lead to decisions that, in other respects, better conform to reason.

Due to the unlimited nature of sovereign power, law cannot restrict what sovereigns can do. As sovereigns attempted to impose their will via force on all other sovereigns, this situation resulted in an ongoing state of war on a global scale. Due to the unlimited nature of sovereign power, law cannot restrict what sovereigns can do. As sovereigns attempted to impose their will via force on all other sovereigns, this situation resulted in an ongoing state of war on a global scale.