concept in international relation

concept in international relation

Exploring the Concept of Sovereignty in International Relations

1. Introduction to Sovereignty and its Evolution in International Relations

The evolution of sovereignty over the past five centuries, from composite city-states through the development into present-day states, has some important political theory implications. The first issue is whether some worlds contain such numerous inhabitants impacting sets that imposition of politico-economic coercion upon the world within the world citizenry association may sustain that suppression. If enough sufficiently impacted persons associate into decision-making states that represent the world within the world, then the organization, and not the world, citizens are sovereign. Then, the question regards the authority determined by citizen association. In social choice terms, the organization constitutes a decisive society. Finally, the acceptance of international authority is an ethical issue; it reflects personal values commitment. Therefore, if a state is used as an institutional arbiter of society’s on/off ‘in the state’ switch, the state institution should operate not on the basis of consent or dictators’ whims, but on the criteria of democratic justice. Such states might, ex post, serve as vehicles through which members of diverse society worlds might affect world citizenry interests in all-inclusive association. In the absence of such authorities, no such mechanism for their exercising world sovereignty rights results in a global social welfare function and universal ethical norms may, for ethical reasons, constitutionally authorize and internationally supermajority might democratically legitimize actions. All the significant tenets of both realist and neo-Marxist theory can be captured by a combination of the social choice and ethical/political authority concepts. The world state, as an arbiter of perspective states’ constitutional determinations, represents the last column primarily at the domestic and international level. Harm might be manifest at both levels – citizens might directly influence perspective constitution for a concern in all worlds, and citizens should acknowledge transnational incalculable world citizens’ interests. Therefore, the most appropriate constitutional decision should reflect the preferences of world citizens as well as those of ordinary citizens. Pollyanna-dec robust warrant for world sovereignty to protect the interests of those citizens living inside state boundaries.

Sovereignty has long been a key concept in the discourse of international relations. Even today, it remains a powerful actor in the international scene by providing a moral and ethical blueprint guiding the structure of the international system and repudiating intervention in the name of sovereignty. The very essence of sovereignty has served as a rallying cry for newly emerging states and nationalities fighting upon the idea that they will control their own fate. What sovereignty connotes overall is the right established by the citizenry to have some say in who will be the principles of the interactions. The concept of sovereignty periodically generates contesting debate along two sets of issues: one concerns its internal aspects, the other relates to its relationships in the international arena. The aim of this piece of work is to provide an applied social philosophy analysis which emphasizes the normative use of sovereignty in the international sense.

2. Theoretical Perspectives on Sovereignty in International Relations

In its place, the concept of a national community was born. In the end, sovereignty was detached from the person that ruled and subsequently attached to a piece of territory. Territory became the new sovereign and, by its very nature, the only actor capable of governing these territories. In other words, territory was identified as the supreme being of the international state system. For a long time, no one challenged the ability of territory to be sovereign, to govern, and to determine the rules for human intercourse within the territorial boundaries of the state. The only time that the position of territory as the sovereign being was questioned was when Henry VIII, King of England, asked the Pope for permission to divorce. When the Pope said no, Henry VIII raged. Is there anyone on earth who will say no to the King of England? No, said Parliament. From now on, only the English Parliament can tell the King what to do or what not to do. And so, a new sovereign was born: the English parliament. With the advent of the modern state system, new sovereignties like the legislature, executive, and the judiciary emerged. Each of these components of the state was then identified as an aspect of the state’s sovereignty. In other words, while parliament had the ability to legislate and determine rules, the executive had the ability to execute these rules, and the judiciary had the responsibility of enforcing these rules. In a sense, internationally, international society is made up of territorial sovereigns. At the national level, each state had four components that together make the state sovereign. In other words, the state is sovereign in international law, and in its relations with others, it is its parliament that is sovereign in national law.

Very early in humanity’s history, the concept of a supreme being that governed all human societies was born. This supreme being was sovereign, and all human societies were to obey the will of the sovereign. One of the aspects of the supreme being, if not the most important one, was to lay down the rules for human intercourse in the form of treaties, for example. As time progressed and societies started to question the very existence of a supreme being, it was argued that monarchs and kings were the representatives of the supreme being on earth, and they ruled at the pleasure of the divine being. In other words, kings were sovereign rulers. Sovereign rulers ruled over territories that were granted (usually) by God. These leaders laid down the rules for human interactions and also had the responsibility to adjudicate disputes that arose from these rules. Basically, they acted like states, and by their very nature, they governed by their sovereignty. When people started to question the sovereignty of the ruler and that maybe others would have a better way to rule the community, the concept of the ruler’s authority disappeared, and so did the concept of a physical sovereign ruler.

3. Challenges to Sovereignty in the Modern Globalized World

The international challenges to state sovereignty, as one would expect, come from international organizations (e.g. the United Nations, European Union, the World Trade Organization, etc.), other states, and non-state actors. As globalization carries on, these challenges are only expected to increase. In a world where sovereignty is contested from the top (international organizations) and from the bottom (subnational interests), it is likely that the national responses to the challenges to sovereignty will be responses that address both sources of the challenge.

The challenges to state sovereignty come from two sources: domestic and international. The domestic challenges to state sovereignty usually come from interest groups within the state wanting to increase their power and are unhappy with the current level of influence they have over public policy. The interest groups challenging state sovereignty within the state are not military or security threats to the state but rather economic players such as transnational corporations, organized labor, and organized crime.

In an ideal world outlined above, states would retain sovereign power and continue acting in the absence of significant influence from other actors – both domestic and international. However, states and scholars of international relations are well aware that this is an ideal beyond reach.

Exploring the concept of sovereignty in international relations: challenges to sovereignty in the modern globalized world.

4. Case Studies: Sovereignty in Practice

I argue that as a practical matter, if the concept of state sovereignty did not pre-exist as a norm and law-specified normative category in international relations, as well as having a formal material existence, it could not be used to confer legitimacy on largely autonomous states. With regard to the arguments outlined in this work, on the relationship between sovereignty and international law, and between sovereignty and the ideology of statism, and the interpretation of international relations governance models as neutral or discretionary, I examine three potential objections to my conceptualization of the capacity of the concept of sovereignty to legally or normatively normalize and institutionalize international inequalities and offer three potential rejoinders.

This section assesses whether the cases of Manchukuo, Abyssinia, and Czechoslovakia, and the background to World War Two as an international crisis provide evidence of the effect of state sovereignty on international relations. I conclude that the case studies I have chosen do show that international relations and the foreign policy of states are substantially influenced by the formal material existence of sovereign states. However, this materiality is a necessary rather than sufficient feature of sovereign states, and international relations are also significantly influenced by the norms and law related to sovereignty which are shared by sovereign and non-sovereign entities, a facilitative environment for relations which exists in relation to sovereign entities, and contests over policy and law. Then, I note my main objections towards another normative interpretation of sovereignty: that it has normalized and legalized already ongoing international inequalities.

5. Conclusion and Future Implications of Sovereignty in International Relations

The classical concept of sovereignty as absolution has differentiated the concept of plenitude, considering it a juridical condition. The classic stand of Hugo Grotius’ principles of the modern theory of the state being an institution and determining factors have indeed brought fundamental contributions to the understanding of the principle. The origin of the State from the grammatical point of view was able to dominate its impetus with the affirmation of the analogy, being able to describe the society as a company of larger recognition than others, which lifted it from the basis of all traditions of the scholastic fact. This results in a customized and competent corporation receiving the appreciation of setting the rules. The overall Grotian typology of corporation includes the authentic and proper state due to its distinct etiological conditions. Disneology and the momentum of the State incorporated it as the primary institution Alahti Germany and the Russia hetimos slow. The internal hierarchy citizens organize state function territorial community and the members of society in a certain sense. The impairment of human political activity initiated by reason expresses freedom, and autonomy is more than important and indispensable.

This discussion has been centered on the concept of sovereignty, implications, and challenges on it. We examined both the Western and the indigenous concept of sovereignty, and we concluded by contrasting them based on the fact that the Western concept of sovereignty was a result of dealing with absolutism and undemocratic practices. It had some faults and distances from reality, proven by the desire to transform the UN charter into a world system based on self-determination. This led us to the discussion on the United Nations charter in reviving and changing the monopolistic Wittichian concept of sovereignty because it considers the concept as protection and equally unbundles it by taking into account the conditions of political independence and territorial integrity. It was based on this that we briefed on how globalization has a threat to the traditional concept of sovereignty. The discussion culminated in the proof that Western states are of the opinion that the changes that have taken place are factors of divergence of the issue of sovereignty, more diluted in consideration of indigenous peoples, economic markets, or diplomatic choices than of states themselves, due to the nominal solidarity that takes place.