.png)
The definition of sovereignty is a contested topic in the field of International Relations. While its traditional conception can be described through the Westphalian or Sovereign State Model, new definitions have arisen due to changing global priorities and concerns. Three significant factors have caused the rise of alternative models: globalisation, failures in global diplomacy and cooperation, and the increasing contemplation of non-Western perspectives in International Relations.
The traditional Westphalian model is derived from the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, a series of treaties signed in Europe. These agreements recognised the ability and authority of individual states to legitimately maintain full control within their territories, free of external influence. The treaties represented the transition from feudalism to modern statehood in Europe. Through time, this system gradually became the norm globally. Today, Westphalian sovereignty still places an emphasis on non-interference in a state’s internal affairs, and especially emphasises the importance of respecting clearly defined territorial boundaries, regarding states as equals regardless of wealth or size. The Westphalian model’s influence has been cemented by some intergovernmental organizations, including the United Nations, which embraces the Westphalian conception of state sovereignty in its charter. It states that “nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”, meaning that all states have an equal right to authority over their territory under international law.
The Treaty of Westphalia has long been associated as the "invention" of sovereignty in the international system. See below for a whistle-stop tour on The Peace of Westphalia.
The first factor influencing alternative definitions of sovereignty is globalisation, which has fundamentally transformed, and restricted, the way in which states operate in the international order. Economic interdependence, as well as the imperative for cooperation between states, have reduced states’ ability to act freely from the influence of other actors. In the current order, states cannot make completely independent decisions. This phenomenon has been accentuated by the rising urgency of transnational concerns such as climate change, cross-border crime, and pandemics. These are some of the most existential concerns today, and cannot be solved through individual state-led efforts, but rather through collective initiatives led by both private and public sectors across state boundaries. As a result, new conceptualisations of sovereignty have been proposed, such as that of shared sovereignty. In this model, proposed by Stephen D. Krasner (former American diplomat and current Stanford professor) in 2004, states are willing to cede some of their authority to supranational organisations such as regional blocs or international organisations, in order to ensure cooperation towards common goals. This conception helps to explain how intergovernmental organisations, like the EU, have gained considerable authority in certain policy areas with transnational implications.
Criticism for the non-interventionist aspect of the Westphalian model surged in the late 20th century as a result of great failures in global diplomacy and cooperation such as the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. Many used the Westphalian principle to argue against external military or humanitarian intervention during the genocide, labelling intervention as an assault on the country’s sovereignty. As a result, international peacekeeping initiatives were unable to help address the emergency, and thus unable to prevent thousands of deaths. The catastrophic handling of this tragedy by the international community raised questions about the moral responsibility of states to protect their citizens, and about what the repercussions should be if a state fails to do so. This resulted in efforts to redefine the convention on the meaning of sovereignty. Proposals for change included the idea of a “responsibility to protect”, a principle supported strongly by Kofi Annan (UN secretary-general from 1997 to 2006). This view emphasises that state sovereignty should no longer be perceived as a right that the state has, but rather the responsibility it holds to protect its entire constituency. In this view, if a state fails to protect its citizens, the international community has a duty to intervene in order to restore peace and security.
While some criticised the non-interventionist aspect of sovereignty, others found problems with its state-centrism. The third factor compelling scholars to redefine sovereignty is the increasing attention within International Relations scholarship towards non-Western perspectives. A notable example of this trend is the Chinese model proposed by Yaqing Qin (prominent Chinese IR scholar) which raises fundamental questions about the efficiency of the Westphalian Sovereign State model in preserving peace in the international order. As this model argues, the idea of individual states in an anarchic system should be transcended if we are to effectively address contemporary challenges by encouraging a more inclusive and cooperative order. This shift towards exploring alternative perspectives highlights the evolving debate on the meaning of sovereignty, and the potential to find solutions in other, non-Western ways of thinking.
International Relations scholarship has increasingly questioned the traditional Westphalian interpretation of sovereignty. Globalisation and new concerns which require global cooperation, failures in global diplomacy, and the increasing contemplation of non-Western perspectives in International Relations, have resulted in the exploration of new definitions of sovereignty in International Relations, that question the importance of non-interference and state-centrism in building a peaceful world order.
Comments