The Province Of Sovereignty

In his substance of politics, APPADORA saw sovereignty as having originated from the Latin word, “superrenus” which means supremacy!. AKEHURST, in his book, “A Modern Introduction to International Law” said, a sovereign state is an independent state.

In essence, a sovereign state has the right to exercise legal authority or not  her territory only but the human and material resources therein.

These legal rights could be legislative, executive and judicial. Other rights like sovereign equality of states and those conferred on her by United Nations membership are also involved

Historical  Background

In its present meaning, the concept of sovereignty developed as an instrument for the assertion of royal authority over feudal princes in the construction of  modern territorial state3• Instability and disorder, it was believed, were several obstacles to a stable society and could only be overcome by viable governments that could firmly establish “sovereignty” over territory and populations. Although, the form of government might be monarchy, aristocracy or democracy, what was essential was that government should maintain the capacity to  provide order through the exercise of authority. The concept of sovereignty,  was then integrated into theories of international relations through a set of ideas that evolved with the end of the moral authority of the church over the secular rulers of Europe. A historic transition was marked by the soft comer of West  to labia in 1648 which ordered the thirty years. War and opened the sqeor- which goes on to this day – to find a way for independent states, each enjoying  sovereignty over a given territory, to pursue their interests without destroying  each other or the international system of which is a part.

That international system was initially centered in Europe and premised on the  idea that states were the central actors. All member states were to be regarded as juridical equal and their sovereignty absolute.

Here, the ascription was that states would maintain domestic order within their  borders and command the resources necessary to conduct effective relations with other states outside their own jurisdication4• Nevertheless, the inequality of states in dealing with one another was recognised. Four institutions eventually developed to maintain order and stability in a decentralised system of international relations in which resources are unequally distributed : a balance of power to prevent the rise of a hegemonic state and to contain unlimited aggression; the codification of rules of behavior through international laws, the convening of international conferences to settle major differences, and the growth of diplomatic practices through which states would maintain contact and be encouraged to negotiate differences among them. With ‘the  emergence of these institutions, the system of states was transformed into an  international society in which members were sovereign yet recognized  commonly accepted norms rules and obligations.

The principles that underpin the international society evolved over the years as  a pragmatic response to the risks and dangers of a potentially antiradical world  in which sovereign states pursue self-determined interests• After the defeat  of Napoleon, the leading states meeting at the congress of Vienna in 1815, agreed that their society should no longer be left to the mechanistic adjustment  of balance of power but should be directed by a diffused and balanced legerity  of the five great powers who would act in concert to manage order and change.

To the idea of international society was added a sense of responsibility on the part of the major states for maintaining order in international  relations through a establishment of the league of Nations after the First World War and the United nations after the Second World War were efforts to institutionalize international society beyond the loosely formed concert of Europe and to extend its scope to global dimensions.

The United Nations was particularly effective in drawing into international society the newly independent states that emerged out of the break-up of the European empires. Originally, the concept of sovereignty was recognized as a  guide to relations among the European states but not necessity in their contacts  with others’ as . they expanded their political and economic influence to other  parts of the World. In Africa and Asia, the European states denied the  “sovereignty” of local rulers and this recognized no restraints in their rights to expand their domain. Gradually, however, states outside Europe came to embrace the principles of international society and the UN, in turn, furnished them with recognition of their sovereignty and provided an area through which they could exercise their independence by participating in the negotiation and codification of the rule of international relations.

Nevertheless, the overall position and the influence of the newly independent states remain secondary to  the privileged statues of the permanent member in the Security Council and of  the industrialized states in major financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It is not surprising that these Third World states, who are most vulnerable to external pressure, are also most sensitive to the possible erosion of the concept of sovereignty and are most suspicious of the development of a  “right” of international interaction as a subterfuge for domination by the major powers. 

Limitations to Sovereignty

 Kratochwil, in his work, stated that there are limits to sovereignty, especially in the responsibilities that sovereign states owe to those whom they  rule and to other sovereign 6. By looking at the practice of sovereignty, Kratochwil observed that, in terms of responsibilities and obligations, sovereignty has evolved largely in response to developments in Euro-centric  international society but is now most likely to change under the influence of the broader global experienced through which international relations are moving.

The point Kra Tochwll makes about sovereignty involving obligations as well as rights  evident in the UN CHARTER. Article 2 begins by asserting the sovereign equality of all members states, yet goes on to caution that, all members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in the present charter. Subsequent paragraphs specify what that obligations are; to settle international disputes by peaceful means, to refrain from the use of force and to assist the UN in any action it takes in accordance with the charter. These are significant limitations on the exercise of sovereignty.

The important question is who determines whether a state has met its sovereign obligations and that the consequences are such that intervention is justified to force compliance. In the past, great powers had often arrogated this authority to themselves. What is distinctive about the present period of history, characterized by the global expansion of international society, is that, such derogations of authority is increasingly difficult to justify.

What appears to be required” increasingly is what might be called collective legitimation: a political decision that is made in accordance with universally accepted procedures and is consistent with universally accepted norms of behaviour: ONUF” like KRATOCHWIL, views sovereignty as neither fixed nor static• But perhaps more than that KRA TOCHWIL, he argues that a  fundamental change’ is now occurring and he suggests the possibility that “a long period of sovereignty’s conceptional stability (15) coming to an end”. For  sovereignty is, in fat, a critique of the state.

He argues that the state no longer holds a monopoly of respect from these he states that citizens now look to other institutions to provide some of their basic  needs; and that most states constituted, have no way of fully performing the  essential task of security and well-being. Some smaller and weaker states  completely lack the capacity to exercise sovereignty and fail to support their  citizens with even minimum protection. In ONUF’s view, as states lose the capacity to rule, majesty is diffused and stewardship is shared with other institutions, including international organizations and “non-state actors” like  transnational corporations. States remain necessary “linking people to land”  but no longer monopolies sovereignty because they no longer can meet, fully  and consistently, all the responsibilities that sovereignty requires of them.

If the United Nations is the one “operative” international community it would seem to follow that any “collective legitimation” must result from the  procedures provided in the charter and be consistent with the principles and norms that flow from the purposes and practice of the organizations. The emphasis on principles and norms is as important as procedures, given that the procedures of the UN favors the major states especially the five permanent members of the Security Council.

The “perm five” moreover, once divided by the antagonizes of the cold War, now have the potential to act in concert, not unlike the collective hegemony of the dominant states in the nineteenth century. Certainly disagreement may lead to tension among the five but it is the prospect of this “concert” that leads others to seek the protection of sovereignty and the limits of Article Two Paragraph Seven against the domination of the great

Consequences of  limitations on State Sovereignty:

Given the above limitations, state sovereignty, no doubt, will continue to be evolved with the multifarious problems being grappled with by the Third World, it is not impossible that their so called sovereignty may eventually be enmeshed in a quagmire. Should this hold, the entire gamut of international relations may witness yet another round of innovations sufficient enough to neutralize the effects and or implications of international intervention which will follow. Therefore, sovereignty is not absolute.

Conclusion

Connecting independence, the concept of sovereignty stands out to enable a sovereign state exercise its authority both on a particular territory and population. This authority could be legislative, executive or judicial with the growing interdependence in the world, the concept of sovereignty is being gradually eroded.

The incapability of the new independence states, however, will always be arrested by international organizations like the United Nations which will feel duty bound to intervene in these areas.

Again, the legal problems which may be caused by the said international organisation  will surely be attended to by certain principles and rules of international relations. For as long as any state seeks intervention, or if there is collapse of government authority in the host country, inter alia, there is consensus in the international consensus in the international community intervention could be justified.

Agi is a Port Harcourt-based Legal Practitioner

Chyoke Agi