Sovereignty Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Sovereignty is the supreme political authority. The concept forms the basis for the modern international system, and it provides legitimacy to contemporary nation-states and national governments. At its most basic level, sovereignty is control over people and geographic space. Such control is typically invested in the structures of government, and history was marked by the steady growth in sovereignty by national governments and a concurrent accumulation of centralized power. However, many modern democratic systems are based on the principle of individual sovereignty that in turn entrusts authority to representative governments. Consequently, a distinction has developed between the exercise of sovereignty within either domestic affairs or international relations, and the theoretical or philosophical source of sovereignty. Meanwhile, the growth of nonstate, international actors has eroded the traditional power of the nation-state and redefined some aspects of sovereignty.

Sovereignty, The Citizen, And The State

Sovereignty has been manifested in one form or another for most of human history. Rulers and governments have gained both legal and practical control over territory and populations by various means. Within political philosophy, the modern concept of sovereignty was initially developed in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Aquinas argued that sovereignty resisted with God. The sovereignty exercised by human rulers came from the divine, and it was incumbent upon these leaders to exercise their power in accordance with Christianity. Otherwise, citizens or other states were justified in removing the ruler. This notion of sovereignty formed the basis for the concept of the concept of absolutism. The French philosopher Jean Bodin argued that sovereignty was absolute, and it conferred upon a government unconditional power. His most influential work was Six Books on the Republic (1576). He also differentiated between domestic sovereignty and that expressed in the international system. From Bodin’s writings, others such as James I argued that monarchs enjoyed complete sovereignty through the principle of the divine right of kings. Other prominent supporters of monarchial sovereignty included Joseph de Maistre.

Englishman Thomas Hobbes agreed that sovereignty was absolute. However, Hobbes contended in his famous work Leviathan (1651) that power came not from the divine but from a social contract between the people and the rulers, in which people surrender some portion of their natural rights in exchange for the government maintaining social order and providing for the common defense of its citizenry. Later philosophers such as John Locke expanded on both the importance of natural rights and the role of the social contract in legitimizing domestic sovereignty. Locke contended that governments were granted only enough sovereignty by their people to protect the natural rights of the citizenry. The notion that sovereignty came from the people (popular sovereignty) became one of the main foundations of modern democracy and formed the core of the governmental system of countries such as the United States.

Locke’s notion of popular sovereignty contrasted with a later model developed from the philosophy of the French intellectual Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the eighteenth century.

Rousseau asserted that sovereignty was based in the general will of a population (or the common good) and that there was no distinction between the source of sovereignty and its exercise. The general will was consequently the basis for national sovereignty and the means through which state authority was manifested. It was expressed through the structure of government (which Rousseau argued should be a form of direct democracy but was implemented as a representative system). The general will could and would supersede the individual rights of citizens. Under popular sovereignty, power rests with the people, while under the concept of the general will, power rests with the government. An extreme version of the concept of the supremacy of the collective over the individual would later form the core of totalitarian systems, including fascism and communism. Under such systems, the state has total sovereignty over individuals, although the regime bases its authority on the need to promote the public good. For instance, Carl Schmitt advocated that all sovereign governments had the authority to decide when to abrogate the social contract and undertake dictatorial means in order to protect the public interest. Indeed, for Schmitt and some other theorists, the core of sovereignty was a government’s ability to establish a state of exception to protect the general will from either internal or external threats. Schmitt later defended the sovereignty of totalitarian regimes.

In reaction to the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century, an ant sovereignty movement emerged that rejected the domestic authority of states and argued instead for an internationalization of rights. The French philosopher Georges Bataille’s concept of ant sovereignty influenced successive scholars and philosophers, including Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. In his 1957 book, Sovereignty: An Inquiry into the Political Good, Bertrand de Jouvenel acknowledged the importance of state sovereignty but criticized the growing power of the nation-state over individual citizens, a theme echoed by Jacques Maritain who argued that sovereignty was an antiquated concept used to oppress citizens.

While many philosophers and scholars concentrated on the internal dimensions of sovereignty, others concentrated on the study of international law and international relations theory as they applied to state sovereignty in the global system. Hugo Grotius is often considered the father of international law. He asserted that natural law, conventions, treaties, and traditions formed constraints on state sovereignty in external matters. His work formed the core of the rationalist (or Grotian) division of international relations that contrasted with the realist (or Hobbesian) emphasis that stressed power and control of resources rather than cooperation in global interactions. Meanwhile, Immanuel Kant developed a political philosophy that emphasized the importance of constitutional republics as a means to constrain expansionist state behaviors and prevent war. The philosopher’s writings would be identified as the basis for the Kantian (or revolutionist) view of international relations.

The English school of international relations of the twentieth century was based on these three trains of scholarship but emphasized the Grotian model. Hedley Bull, one of the leaders of the English school, emphasized the importance of a community of states within the otherwise anarchical system of international affairs. Bull’s most influential work was the 1977 book, The Anarchical Society, which stressed the importance of mutual recognition as the key to state sovereignty. Within the international society of states, norms and values develop that both guide and constrain state action and provide the boundaries of sovereignty.

The English school, as well as the realist and neorealist schools that emerged from the Hobbesian tradition, emphasizes the centrality of the nation-state as the principle unit in international relations and therefore the main sovereign entity. However, a number of challenges have emerged to the concept of state-centric sovereignty. Neoliberal institutionalism (modified structural realism) emphasized the growing importance of economics and the interplay between trade and traditional notions of military power to assert that nonstate actors increasingly play a role in global affairs and have led to a diffusion of sovereignty. Neoliberal institutionalism is identified with the work of contemporary scholars such as Robert Keohane, including After Hegemony (1984), Stephen D. Krasner, and John G. Ruggie. In addition, cosmopolitanism argues for the development of a form of world citizenship in which national sovereignty exists only within the confines of a broad series of universal individual rights.

The Evolution Of Sovereignty

For most of human history, sovereignty was vested in a single individual or in small groups within political units. Sovereignty was usually based on power and rested on the martial capabilities of the ruler and ruling class. A wide variety of political organizations consequently emerged, ranging from multiethnic empires to kingdoms to city-states to assorted religious states. Authority was not the domain of the state, but rather the individual. Rulers and dynasties gained varying degrees of authority over disparate lands as a result of wars, treaties, and marriage. As a result, a series of overlapping and complicated political relationships emerged in which rulers often had multiple loyalties. The feudal system of Europe exemplified this pattern. Rulers who exercised absolute power in one land often found themselves the vassal of another leader because of extended holdings. In addition, vassals could be more authoritative and influential than their liege lords. The Duchy of Burgundy was considerably more powerful then the kingdom of France during the late Middle Ages, and the dukes used their resources to emerge as rivals to the French kings. This occurred despite the fact that the dukes of Burgundy were vassals of the French king. Consequently, national borders had little significant meaning and political authority was uneven and divided. The broken geography of Europe, with its series of mountain ranges and rivers, not to mention the water barriers around the British Isles, divided the continent and precluded the rise of a single empire as was the case in China or India. Instead, geography fostered smaller political units that often competed fiercely with one another for primacy.

Sovereignty was even more diffused because of the role and influence of the Catholic Church, which acted as a supranational body with political manifestations in the form of autonomous bishoprics or other church-states. Nonetheless, the church performed an important role in legitimizing the sovereignty of rulers through participation in coronations and other forms of formal recognition of feudal rulers. In return, secular leaders were expected to support the church financially, politically, and militarily.

Of the political organizations of the period, empires could harness significant military and economic resources. However, these entities often could not maintain the loyalty of their citizenry. The central government faced daunting challenges in attempting to maintain order in remote parts of the empire while the core population typically grew to resist the diversion of resources away from the capital region. Empires also could fall into the trap of imperial overstretch and devote too many resources to conquest and therefore erode their competitiveness against challengers. Thus, most multiethnic empires collapsed as a result of external threats or internal dissension. Alternatively, smaller political units such as city-states could command deep loyalty and sacrifice by their citizenry, but they lacked the resources to defend themselves from larger entities. If the city-states expanded, they risked weakening the bonds of loyalty. From the constant strife of the Middle Ages, a new political entity, the nation-state, emerged to redefine notions of sovereignty and the nature of the international political system.

The Nation-State

The modern nation-state combined the resources of the empire with the loyalty and self-identification of the city-state. It had a population that was large enough to project significant military power, yet its people were typically relatively homogenous. It also had the economic resources necessary to keep pace with the rapid advances that accompanied the series of revolutions in military affairs. The end of the Thirty Years War, through the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), marked the rise of the modern nation-state and the decline of both the church and the feudal system.

Post-Westphalian nation-states were different from their predecessors in four main areas. First, sovereignty was vested in a central government that was generally separate and distinct from other social institutions such as the church. The central government developed a monopoly on the exercise of political authority the use of force, both internally and externally. Second, the new nation-states developed a degree of cohesion and unity of identification among the population that was the forerunner of nationalism. This marked an important distinction from the past when loyalty was generally personal and vested in the person of the king or prince. Instead, in nation-states, loyalty came to be directed to the state and its structures of government. Third, nation-states accelerated the rise of the multiclass system and the rise of the middle class. The traditional lord and vassal arrangement was replaced by a complicated and multitiered system in which the growing middle or bourgeoisie class demanded increased political access and power. Fourth, and finally, the nation-state was a coherent geographic entity. Its borders were usually defined by natural boundaries and homogenous populations with shared cultural, linguistic, and religious values and norms. Sovereignty within the nation-state was exercised over a compact area and governments were granted a degree of legitimacy and authority unmatched in previous political systems since that authenticity came to be generally voluntary (with notable exceptions).This led to the relative stabilization of borders and populations as external actors and governments conferred recognition of the sovereignty of individual governments over their territory and populations.

The sovereignty accorded to the modern state makes it relatively unique in historical terms. Whereas the international system has been typically marked by inequality with hegemons and client states, in the post-Westphalian era, all states have equal sovereignty under international law in spite of differences in size, resources, and military capabilities. This equality may not always exist in practical terms, but it does form the basis for the contemporary international system. Sovereignty is confirmed by the general acceptance that national governments have near exclusive power or jurisdiction over their territory and population. Significantly, that power is reaffirmed by the global community through formal recognition of a specific government’s claim to sovereignty. Sovereignty came from the international community, not from divine power or military might.

Modern nation-states combined high degrees of internal and external sovereignty. Internal sovereignty is the relationship between the structures of government and civil society. Its basis is the recognition of the legitimacy and authority of the central government against any domestic rivals. Internal sovereignty is marked by almost total monopoly on the use of force within a territory and population. Governments also typically exercise sovereignty over a range of social interactions and structures, including education, a country’s legal system, and its economy. Public policy is the domain of government and an expression of state sovereignty and is manifested through the control and redistribution of resources. For instance, taxes are collected and then used to fund public services or build or maintain infrastructure.

External sovereignty is based on recognition by other international actors of a state’s territory and authority. Such recognition affirms a state’s internal sovereignty as the sole legitimate government over a given area. It also grants governments a number of inherent rights under international law and custom, including the right to declare war, to enter into treaties and conventions, and representation in international organizations. States also set trade policy and control currencies. The Treaty of Westphalia confirmed the primacy of the nation-state as the embodiment of external sovereignty in the global arena, but in the post–World War II (1939–1945) era, a number of challenges to state sovereignty emerged.

Challenges To State Sovereignty

In the aftermath of World War II, a number of international institutions were created to constrain state behavior and prevent another global conflict. Initially, the authority of these organizations remained dependent on the major powers of the day. For instance, the United Nations (UN) as an institution found itself able to act on global matters only when there was consensus among the great powers. Nonetheless, the UN and a number of smaller and regional organizations were able to take action or put in place policies through which states surrendered some degree of sovereignty in exchange for access to greater public goods, including peace, security, and economic prosperity. The European Coal and Steel Community set the stage for the European Community, which later became the European Union (EU). The EU sought deeper political, economic, social, and security cooperation. It achieved its greatest success in the economic sphere where the member states developed an economic union that led in 1999 to the adoption of a single currency, the euro. Meanwhile, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949 as a collective security organization to prevent another hegemonal bid by Germany and defend against Soviet expansion. Membership in NATO forced states to surrender some degree of external sovereignty and harmonize defense and security policy with other member states. Other regional economic and security organizations were less successful, or at least less far-reaching, but many were able to limit national sovereignty, both on the internal and external levels. One consequence was the emergence of what Richard Rosecrance (1986) described as the trading state. Trading states such as Germany or Japan concentrated on economic gains instead of traditional geopolitical power. They were willing to surrender control of security to institutions such as NATO or alliances with the United States and divert resources into economic growth. In their efforts to take advantage of markets, states were willing to harmonize trade regulations in order to make goods, capital, and labor mobile.

The modern, post-Westphalian system has been marked by tension between national sovereignty and that of individual citizens. The tension reached its peak following World War II and the horrors committed during that conflict by regimes against their own citizens. In response, in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created as a means to ensure that all people were granted basic natural rights. The declaration was followed by the Genocide Convention. The European Convention on Human Rights (1950) imposed a strict series of protocols to protect the rights of citizens. These instruments were used to justify international humanitarian missions, including the use of military force, in order to prevent genocide or protect populations during the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. Traditional notions of state sovereignty were judged less important than the international community’s responsibility to protect human rights. The creation in 2002 of the International Criminal Court with supranational jurisdiction was another manifestation of this trend.

The growing wealth and power of multinational corporations has further eroded national sovereignty. Corporations such as Microsoft or Exxon-Mobil, which individually have annual earnings that far exceed the gross national products of most countries, have become important actors in international relations and may exert enormous power in dealings with individual states. By the early 2000s, configurations of sovereignty that emerged in the post-Westphalian era faced a variety of challenges; however, the state remained the main embodiment of domestic and international authority.

Bibliography:

Baldwin, David, ed. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
Bartelson, Jens. A Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Gilpin, Robert. War and Change in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Haas, Ernest B. Beyond the Nation-state: Functionalism and International Organization. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1964.
James, Alan. Sovereign Statehood: The Basis for International Society. London: Allen and Unwin, 1986.
Keohane, Robert O. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in World Political Economy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Krasner, Stephen. D. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999.
Lansford,Tom. Evolution and Devolution:The Dynamics of Sovereignty and Security in the Post–Cold War Europe. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2000.
Maritain, Jacques. Man and the State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.
Philpott, Daniel. Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Rosecrance, Richard. The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World. New York: Basic Books, 1986.
Ruggie, John G., ed. Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an International Form. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
Spruyt, Hendrik. The Sovereign State and Its Competitors. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Stayer, Joseph R. On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1970.

This example Sovereignty Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.