WRITTEN BY: MAFE
Sovereignty according to prof. Jean Bodin means the absolute power of a state over its internal and external affairs without any internal or external restriction or control. There have been many questions by many international relations and political science scholars about the relevance and the true existence of sovereignty in the international system. According to Jean Bodin, the state has the absolute power which can never be devalued or undermined by any actor in the international system. The state according to Bodin is the most powerful entity and her decisions cannot be called to question by any active actor in the international system. Bodin explained further that the sovereignty is with the state and state alone. But in the practical sense, we have seen many situations in the current international system where the sovereignty of the state have been devalued and undermined in the international system. It is very pertinent to point out that there are some other actors in the international system that devalue, challenge and even put the sovereignty and absolutism of the state into questions. These organizations of people we call non-state actors. Non-state actors like international organizations, multi-national corporations, nongovernmental organizations and even transnational individuals who have achieved very commendable feat in their field and have also got both national and international recognition implicitly undermine states. Some of these individuals are even richer and influential than some states. Although, it is somehow very complicated to explain the combative influence of guerrilla movement like terrorist groups-Al Qaeda, Irish of Northern Korea and even surfacing Boko Haram of Nigeria, but to a very large extent, they have in numerous ways devalued and challenge the sovereignty of states
First, the membership of any international organization in the international system today requires a state to conform to the rules and regulations of such organization. By becoming a member of such organization, a state loses some of your rights as a state to make an absolute decision. Take for instance; the United Nations has an international law which supersedes the laws of the member states. In the U.N charter, a journalist who goes to cover at war front should not be harmed or killed by any of the two conflicting parties. This law has already restricted any nation from harming a journalist because of sanctions that may follow the breach of the law. United Nations is unmistakably the world government, any decision made today by the United Nation would inevitably have a foothold in the territory of the member state. In other word, the decision of the United Nations as the world governing body is above the decision of any member state and it interest proceeds that of any sovereign state. Take the military arm of the ECOWAS for example, ECOMOG, in the aid of bring peace to Liberia summoned it member states to gather an army that would go for peace keeping in Liberia. Nigeria in that year was boastful to send an 80% percent of the soldiers among whom none was able to make it back home. The events like wars, revolutions, often caused by citizens of states, that acridly call the attentions of states have forced the state to make unnecessary and unplanned decisions thereby subjecting the authority of the state to an unseated policies. Also the power of OPEC to control the price of oil in the world irrespective of what the states say is devaluation to the sovereignty of the state. The decisions of OPEC on oil would not only affect the member countries alone, but the entirety of the world.
Moreover, the presence of multinational corporations has in no doubt devalued the sovereignty of the state. Since every country needs foreign investors to invest into her economy to help the economic system alive, she must behave in line with expectation of the investors. A state must put in place structures and institutions which would entice the investors even if it means subscribing to the complex demands of such organization. For example, Shell was not only influencing the government of Nigeria during the Abacha regime in 1993, but devalued the authority of the government to make an independent decision. Ken saro wiwa was actually fighting against the environmental pollution and degradation caused by the oil company during that period. Although it was a bit political, but Shell actually tactically devalued the absolute power of Nigeria government by involving itself in politics and later led to the death of Ken saro wiwa and nine other ogboni people. It would be very uneasy for a state to maintain an absolute sovereignty without any devaluation in the current international system. Even the big powers of the current world today would at a time in one way or the other subject to the will of smaller states
For example, a Prof. in the university of Kansas quotes that the economic superiority of United States of America today largely depend on the supply of raw materials it gets from the third world countries. In such a situation, United State is only conformed to behave in line with the request of these third world countries, even if those requests undermine the sovereignty of the united state. The three times increase in the price of petroleum by OPEC, whose members are mostly third world countries did not only affect the world economy but the world policies as well.
Furthermore, the decision of international rights organizations could as well have a broad influence and devaluation on the sovereignty of the state. Many commentators would agree that the absolute sovereignty of the state has been challenged by a number of forces operating beyond the nation state; from the threat of child abuse policies made by international human rights organization like safe the children, one goal and other organizations of same nature. The demand and public advocacy of these human rights organizations have in no doubt forced the state to introduce some laws and regulations against child abuse which originally they would not have implemented. It is also very sensitive to know that the international outcry of these organizations against what they called inhuman behaviour against the citizens or child abuse goes a very long way to influence the state absolute authority.
It is also very good to explain how bigger and more powerful states like Great Britain, France, U.S.A, and China have devalued the sovereignty of smaller states. It has not been uncommon to see the activities of the world powerful nations shaping the decision and policies of smaller nations. Many times, the activities of these bigger nations have affected the territorial integrity of smaller state. For example, the America invasion of Granada in 1983 was a slap on the territorial integrity of the Grenadian. Also the U.S bombing of Libyan cities in 1986, though provoked a lot of negative reaction from other members of the international system, but went a very long way to undermine and devalue the sovereignty of the Libyan state. Because of the security threat that Afghanistan posed to the Soviet Union and other strategic reason, the union invaded Afghanistan and had it army occupy the afghan territory in 1979 during the Cold war. There have been many occurrences in the international system, where a country because of her military and economic power would impose a decision on a smaller state and even annex it at wish. If not for the intervention of powerful nations in 1990, Iraqi would have taken over Kuwait. For further illustration, Ukraine, Latvia and Estonia were part of the states that were forcefully annexed to the emerging empire of the Soviet Union during the period of the Cold War.
In addition, the complexities in the international system today have given rise to the existence of some group which undermine and even devalue the sovereignty of the state. For instance, the queen tower bombing of September 11, 2001 made United State to declare absolute war against terrorism and also urged other countries to follow in the same vein. Shortly after the declaration of the United States, other countries of the world soon diverted their attention to the area of combating terrorism. It is very arguable to say that the Osama Bin La Din bombing of 2001 actually changed the world views on the issue of security and terrorism. Also, terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, Irish, which are internationally recognized do not conform to the decision and activities of the state and thus devalue the sovereignty o such state. Even in Nigeria, Boko Haram has been a very big obstacle to the decision and activities of the government. It is not too parochial to say that since the inception of this terrorist group, the resources, the decision and the activities of the state have always been channeled towards the way that this group could be annihilated. The focus of the state on security issues is majorly brought about by the existence of Boko Haram and similar groups.
It also good to know that the gross inequality between and among states in economic, political, military and technological areas has artificially given some states the authority to devalue the sovereignty of others. For example, during the period of the Cold War, many ballistic missiles carrying war heads were tested by the Soviet Warsaw pact and United States’ NATO forces. These destructive and dangerous weapons did not only affect the conflicting parties but also the countries that were neutral. More so, during the period of the war, all the neutral states came under the umbrella of Non-Alignment. There, they submitted some of their national rights and authorities and decided that they would never be part of the ideological confrontation between the two parties. Membership of that organization then meant they had to subscribe to the demand of the organization. The territorial integrity of some countries was even called to question during the period of the Second World War. America made use of Liberia to gain a strategic advantage.
The existence of transnational individuals can also devalue the sovereignty of the state. Transnational individuals are important personalities who have acquired both internal and international recognition. They may be successful business men, or men of other professions who are very influential, rich and some of them are even richer than some states in the international system. People like Bill Gates, boss of computer giant Microsoft, or even Nigeria’s own late M.K.O. Abiola are a very good example of transnational individuals. As we all know today that there is hardly a country that does not use Microsoft related software and hardwares. The products of this organization is not only important to it country of location but to the entirety of the world. It is only normal for a state to subscribe to the wishes and wants of this organization which may require the state passing some laws and regulations which guides the interest of such organization. More so, Bill Gates today is not only a citizen of America but can be regarded as a citizen of the world. If a man of his pedigree should sneeze in the world today, definitely the world would catch cold. A decision made by him will definitely affect the technological advancement of the world and buy and large, the world economy.
I would also want to explore the ways in which political and economic ideologies have devalued the nature of the states sovereignty. Political and economic ideologies like capitalism and socialism have naturally imposed a couple of policies on the state. States are largely limited in the world market. The limitation of states’ capacity must be understood as both an active and reactive processes. It is active in the term of formulating policy in favour of the market principles which the structure of international globalization encourages. Reactive in terms of responding to shocks, crises, meltdown and booms in the global economy. A capitalist state has been ideologically coerced to have seeming imperialist motives which would help her dominate international market. In all cases, states are no longer entirely free, or entirely sovereign, to enact policy of their own determination. For example, the international markets have become more integrated and pressures from international competition encouraged states to take risks which they would not have taken naturally.
It would not be very subjective to conclude that, even though the sovereignty of the state has suffered series of devaluation from the non-state actors, guerrilla movements and transnational individuals in the international system, the relevance and the importance of the state in the international system as a dominant actor and the only sovereign entity has not been obliterated. The state still play a pivotal role in the making of the international system and it sovereignty cannot be permanently stolen by any actor in international system. For instance, it is only through the willingness of a state that it becomes a member of an international organization and the power wielded by these organizations are only donated to them by the state. Nonetheless, states sovereignty has in series of activities and events suffered devaluation from other actors in the international system. The international system is very complex and there is likely to be a variety of causes of the retrenchment of political, economic and welfare policies in the states.
0 Comments