The first question to be resolved however, involves the basics of logic. In order to have a sensible discussion of the erosion of sovereignty, we must first define what is meant by sovereignty. Sovereignty is traditionally defined as "supreme legitimate authority within a territory."1 Within the context of this essay, sovereignty takes on a slightly different meaning. The differences are subtle but important. First, sovereignty (for our purposes) does not depend on legitimacy, as defined by international law. Sovereignty involves getting people to do things according to your wishes; this is power. Thus, sovereignty in our context is the supreme authority within a territory, regardless of the value-laden judgment of ‘legitimacy.’ Also, for the purposes of this endeavor, sovereignty is issue specific, with the caveat that an unqualified ‘sovereign,’ is one that is sovereign in all issue areas. For instance, one can say that a state is fully sovereign, except that in some area, it possesses only limited sovereignty. Thus, it is possible for a concept to diminish a state’s sovereignty in one issue area while leaving the majority of a state’s sovereignty intact. This said, we can move on to a discussion of the notable threats to this concept of sovereignty.
The proposition most often put forth for the erosion of sovereignty is that modern economic processes have taken a significant portion of what was originally the province of states and relegated it to firms that either have no national affiliation or have one other than that of the state that is being discussed. Economic forces are increasingly gaining a foothold on the domestic politics of the Western world. The reminder that the President saw every day while he was campaigning was "it’s the economy, stupid!" Economic forces are also depriving states of sovereignty that they previously had. The relationship of transnational trade to sovereignty is complex, but real. It is not claimed here that transnational trade is eroding equally the sovereignty of all states–there are, in fact, some states that are nearly impervious to the effects of transnational trade–but that the sovereignty of many is diminished by modern economic processes.
First, the point that economics have a mental hold on the minds of both society and policymakers must be pointedly ignored. The fact that Mickey Kantor, the US Trade Representative was nominated to replace Ron Brown, the former Secretary of Commerce, is not illustrative of the facts of sovereignty. That governments are conscious of economic forces would indicate that states are still sovereign over their own economic affairs. There are new relationships, but people are aware of them. This awareness, however, has not been translated into power. An interesting case is that of Motorola, an American company, trying to get into the competitive Japanese cellular phone market. The United States got involved in this attempt at the highest level, but to no avail. In an issue that was important to Americans, the United States was powerless. More telling, however, is the interdependence of modern economies.
Are national economies interdependent? Some claim that national economies are not interdependent, or at least no more interdependent than they have been since the Industrial Revolution.2 However, this depends highly on your definition of interdependent. Naturally, almost all of the countries trade with nearly all of the other countries in the world. It is not claimed that this is interdependence. Rather, interdependence is sensitivity to the affairs of others. That nations are sensitive to the affairs of other states seems like a truism to some, anthemic to others. The evidence supports the first view, however. In 1991, the United States domestic economy went for another ride on the rollercoaster of economic booms and busts, entering a "minor downturn." Japan’s economy, largely based upon exportation of consumer goods to the other industrialized nations, is still trying to recover. The French who were unemployed in 1992 and 1993 would not agree with the argument that their government was in control of the economy. Of course, there is a valid point that this is nothing new. Many economists blame the Great Depression in the United States on Germany’s failure to meet its post-war reparations to England. However, this does not say that the process does not exist, just that it is not a new phenomenon. Novelty is not a necessary condition for something to either have eroded or erode sovereignty. And, though it seems trivial, there was a time when economics were completely in the hands of the state. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, states were the dominant actors in economics. This said, it must be conceded that modern economics differ only in degree from those that existed when the modern concept of sovereignty came into being. Yet, the sensitivity of modern sovereigns to economic forces has an effect on sovereignty. In the end, Kenneth Waltz does my dirty work for me, claiming that "sensitivity erodes the autonomy of states, but not all states equally."3
A second set of concerns for the erosion of sovereignty has been the myriad of environmental problems that loom on the horizon. Naturally, environmental problems transcend borders. Some posit that "because solutions to the problems of the environment must be global, they will present an unprecedented challenge to concepts of national sovereignty."4 The global nature of the problems and solutions brings into the discussion a question which was briefly mentioned with respect to economics and sovereignty. That question is: was this ever the province of governments to begin with? The variety of this concern with respect to the environment is that science has been recently discovering the transborder effects of modern industry. Thus, we have just learned that the United States was intruding upon Canada’s air and water table. One argument that the environment does not detract from sovereignty would be that such things as acid rain and global ozone depletion are consequences of acts committed in certain countries that intrude upon other nations. This is not a deprivation of sovereignty; that Canada does not have total control over the air coming into it is the same as Canada not having control over the United States invading the country. However, this argument depends on the legitimacy element of sovereignty, not the power function discussed here. In terms of power, Canada is power impoverished by US pollution; Canada loses sovereignty.
This argument is not complete simply talking about acid rain, however. Environmental problems deprive states of sovereignty because there is (mostly) not one culprit and one victim. The global nature of environmental problems–and the long-term effects of short-term actions, including past actions–makes them sovereignty-depriving. Ozone depletion, once ozone-depleting substances have been completely phased out, will become an issue where states, no matter how much power they have, will be unable to affect matters. States have lost sovereignty to environmental problems. More importantly, though, are the international organizations that are being formed around environmental issues. While still mostly in a stage of infancy, international environmental organizations take a large deal of sovereignty from nations. All of the signatories to the Montreal Protocol are required to cut the production and consumption of certain chemicals by certain dates. However, it could be argued that these states signed the Montreal Protocol–that was an exercise of sovereignty in itself. Yet, the Montreal Protocol contains provisions for increasing the stringency of the regulations, as occurred in London in 1990. These increased provisions could be passed over the objection of a portion of the signatories and all would still be bound to them. In this way, states surrendered sovereignty to an international environmental regime. Thus, environmental concerns also represent an erosion of sovereignty, and one that has appeared quite recently as well.
Some also see the growing influence of international communications and media as a threat to the integrity of sovereignty. Here the actual influence on sovereignty is more questionable. The argument that the power of nearly instantaneous communications deprives governments of sovereignty implies that governments rely on lack of knowledge for sovereignty. This argument is more compelling in terms of constraints. "CNN reaches 78 million homes in more than 100 countries."5 The actions of any nation are now instantly visible around the world in a matter of minutes. Reactions by societies and governments can now occur in time to affect ongoing events. Is sovereignty dependent upon a lack of these reactions? In some circumstances, it is. Sovereignty is based on power; the definition of power is affecting others to do as you wish.
If a state is hindered by the actions of other states or its own society, it is not sovereign. For instance, it could be argued that the United States was not as sovereign as one would have guessed during the Vietnam War because media coverage constricted policy. The key thing to note here is that the foreign policy of the United States is at least partially dependent upon public opinion in the US. This fact is part-and-parcel in calculations of what the power of the US in a given issue is, and thus, what the degree of sovereignty in this issue possessed by the US is. The advancement of communications has deprived states of sovereignty that they once possessed. The counter argument is that there is no loss of sovereignty here; it has simply been transferred to another authority. In some cases, the other authority would be another state that would respond quickly to thwart one states goals. This is just a simple transfer of power (read: sovereignty, in this case). However, the constraints that are imposed at home are different, for sovereignty (as constructed here) is actually destroyed. Societies do not pretend to be sovereign. By not assuming that role, the transfer of power to societal forces is a challenge to the modern conception of sovereignty. Societies could be sovereign, but this would involve a new construction of sovereignty.
Another supposed threat to state sovereignty is the rise of international organizations in international politics. This same essay, written thirty years ago, might have concluded that international organizations were just paper bobcats (tigers being too strong a term). International organizations, particularly the EC, were on the decline; "on foreign and defense policies, not only [had] no power been transferred to common European organs," but the future did not look bright for integration.6 After all, "in a modern nation-state, the very importance of the political system ... is already a formidable obstacle to integration."7 However, a modern observer seeing the EU forming despite major problems, or seeing a United Nations willing to nearly violate its charter with respect to non-interference, might conclude that international organizations are forming more and more. As this actually is occurring, we must conclude what the implications for sovereignty are.
International organizations do not require
in-and-of themselves a surrender of sovereignty. The early United Nations,
the International Court of Justice at the Hague and numerous other international
organizations serve as good proofs of this. Nobody surrendered anything
to the United Nations; the ICJ was a joke in international relations circles.
However, modern IO’s are dissimilar in many ways. Realizing that the lack
of teeth of IO’s made them worthless, diplomats have worked to give them
teeth. A good example of the modern IO is the World Trade Organization.
Formed by the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,
the WTO has canines and incisors where its predecessors had gums. For instance,
according to the WTO, the famous US "Super 301" provision is illegal. The
US appealed this decision and was rejected. "Super 301" is a provision
of the US Code that allows a president to impose harsh tariffs on other
countries’ goods. In essence, the US can no longer use this measure to
accomplish state goals. Access to US markets is one of the most valuable
commodities that US diplomats had to trade for other concessions. The US
government is less powerful because of this. What is key to the loss of
US sovereignty, however, is that the state cannot fully regulate the manner
in which goods come into the country. This is a loss of power that the
state previously had; this is a loss of sovereignty.
What is seemingly ironic, but actually crucial
to this question, is that it’s the fault of US policy. The WTO was brought
about partially by US actions; the US very willingly signed on to the WTO.
When it did this, it meant to give up some sovereignty, but not much. Yet,
the WTO has taken on a life of its own. As such, new impositions to sovereignty
do not come about because of power dynamics that would affect sovereignty
anyway. Modern international organizations, by gaining new powers and independence,
go beyond the sovereignty originally chartered to them. In this way, they
erode the sovereignty of states in a completely different way than a treaty.
They are a force that erodes, not just a sign of erosion.
Nuclear weapons are also supposed to represent a significant
threat to modern sovereignty. Such was the argument of John Herz, who argued
that the modern definition of sovereignty was based upon the territoriality
of the state. As such, the appearance of nuclear weapons on the scene was
an instant threat to sovereignty. Territory was previously the basis for
state sovereignty because territory was defensible. In a world where aggression
is commonplace, states will supposedly be based on the most defensible
units. Nuclear weapons eliminate any territorial basis (village, city-state,
nation, empire) as a possible defense. With this logic in hand, Herz proclaims
that "nothing short of global rule can ultimately satisfy the security
interest of any one power."8
Herz’s reasoning has not presented a fundamental
challenge to modern sovereignty. Nuclear weapons have not changed sovereignty,
the supreme authority over a territory and it’s people. If land had become
untenable as the basis for sovereignty, it would become the supreme authority
over a people and their land. The primary reason that this does not happen
is that sovereignty as now conceived has gotten a crutch from nuclear weapons
as well. Nuclear weapons are not defensible; they are deterrable. The possession
of nuclear weapons by one territorial state should nearly eliminate the
possibility of their use by another territorial state. However, what kind
of a situation would arise if a non-territorial state possessed nuclear
weapons? This is a non-issue for two reasons. First, because they don’t
exist already, non-territorial states don’t have their feet in the door.
Nuclear weapons are expensive and require years of research, building,
testing and such–none of which most existing territorial states would permit
within their borders (or possibly states would permit outside their borders;
i.e. Israel’s raid on Iraq’s suspected nuclear weapons facility). Secondly,
a non-territorial state, with its limited resources, could only possibly
build one nuclear device. This act of terrorism, while horrendous, would
not erode the state sovereignty system because there would be no threat
of a second device within the near future. On another theme, nuclear weapons
can also be seen simply as just a more powerful weapon. War has not been
posited as the end of sovereignty because it seems to be such a part of
the modern system of sovereignty. In conclusion, nuclear weapons have not
eroded sovereignty because the alternative, authority over a people and
its lands, is not viable in the face of existing states.9
Another theory that bounces around the discourse
about sovereignty is that human rights concerns present a serious threat
to sovereignty. The logic of this claim is that "sovereignty entails the
right of states to be free from interference."10
The pursuit of human rights in international affairs–or, more generally,
human rights intervention–is outside interference. Thus, human rights regimes
and intervention constitute a serious challenge to the notion of sovereignty,
particularly the definition of sovereignty as absolute.
Human rights intervention does not constitute a reduction of
sovereignty for a number of reasons. First, human rights interventions
generally are only possible with the cooperation of the state with the
violation. The recent inability of the United Nations to provide human
rights assistance in Rwanda until the new government allowed them to help
is a good example. Before that, all they could do was let a couple hundred
people stay in the small UN compound, and the Belgian troops there shared
their food with them. Meanwhile, millions died. Interventions with the
permission of the host government do not rob the state of sovereignty;
in fact, they permit the state to carry out some necessary services without
actually doing it itself. Secondly, interventions conducted without government
support are, basically, military interventions. Somalia, a UN mission to
feed starving people, required a massive military presence and effort.
Such contests do not infringe upon sovereignty any more than the ‘normal’
actions of warfare, which is a part of the modern sovereignty system in
power terms. Finally, sovereignty as here defined is not necessarily absolute.
A sovereign may lack absolute power in a given issue but still retain fundamental
control. And human rights, in particular those that are provided by governments
rather than protected, are an issue area that many weaker nations are reluctant
to expend much energy on. Human rights interventions, though, are primarily
not a challenge to sovereignty because host government support is so crucial
to their functioning. The day has not yet come for the intervention simply
to protect a citizenry from its government; the international community
does not wish to violate sovereignty in this way.
Religion has also been put forward as the instrument of destruction
of sovereignty. Religion supposedly can have a hold on the minds of the
people of a state. Since this hold is outside the reach of governments,
it is reasoned, state sovereignty is eroded by the influence of religion.
The base of this argument is that sovereignty includes governmental control
over the mindset of its citizenry. If, somehow, political actions of citizens
can be affected from without by religious ties, a state could be seen as
suffering a loss of sovereignty, especially if the citizens thus affected
constitute a non-ruling portion of the society (a minority in a democracy
or the non-ruling elites in a non-representative government). A portion
of a nation that previously did not affect the considerations of the state
that comes to factor into the concerns of decisionmakers could be seen
as a threat to sovereignty.
An example that might be put forward in defense
of this thesis is abortion politics in the United States. US abortion politics
are influenced heavily by religious beliefs, particularly those of Catholics
following the edicts of the Pope. The way in which the government regulates
its citizenry is affected by religious decisions made thousands of miles
away. This could be seen as an erosion of sovereignty. However, religion
does not constitute a threat to sovereignty. As in the case with transnational
communications and media, the important consideration here is the transfer
of sovereignty. Religious beliefs alone do not affect the power of a state
over its land and people. Religious beliefs that influence political action
are what needs to be considered. Religions that purport to sovereignty
could be seen as a threat sovereignty for the state. However, when it comes
right down to it, religion is not a threat to state sovereignty.
Religion does not (usually) take away from
state sovereignty for one main reason. Sovereignty is authority over a
territory and its people. This does not include authority over the minds
of the people, at least not in the Western model being considered. Even
if religion motivates the actions of a state’s citizens, this is the internal
politics, not external sovereignty. The important caveat here is that the
religious motivations for action do not come from without the state. If
this is the case, a state has not made up its own mind per se–the issue
is not internal politics. Religion can mean the loss of sovereignty in
this case. Overall, sovereignty is threatened by organized religions, but
this threat has not been translated into an actual loss of sovereignty.
I do not see this threat becoming real because I only see two powerful
religions that could fit the necessary qualities, and neither does. Catholicism
has a well established leadership and political/social views. Furthermore,
it is already accepted without prejudice in Western political circles.
However, Catholicism has had its bout with sovereignty and lost; it does
not wish to continue the battle. Islam qualifies also because of the political
content of some of the religion and its leadership. However, Islam suffers
from internal fragmentation and is "far from being a unified power that
is about to reach again the gates of Vienna and the shores of Spain."11
No, religion does not currently pose a threat to sovereignty.
Let’s face it; trumpeting your field of interest
as one which is going to cause a revolution in the way that we think about
the world will generate more interest in your work. As long as this is
true, we can expect more of the same. "The next paradigm shift will be
caused by an upsurge of earthquake activity which will cause the territorial
basis of sovereignty to become meaningless because the ground will not
be stable." When it comes down to it, of the seven ‘revolutionary’ concepts
discussed here, only four of them are actually threats to sovereignty.
And, despite these threats, sovereignty has continued on. Granted, sovereignty
is weaker because of the rise of international organizations, economic
integration, environmental problems and, to a small degree, instantaneous
international communication. But this decrease in sovereignty has not fostered
the arrival of a new paradigm. To a small degree, the old paradigm has
retrenched. But, mostly, no new paradigm has emerged that can be substituted
for the old one. Sovereignty will remain "the authority within a territory."
And the terms upon which it must be discussed will continue to be power
(no matter how much I dislike the possible realist associations of the
scheme). Discussing legitimacy is the place for the philosophers. As political
scientists, we are more concerned with the how and why of situations, not
the right or wrong.