Sovereignty vs Intervention

Zachary Henry            

           A cornerstone of the international system in International politics today is sovereignty. The bedrock principle of sovereignty is a combination of the factual real power and integrity a state has, combined with its recognition as being sovereign and autonomous by others. Yet failed states and states who commit atrocities against their own people seem to shake the idea up. These situations spark great debate whether to respect the sovereignty of foreign nations, or to disregard the non-interference of the international system and intervene into these situations. Intervention takes precedence over sovereignty in International politics.

            State sovereignty is represented by internal and external sovereignty, where internal sovereignty control over matters in that state itself, while external sovereignty is the ability to conduct foreign policy. In most cases of failed states, a violation of human rights is usually prevalent, if not, always prevalent. These failed states almost always have weak internal sovereignty, especially if they are violating human rights. If a state has no internal sovereignty, they no longer have it in fact, therefore it will undermine their external sovereignty when other states don’t recognize it as a state headed by a single government. The state no longer has any sort of sovereignty and no longer is upheld by rules against intervention, nor can it protect itself or its security against others.

            The threat of other states is always looming while states are in anarchy, and especially when human rights are being violated in the weakened state. A loss of sovereignty would usually attract any hungry neighbors or neighbors that want to eliminate the failed state because of the osmosis of problems. In the reference of the Responsibility to Protect, it would bode better for the failed state to be intervened in by a neutral, peacekeeping UN rather than its neighboring states. This intervention clearly is more important than the importance of upholding sovereign law because the survival of the state is much more guaranteed by a such an intervention.

            A reflexive property of the Responsibility to Protect also argues for intervention although it is supportive of the failed state. As much as the R2P has justice to create an intervention by vote in the UN, it also grants the power and determines the right to give aid to any state that feels it cannot protect its people. This right therefore allows a failed state to ask for aid before they violate the other aspects of R2P. If a state does not take full opportunity of this option it is due to no fault but their own, and therefore forfeit their right to call upon the principle of non-interference in the international system.

            For a state to be sovereign they must fulfill their responsibilities to benefit from the rights of being sovereign. Realists believe in Hobbesian politics, people have a social contract with their government to protect and secure them in return for most of their naturally free rights. When these rights are violated, it a breach of that same contract. Liberalists would think rationally about the situation, and they would rather allow cooperation between other states or NGOs to aid them in situations of intervention than to concede a defeat at the hands of a hard power intervention. Constructivists would also be for intervention due to their liking of social norms against violation of rights and protecting the social constructions of which those rights were determined.