International Law Limits State Sovereignty For the Right Reasons
by Victoria Hassan
When I think of International Law, one of the first things that comes to mind is interaction and intervention between states. However, states were formed with the notion of state sovereignty, in which it is said that every state should be free from external control or a higher authority than itself. Thus, if each state should not be subjected to a superior authority outside of its borders, the concept of International Law directly counteracts this idea of state sovereignty. This concept seems quite ironic because International Law is based on the state, whereas the state is based on state sovereignty -- creating a contradiction (Riegert). However, this ‘violation’ of state sovereignty is necessary from time to time, especially when it comes to putting other states in danger or even putting one’s own state in danger.
For example, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations (UN) collaborate in order to ensure that states use atomic energy in a peaceful manner. The two organizations are able to inhibit a state’s use of atomic energy to what is deemed permissible in order to assure the safety of that particular state and the safety of any states that might be affected by the utilization of atomic energy. Iran’s nuclear experimentation caused the IAEA to declare the urgent need to switch to a more “multinational” approach to nuclear control within states. According to the IAEA, “IAEA inspection activities [include] reports, statements and media coverage in relation to the application of IAEA safeguards in Iran (IAEA).” This approach can be seen as directly violating the state sovereignty of Iran and the sovereignty of any other states that might exceed the permissible use of atomic energy. However, it is arguably more important to protect the wellbeing of the people (and even the condition of the Earth) that might be negatively affected by excessive nuclear experimentation, than it is to worry about interfering with the sovereignty of a state.
Another instance in which state sovereignty was broken by International Law in order to protect the lives of civilians is the 2011 military intervention in Libya. This intervention in Libya was a NATO-led coalition that aimed at putting an end to attacks against civilians and the overall Libyan Civil War. These actions can be viewed as utilizing the UN Responsibility To Protect (R2P) policy, which is often criticized for its negligence of state sovereignty. Though many might argue that military intervention in Libya was a failure, it was arguably a necessary tactic to protect the lives of innocent Libyan civilians and to tighten sanctions on the Qadhafi regime (Hamid). Additionally, it seems morally right to intervene in order to save lives, rather than to practice non-intervention in order to preserve the concept of state sovereignty. State sovereignty should be quite an insignificant concept when lives are on the line.
Yes, International Law contradicts the right to state sovereignty because International Law itself is an overarching power, limiting a state’s control of its own territory. However, International Law can, and should, be used during events in which lives are at risk. Saving innocent lives is much more critical than maintaining state sovereignty.
Works Cited
Hamid, Shadi. “Everyone Says the Libya Intervention Was a Failure. They're Wrong.”Brookings,
Brookings, 28 July 2016,
IAEA. “Verification and Monitoring in Iran.” IAEA, IAEA, 14 May 2014,
Riegert, Jason. “The Irony of International Law; How International Law Limits State
Sovereignty.” Albany Gov't Law Review Fireplace Blog, 5 Apr. 2010,
aglr.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/the-irony-of-international-law-how-international-law-limits-state-sovereignty/.
Hassan, you precisely explained your points! I like your statement that saving lives is more critical than maintaining state sovereignty. It is so complicated to understand the principles of international law when it comes to state sovereignty. I do agree that intervention is necessary in many cases. But, it is hard to distinguish whether intervention is good or bad. If we examine all the occupation of military or the use of military power in other states seems to negatively affect the innocent lives, and in many cases, the intervention itself seems to violate human rights. I don’t know if this is a relevant question, Do you know if the UN had intervened any state just because that particular state violates human rights? If there is, was it a good outcome?
ReplyDeleteThank you very much - I appreciate your feedback! Yes, I definitely do agree that it is quite difficult to discern when it is right to intervene in a state’s sovereignty when it comes to saving innocent lives. Also, it is difficult to describe what this kind of intervention would entail and if these actions of intervention would be beneficial. To answer your question, yes, there have been multiple instances in which the UN Security Council (UNSC) has intervened in a state that was violating human rights. For example, the UNSC intervened in Libya in 2011 when there were attacks against Libyan civilians made by the Libyan regime. The UNSC decided it essential to take any necessary measures in order to ensure the protection of Libyan civilians, including an air attack by NATO.
DeleteVictoria,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post and I especially like how you have given concrete examples of times when international law has been put above state sovereignty in order to protect the well-being of citizens within the affected state. However, do you think that there is a way to preserve both state sovereignty and carry out the responsibility to protect policy? Or do you have any suggestions of how we can ensure that violating state sovereignty is truly the best course of action to protect the individuals at risk within the state?
Thank you for your feedback, Brenna! To answer your question about preserving state sovereignty while also carrying out R2P -- I think this would be very difficult to accomplish since R2P is based on international law and intervention in other states. However, I do believe that if certain states were more strict about protecting human rights, there would be much less of a need to disrupt state sovereignty and carry out actions of intervention based on R2P.
DeleteYou have a compelling argument about the battle between international law and intervention in international politics. My question for you, which is kind of meant to turn your argument against itself, would be if there is a situation like Syria, is it still important to intervene when the states intervening have also done some moral wrongdoings? Even more so, in a broader sense is there a right time to intervene ina situation like a civil war where a state may be trying to justify its sovereignty?
ReplyDeleteThank you for your feedback, Zach. You pose a very interesting question! In cases like Syria, I think it is very important for the intervening state to think about why they are actually intervening and disregarding another’s state sovereignty before doing so. In other words, if a state is intervening for their own selfish reasons, then it is not morally right to do so. However, if a state is intervening solely to protect the civilians of this other country, then I think it is very important for them to do so. I know it can be difficult for a state to admit its true motives for intervening, but I think it is necessary in order to limit wrongdoings. Thus, if a state is intervening in another state’s civil war in order to justify its own state sovereignty, then I do not think it would be morally right for them to intervene since it is for selfish reasons.
DeleteVictoria, I resonated completely with your argument. I also believe saving innocent lives is more important than maintaining state sovereignty. The way your argument was constructed was clear and convincing. You provided two relevant examples of moral reasoning for intervention in state sovereignty. Usually it is states or actors with great international power that intervene with states of much less power. Do you think it is possible for that UN or NATO to intervene with powerful states such as the U.S. or Russia if necessary?
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your encouragement and feedback, Liz! I do think that the UN and/or NATO would be able to intervene in a powerful state such as the United States and Russia because organizations such as the UN and NATO are designed to intervene in any state that they deem necessary. Additionally, the UN and NATO are international organizations so they deal with international law, which tends to override the sovereignty of individual states such as the United States and Russia.
Delete