GLR News and Information > Geography, Economy & GLR Politics

Souvereignty and International Recognition

<< < (2/2)

Athrael:
In essence we are looking as perspective. Not "physical" boundaries.

If one perceives themselves to be a cow they are a cow, if others perceive one to be a cow one is a cow?

Or if you prefer, if a nation perceives itself to be a nation it is a nation (to itself) - if other nations see a nation as a nation it is a nation. 

More of an agreed upon reality than a solid reality sort of thing... ?

Mogul:
It seems to me, the meaning of „sovereignty“ and „international recognition“ has to be clarified at this point.

Sovereignty means that an entity is independent from other entities when making any decicions on internal or external affairs. Since no state in this world is entirely independent in its decision-making from other entities (neither from the „natural law“, in some theories), the usual, most popular perception of souvereignty in the meaning of „absolute souvereignty“ is alltogether wrong and misleading. Thus, whenever we are talking of souvereignty, we actually are meaning the „relative souvereignty.“

There is no strict rules on what defines the „relative souvereignty“ of a state (or a state-like entity), but at least the following few points are usually regarded as important criterions by scholars of international law:

1. There is a kind of government body for the entity;
2. The government is willing and able to exercise effective control upon its citizens and/or territory, within the frames of its own legislation;
3. The laws and decisions of foreign governing bodies have no legal effects within the jurisdiction of the souvereign entity in question.

Points 1 and 2 simply reflect the ability to manage internal matters of the entity (such as maintaining public order, social security, law enforcement etc) -- what’s called „internal souvereignty“. Point 3 describes the „external souvereignty“ and implies the independence from other souvereign entities, which might be gradual -- Australia and Canada are most certainly souvereign states, despite their formal affiliation to the Britisch Crown.

Some countries experience problems in achieving some degree of external souvereignty, while others (mostly recognized „independent“ states) struggle hard to maintaine their internal souvereignty -- the state being contested by rebells, multinational corporations and even diverse criminal groups.

It is important to stress that souvereignty is a matter of facts and as such is a separate issue from „official recognition“ by other countries. Souvereignty is always relative and one can always discuss as to what degree some „souvereign“ country actually has accomplished internal and external souvereignty. The said „official recognition“ simply reflects the readiness of one government to enter into relationship with another government -- if or as long as there is no interest to entertain bilateral relationships to some particular country, the „recognition“ has little to no value at all. For example, the governments of Tuvalu and Belarus might as well deny the „official recognition“ to each other, and this circumstance could not matter less -- the prospects of these countries interfering into each other business are microscopic.

Independently from what opinions some foreign governments, law scholars or private citizens may hold on any given entity, the entity is souvereign as long a it is able to defend its souvereignty, or as long as other powers abstain from any steps suitable to disrupt the internal and external souvereignty of an entity. Any entity claiming souvereignty upon persons and territories must fight every day for maintaining this souvereignty status, which might be contested by other states, by criminals or even by simple citizens by means of civil disobedience.

We also must consider that souvereignty can be claimed upon persons and territories, and that these are separate issues as well. Any entity with no territorial claims will hardly be in need to violently resolve territorial conflicts, but it will have to invest some efforts to maintain its souvereignty upon the persons affiliated to it. For example, the souvereignty of Order of Malta is founding in its status as a supranational affiliation of individuals -- independently from any territorial posessions of this entity. Within the frames of its own jurisdiction, the souvereignty of Order of Malta is fully recognized by 94 states, among them Italy and Brazil. On the other side, two souvereign entities can mutually question the territorial souvereignty of eachother in parts or as a whole, without actually being „at war“ with eachother. Territorial disputes, missing recognition etc are only insofar of importance to any given souvereign entity as they factually do or do not affect its vital interests.

Beyound this, the „official recognition“ is not necessarily a guarantee for good political and economic relationship to other states. Bad diplomacy or simple insistence on one’s souvereignty might entail political and economic pressure from an ill-humoured neighbour, causing serious problems (see Cuba/USA). Alike, it has little practical consequences for a person whether one can not enter USA because of denied visum due to one’s belonging to a poor country, or because USA does not recognize your country as such. I even dare to claim that a pass-holder of Order of Malta has much better chances to get visum for Canada than a regular citizen of India or Nigeria -- although Canada does not entertain „diplomatic relashionship“ with the said non-territorial entity!

What is widely understood as „the international law“ is, in its essense, simply a customary law reflecting the history of souvereign entities interacting with each other. Wherever there is a conflict of interests between the entities, or a necessity to regulate certain issues, the entities usually stick to the instrument of bilateral or multilateral treaties -- provided, the application of force deems unpractical to them. Powerfull states might choose to ignore souvereign rights of a smaller state -- e.g. by crossing its territorial waters, abducting its citizens, arresting its property or otherwise violating its souvereignty. The smaller states are then free to indulge these tresspasses, to make them legal by voluntarily granting these privileges to the offender, or to defend their rights violently and bear the consequences.

After all, the souvereign entities are in a constant competition with each other anyway. Nothing would prevent a hostile state to declare war to a disliked souvereign entity, and destroy its souvereignty if victorious. Once again, souvereignty is always a matter of facts, not of „independence declarations“ and „official recognitions“.

Whether the entity in question has its operation basis on an artificial construction on sea, on a small parcell put exterritorial per contract, or on a violently obtained territory -- it's always up to diplomatic, military and economic abilities of the entity to effectively ensure its souvereignty.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page