Sovereignty Is A Modern Political Theory Of International

The defining characteristic of the state is the ability to wield power. The use of power, both inside and outside of one’s border, directly speaks to the sovereignty of the nation. If a nation is incapable of disciplining or punishing its citizens it will invariably become a failed state. Moreover if a country isn’t recognized as powerful in the global political arena, that country stands a very good chance of being dominated by a nation who has the capacity to enforce its own will. The use, or at least the perception, of power is so fundamental in nationhood that those who wield the most power can easily dictate world events.

The first interpretation of sovereignty that is examined by Flanagan views sovereignty in an international sense. Sovereignty for these leaders means gaining more international power and acceptance. Flanagan argues that major international bodies such as the United Nations will be accepting such an attempt at sovereignty (71). As the second

The way America as a whole handles integration and equality in society has been subject to some debate. It is not a debate of whether or not it is right or wrong, for that choice has already been made. In order for progress to occur, there needs to be equality. The debate lies in how equality and integration should be exercised effectively, so as to have our society be truly equal. Shelby Steel, in his article “The New Sovereignty”, does a successful attempt in explaining how current methods are not in favor of equality. A man of the civil rights movement, and a well-known commentator on race relations, Steele does a good job of illustrating to grievance groups that what is currently installed in the place of integration is in fact collective

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

War has been designed to show a ghastly frame that sets out for propaganda, defeats, and victories. Involving multiple aspects, war exhibits a product of both human choice and human actions. “And a person's definition of war often expresses the person's broader political philosophy, such as limiting war to a conflict between nations or state. Alternative definitions of war can include conflict not just between nations but between schools of thought or ideologies.” (Moseley, Alexander.

For many years governments have been established to keep order and control. If the government has too much control what becomes of its people? America’s independence from Britain was July 4, 1776. The People of America no longer wanted the British government, so they would start a new one. The Americans did not want too much power from the government, so a new theory was set in place within the declaration of independence. In today’s time we very well suffer from the same thing. A government with too much power. War is usually the cause of letting the government have more power for the safety of the people, but even after the war the government keeps its power only to gain more and more after each war through its acts and policies written. The purpose of this essay is

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

The standard of the popular sovereignty implies, that the authority of a state is to govern itself or another state. When thinking upon our current international political system we can see that it has currently seen better days. According to Stephen Krasner and Moises Naim we can safely presume that many actions need to be taken and a sense of Shared Sovereignty needs to be installed. This would not only allow for the greater protection of certain states, but would also account for the interaction of states on an allied level in order to crack down on the Five Wars of Globalization. With the influx of a shared sovereignty according to Krasner and Naim it would create stronger borders and allow for alliances with unlikely states.

The monopolization of political power allows for the monopolization of physical force. Another vital feature of a state is its obligation to protect the people in its territory. Institutions, such as the military and the police force, use their power to enforce order and protection for civilians. While these features are ideal, they are not always met fully. (political thought pg. 55)

| Learning Objective: 06-01 - What the sovereignty of nations means and how it can affect the stability of government policies

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

In “Finding the Peripheries: Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law,” Antony Anghie discusses the concept of sovereignty and membership. He uses the term “family nations” to illustrate the relations of states. Anghie seeks to find the answer to how “new” Europe deal with the task of “how order is created among sovereign state.” To which he asserts that “special doctrine” of shared norms and values have been devised for purpose of determining states’ sovereignty. Hence, states have resorted to the development of an international law to help them govern and set out the criteria that are required in order to be acknowledged as a sovereign state. Anghie subsequently put forth that this “international law applied only to the sovereign states that composed the civilized “Family Nations.” This definition excluded third world countries who were deemed as being “non-civilized states” such as “non-European states.” This definition is problematic as it a very biased perception. The term sovereign state is arguably a social construct made by European as it is mainly of a Western European origin. Anghie acknowledges that states could be formally considered “sovereign” only if “they satisfied the criteria [for] membership in the civilized international society, they lacked the comprehensive range of power enjoyed by the European sovereigns.”

In the excerpt read from Jean Bodin’s Six Books of the Republics, the political theorist defines ‘sovereignty’ as having a ruler who possesses all the power to change laws, and is only subject to laws of nature and God -- thus, they are not bounded by civil laws.

sovereign rules on behalf of its citizens and these citizens have a right to dissolve or

Sovereignty is a norm of the International system upon which the ‘society of states’ rests. Territorial sovereignty refers specifically to the power of the state ‘the territorial limits within which state authority may be exercised on an exclusive basis.’ This essay will explore the concept and development of sovereignty within the system of states. Firstly, it will identify the state system before the ‘Peace of Westphalia’ in 1648, then it will compare the ever changing forms of sovereignty since, and the reasons for change, which have established the modern form of sovereignty which exists today.