The New Sovereignty in the International System Essay

European states ended the Thirty Years’ War with the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which laid the foundations for a system of independent, competing states. They also mutually recognized their rights to organize their domestic and religious affairs and agreed that political and diplomatic affairs were to be conducted by states acting in their own interests.

The international system is anarchic. It is very important to notice that anarchy, according to Mearsheimer, does not mean chaos or disorder, but absence of centralized authority, that stands above states and protects

Over one hundred and eighty sovereign states are members of the United Nations and they have different constitutions. Some have to provide for a federal structure, in others although unitary, include different legal systems within the one state. The disparities between constitutions deals with momentous ethnic, linguistic and religious considerations. Their vagueness requires a prudent imposition on what ?is? and what ?ought? to be the law. The premise of this piece is on Global Administrative Law, with an exegesis on critical legal studies.

In the international community, a country’s domestic policies may often interfere with that of the community’s wishes. Throughout the Cold War, there was often tension between a country’s autonomy and the wishes of a particular sphere of influence or international body. Despite the great assistance in the attainment of human rights and attempts at peace, often greater conflict occurred due to this interference in each country’s domestic policies rather than serving their original purpose. Although international influence and control promotes singular agreements and policies, countries should be allowed to remain completely autonomous within their domestic policies in order to maintain peace, encourage diverse policy, and allow for independence internationally.

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

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

With nation-state is on the down trod, the process of globalization has further rendered the realist perceptions as anachronistic, diminishing the capacity of policy making autonomy of state. Since states are not been able to function within its own capacity because they are having compulsory interdependence between each other, its self-decision making is greatly affected, inevitably compromising all social, political and economic regulations. Also the massive proliferation of people (refugees) across different borders, undermines security balance and renders it sometimes ineffective, stating the terrorism attack on Germany Dec 2016 as a reminder of the catastrophe that a de-territorialized state can encounter..

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 Sovereignty Solution is the book of choice that was evaluated. This book presents to the readers a radical way to deal with strategy – a persuasive, credible and clear contention recommending a basic and significant move in the way Americans characterize their nation 's strategy. The authors perceive that despite their considerations and recommendations are not the truly the ultimate solution, they may in any event awaken some truly needed debate relating to the issue. All through the content, the authors construct their case for the radical move in procedure in a terse and reasonable form. In the book The Sovereignty Solution by Simons, McGraw and Lauchengco, the fundamental subject is that American individuals need to distinguish what truly makes them American, and as Americans, they need to perceive their qualities and embrace them. The authors offer accentuation to the requirement for America to go against new policy when managing different nations: respect the sovereignty of the United States and the United States will respect yours.

The Kanyesian and Kimesian people in Westphalia have long lived together in the same territory but recent developments have created tensions. With Kanye as the president, legislation that has limited the Kimeshian’s right to educate their own language along with a lack of representation in the parliament. These tensions led to the creation of a group dedicated to self-determination for the Kimeshian people. We can then look at and understand the legality of their desire for unilateral secession under international law as well as any possible precedents

2. This international society has a law that establishes the rights of its members – above all, the rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty.

International relation is a process that states try to serve their national interests, which may be in conflicts with those of other nations, in an anarchic international structure, by means of their policies and actions. Basing on this consideration, the nature of international relations could be summarized as three key features: anarchy, power and national behavior or policies, which almost every theories or approach had concerned with. This essay will basically make comparison on how does each theory apply to these key features and why the combination of realism and constructivism, or realist constructivism is the most relevant and effective one.

IGOs are voluntary associations of sovereign states established to pursue many objectives for which states want to cooperate through sort of formal structure and to which states are unable to realize by themselves (Miller, 1994). There are hundreds of IGOs in today's world which are significant in their respective fields. They are created by treaties and negotiations which mainly reflect preferences of stronger states. Especially stronger states create IGOs because they need them to protect their interests. By and large, decisions made by IGOs are the product of negotiations among the governmental representatives assigned to them. In general, it is not idealism, but the need of states which tend them to cooperate with other states in the context of IGOs. Therefore, they are part of the Westphalia state system in which IGOs are instruments of nation-states (Miller, 1994: 67). Regarding to the function and the purpose of IGOs, the influence of state as an actor in international relation still remains strong but in a different way, IGOs replace the original ideas of individual states but to identify states which have the same normative behavior and same ambitions to form a cooperate with each other so as to achieve the same goal. Even said so, powerful states are less constrained by the principle of IGOs than those who are relatively weak (Ataman, 2000: 152-167). This suggests that state is the key element in

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.

Norms are expectations of behaviour and a vital part of the international community (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 887). In the anarchic system of international politics, norms can provide stability and unity due to certain expectations, as well as implement change when norm shifts restructure the international community (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 894). Therefore, the process that enables a norm to be accepted internationally is an important one to analyze and understand. In order for a norm to become international, the most important factors are shared moral assessment and hegemonic acceptance of the norm.