Is State Sovereignty Outdated?

After signing the treaties of Westphalia in 1648, it initiated two important principles;

state sovereignty and the notion of non–interference. A sovereign state is defined as a political

entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a

geographic area. On the other hand, non–interference policies avoid intervention in the affairs

of foreign nations or corporations. However, proceedings from mid–20th century to 21st

century indicate that the sovereign state idea might be a deception. Outbreak of NGOs that are

taking over state responsibilities, states that are obligated to examine policies, influence of

IGOs, and human rights over state sovereignty might demonstrate the fact that the ideal

sovereign state does not prevail. Conversely, the factors that undermines state sovereignty

might as well be trivial for states; after all, IGOs are mostly futile when it comes to enforce

their resolutions, and additionally, some nation states still regulate their own policies against

the pressure of globalization. Although there are plenty of counter arguments that suggest

state sovereignty still exists, the implications of globalization, influence of NGOs and IGOs,

MNCs’ role over states, and human rights against state sovereignty state otherwise.

First of all, liberal ideas that are sympathized by most of the states corroborate global

actions between states, which poses a great threat to sovereign states. Global issues constitute

significant threat to countries all over the world; however, the issues require cooperation

between states therefore they are not free to follow their own policies. The increment in the

interconnectedness between states indicates that the traditional definition of state is no longer

important as they once were. Globalization has also demonstrated the fact that it has become

increasingly easy for knowledge and information to pass through borders via internet and

other tools. For example, via internet people are aware of the fact that global warming is a real

threat and must be halted; considering the effect of global warming over public, Brazil would
have preferred to conceal the blaze in the Amazon forest. However, due to globalization

people all over the world are able to discover about blaze in the Amazon Forest.

Consequently, Brazil and its leader Bolsanaro drew the global attention to Amazon Forest

unintentionally. It demonstrates the fact that states are unable to keep information within state

borders. The attention towards the situation in the Amazon Forest and other states’

expectations from the Brazil Government validate the cooperation between states towards

global issues undermines the sovereignty of a state as well. Another threat of globalization

towards state sovereignty is that states are forced to examine policies in the light of big

businesses. The increasing interconnectedness between states contribute to greater economic

affairs between countries, which obliging for international commerce. However,

interconnection between states constraints states’ policies to be suitable to the big businesses.

For example, the USA’s president Donald Trump was urged to meet with chief executive

officer of Apple to discuss about a trade war with China. A further commonly recognized

effect of globalization is it favors Westernization, which indicates that other nation states are

at a disadvantage when dealing with the Americas and Europe. For instance, Turkey is a rich

country in terms of agriculture; however, it is struggling to export its agricultural products

because it is competing with western countries such as Canada and Austria, which creates a

disadvantage to Turkey because those countries have bigger international trade sue to

globalization. However, even though globalization creates oppression for developing

countries in terms of their sovereignty, we can observe instances which constitutes developing

countries resisting developed countries’ interference over global issues. When we go back to

the example of Brazil and Amazon Forests, we observe Bolsanaro stating that the Brazil

government owns the Amazon Forests and it is in their border; consequently, he states that the

developed countries don’t have the right to judge Brazil government due to its actions in

Amazon Forests since they did the same thing to become a developed country. Subsequently,
Brazil stood against the pressure created by globalization and kept blazing Amazon forest to

make space for public areas. Even though Brazil’s example against the interdependence

between states seem to be significant, it is not sufficient to falsify the fact that globalization

demonstrates serious threat towards state sovereignty. Even Brazil’s doubts about blazing the

Amazon Forests (which is in their own territory) is a product of globalization. Consequently,

globalizations pose threat to state sovereignty, especially for non–western developing

countries.

Another threat, which is similar to globalization, towards state sovereignty is the

activities of MNCs as states. MNCs are multinational corporations that have great influence

over international trades; thus, they have significant influence over the financial situation of a

country. However, their roles as providers of international trade puts them in the same list as

countries in terms of annual income. On the top 100 revenue generators, ranking shows that

71 are corporations. Walmart surpasses Spain and Australia’s GDP with a whopping 482

billion dollar annual income. Their annual income allows them to earn a significant place in

foreign affairs and legislating policies for their own interests. Going back to the example with

Donald Trump and CEO of Apple, we can observe that Apple’s revenue is significant for the

foreign state policy of the USA and USA is obligated to consider big businesses while

legislating new foreign policies. However, this example indicated that sovereignty of a state is

undermined by the MNCs’ interests. Consequently, MNCs’ immense influence over

international trade contributes to the state itself as well. In order to protect MNCs’ interest we

notice that states allow MNCs to defy laws in the pursuit of more money. They often pursue

two paths which defy laws, one of them is tax avoidance and the other one is lobbying.

Multinational corporations can use carious schemes to avoid paying taxes in. countries where

they make vas revenues. For example, Starbucks had sales of 400 million pound in the UK

last year but paid no corporation tax. On the other hand, Lobbying is an attempt by
individuals or private interest groups to influence the decisions of government; in its original

meaning it referred to efforts to influence the votes of legislators, generally in the lobby

outside of the legislative chamber. Lobbying in some form is inevitable in any political

system. Most of the corporations lobby and defy law because lobbying is beneficial for both

government and the company because it allows them to earn more financial power through

illegal ways, which undermines state sovereignty. For example, corporations like Amazon,

Alphabet, Bayer, and Facebook spent approximately 16 million dollars on lobbying, which

indicates how common lobbying is for big corporations. On the other hand, there are

examples of multinational corporations designing and enforcing their own public policies. For

example, Microsoft recently pledged 500 million dollars to expand the availability of

affordable housing in Seattle. Consequently, Microsoft acted as a public agency even though

it is only an MNC. From this example we can understand that some MNCs are placed above

the public agencies buy the government itself. Another instance where MNCs are placed on

top of public agencies is when Google, Facebook, and other tech giants joined 50

governments in signing a new multilateral cybersecurity agreement without the presence of

the USA itself, which clearly is an example of how MNCs are placed above government’s

official branches in foreign policies. However, even though MNCs role as non–governmental

actors in foreign policies seem very significant, and maybe even more notable than the

government itself, MNCs may be dependent on the government as well. For example, in the

2008 economic crisis most of the big banks went bankrupt; however, government obliged

those banks in the crisis, and they survived. This, in fact shows the significance of

government over MNCs. Another significant example, where government is more significant

in terms of financial management, is the economic crisis in Greece; even though most of the

banks and other types of MNCs went bankrupt in the crisis, government survived its

economy. However, these two instances don’t mean that MNCs don’t have any significant
effect in foreign policies or constitutional policies. They surely have significant effect over

government, which undermines state sovereignty. However, from a realist point of view,

undermining state sovereignty is not exclusively a negative effect of MNCs over state. MNCs

help states to have bigger trade deals with other countries, and in order to pursue those trade

deals state allow MNCs to defy law or give them leverage when they need it. So MNCs

interference with government policies and public agencies is beneficial for both corporations

and the country itself even though it undermines the state sovereignty.

On the other hand, non–state actors are obliging organizations, while immensely

disrupting state sovereignty. Non–state actors include IGOs and NGOs, which are inter–

governmental and non–governmental organizations respectively. IGOs and NGOs are private

organizations whose membership and support come from more than one country and whose

political activities cross national borders. They derive their influence from two sources. First,

they often gain legitimacy by identifying the language and the purposes of international law.

For example, while Amnesty International has hundreds of chapters and thousands of

individual members worldwide, it does not rely on electoral pressure to accomplish its aims.

Instead, it bases its campaigns on the general principles of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights, which was approved by the UN General Assembly in 1948, plus additional

international and regional conventions. In other words, NGOs gain legitimacy not by

individual states, but by identifying international law, so that it can intervene with other

state’s policies. According to Treaties of Westphalia, states were not to interfere with each

other’s handling of matters within their jurisdiction; however, in recent decades NGOs have

played a major role in making non–interference conditional upon a state’s compliance with

international human rights law. For example, EU passed the legislation that supported the

relocation of 120000 migrants across the continent without being approved by many countries

in the union. Even though the central European countries have reacted angrily against the
legislation it didn’t changed the fact that EU was able to make decisions against the member

states’ own will. On the other hand, IMF negotiates conditionality agreements, which refers to

the conditions attached to the provision of loans, debt, relief or foreign aid by the provider to

the recipient; however, conditionality involves limitations placed on loans. Even though, IMF

is a non–state actor it intervenes with other country’s financial policies. Another problem with

the non–state actors is the multilateral actions taken against states. Non–state actors like UN

are able to make a general assembly and take multilateral decisions about a subject and it can

be used to suggest use of sanctions against certain states. Going back to the Brazil example,

many NGOs and member states took opposing actions towards Brazil’s policies in Amazon

Forests. However, the statements of non–state actors are not necessarily binding. For

example, UN is powerless to enforce its resolutions. Most of the resolutions made by UN are

suggestions rather than obligations, so none of the states are obligated to accept the resolution

even if it passed. For example, UN General Assembly has decisively backed a resolution

effectively calling on the USA to withdraw its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of

Israel; however, even though the vast majority of the General Assembly voted against USA,

President Trump stated that this general assembly means nothing to USA and Israel relations.

On the other hand, there is consistent backlash against the power of IGOs in recent years. For

example, Britain is leaving EU because of EU’s enforcements of making decisions for

countries regardless of their opinions. Even though NGOs and IGOs undermine the state

sovereignty, they are obliging organizations for liberal ideals. They had significant effects all

over the world and they aim to solve global issues that we face today.

One of the important factors against state sovereignty is the promotion of Human

Rights. Traditionally, the promotion of Human Rights and the concept of state sovereignty

have been fundamentally opposed. The very definition of sovereignty entitles states to non–

intervention in their domestic affairs. However, Human Rights are global, and the violation of
Human Rights go above and beyond the consenting states domestic standards, which poses a

threat to state sovereignty. Protection of HR played significant role since the Cold War. For

example, because e of the violations of Human Right s in Yugoslavia, UN held a General

Assembly to express its concern over the issue and took multilateral action against Serbia and

Montenegro specifically. Somalia has suffered a human rights crisis for the last 20 years,

characterized by serious violations of human rights and humanitarian. The protection of

civilians in the context of the armed conflict, combined with impunity and lack of

accountability, was of major concern. However, multilateral action was taken against Somalia

and Human Rights gradually improved in the region. In these instances, Human Rights were

heavily violated; however, multilateral actions and non–state actors interfered with the

problems and helped improving Human Rights while undermining state sovereignty. On the

other hand, European Convention on Human Rights, which is an international convention to

protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe, is being adopted by many states apart

from EU’s members. This instance indicates that a non–state actor’s claim over a fundamental

issue is being adopted by states that are not in the EU; so, in some way, EU has affected

foreign policies of many states, which undermines the state sovereignty. On the other hand,

states can no longer claim sovereignty if they are violating Human Rights. When they feel to

violate Human Rights, other states feel that they have a right to intervene or use sanctions on

the country. For example, when America started Iraq war, many EU countries stopped trading

with USA. However, Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not legally binding and not

practically enforced. If a state chooses to ignore it, they can legitimately do so. For example,

while Russia was invading Crimea, it violated many of the Human Rights; however, Russia

was able to show its dominance in the region, and no other countries applied sanctions on

Russia. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia refuses to adhere to condition in article 18, which is

the right to change religion and wording of articles about woman’s rights. However, we
observe no change with trades with Saudi Arabia even though they violate fundamental

Human Rights. However, violating Human Rights is against liberal ideals. Even though

Human Rights movements undermines state sovereignty immensely, it protects people from

governments that would violate their fundamental rights.

After all, nearly 400 years passed since the Treaties of Westphalia, and world has

discovered new approaches over world order. Although the sovereignty of a state is very

important, primarily the interdependence and interconnection between countries due to –

globalization outdates state sovereignty. Consequently, transformation of MNCs from

corporations to public and government agencies also outdates the sovereignty of a state.

Globalization has enabled states to form international trades thus, MNCs should have these

roles. After all, liberalism has its advantages for the people of a state so preserving human

rights with non–state actors at the cost of state sovereignty is mandatory for the liberal world

in 21st century. As a result state sovereignty is an outdated concept, especially in 21st century.

Tan Sarp Gerzile