How far is the sovereign state a defining feature of the contemporary international system?

Abstract During the last couples of decades, an important debate has been risen in regards with the disappearance of sovereign state in relation with the emerging international system. Thus, according to William E. Connolly (2004: 34), sovereignty is migrating from states where it was never entirely anchored-to a loosely assembled global system. Through this essay then, I will discuss whether this statement is true, and if so, what aspects contribute to this situation.

Introduction Globalization has brought a multidimensional system of interconnectedness that covers most aspects of modern life (Heywood 1997: 138), thus, politics cannot be less. The creation of international organizations such as the UE and the UN has been accumulating the power transferred by states provoking at the same time, the weakening of state sovereignty. Nonetheless, this opinion is really controversial, since there are numerous scholars who still advocate for real state sovereignty. Realists, in particular, still conceive of sovereign states as unitary actors pursuing their national interests in an anarchic world dominated by the security dilemma (Mansbach and Taylor 2008: 756). To better understand this situation, I would divide the essay in three different approaches: the economic, the military and the legal areas of international politics, and hence, I will discuss the degree of this loss of sovereignty.

Economic approach

During history, states have had the power to determine its economy by creating national currencies, which, according to Helleiner (2003 cited in Hermann, 2008: 65), promoted the formation of nation states in modern times. Nevertheless, the emergence of capitalism in the last couple of centuries has driven this power into markets, slavering states to the rule of money. As a perfect example, we can mention the current financial crisis. After having got involved in an extremely complex web of trade and monetary flow, today, states find themselves so tied to the others that the financial problems of a single state will almost affect the whole continent. As we can see in the case of Greece, the debt problem is a spectacular example of modern global linkage (Bretherton and Ponton, 1996: 170). Analysing this current situation, we can come to the conclusion that states cannot determine its own economic path any longer, and therefore, the true essence of state sovereignty is disappearing. The importance of international organizations has grown without control during the past few decades. As a perfect example, we could see how the leaders of the UE even tried to modify the Treaty of Maastricht (Gow 2011). Since states cannot rely just on themselves any longer (Heywood 2011: 454), there is space for this kind of international organizations to decide the destiny of its members. In the case of the EU for example, it imposes either measures to develop or restrictions and, therefore, we can realise how modern states have no longer a true sovereignty since they depend on what these organizations determine. Besides, although states are not obliged to belong to these organizations, the web where most states are involved do not let them any other choice but to act together. Thus, since the emergence of the former Bretton Woods System, economy has remained as the main evidence of modern global governance (Heywood 2011: 459), resting importance to state sovereignty. Military approach In the past, all countries had the control over their armies and had the power to declare any kind of war according to their interests. However, after the Peace of Westphalia, the military power was more regulated and nations could not longer

ignore other states sovereignty. Even tough, this tendency was not always respected as we could see in the Napoleonic wars, or during both world wars. Hence, after the Second World War and the establishment of the cold war, two countries begun to control the military sovereignty of the rest of the world (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2011: 56). Europe was put under control of either the U.S. or the Soviet Union, and the rest continued to be influenced by them at some point, such as China, Cuba, Korea or Vietnam. Withal, Africa and the Middle East, some of the less important regions to them, soon started to be influenced too as we could see in the Six-Day-War, or even in the Third World, such as the civil war in Angola or the war between Ethiopia and Somalia (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2011: 60). It could be realized back then that no country could escape from the influence of both powers and, therefore, during those 45 years, we can confirm that only the U.S. and the Soviet Union had a real military sovereignty. With the fall of the Soviet Union, it seemed that the situation could change, and countries could start escaping from this ideological web, however, the world soon realized that the U.S. would not let go so easily its sphere of influence (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2011: 69), and with the Persian Gulf war or the recent Iraq war, we noticed that no country outside the American sphere could resist by their own if they do not respect the American supremacy. Still, we do not have to look back to the past to notice that, we just need to see how the U.S. and its Western allies are pestering Iran because of its development of nuclear armament (Puzzanghera 2012). Thus, we can realise that Iran has not a real military sovereignty since pursuing its own military benefits worsen the international support and recognition, putting Iran in a quite delicate situation. Therefore, we can come to the conclusion that it is quite complicated today to have a real military sovereignty, at least, if you are not a hegemonic power (Heywood 2011: 456) such as the US, or at some point, former communist countries such as North Korea or China.

Legal approach

Finally, I will like to discuss the jurisdictional sovereignty of states in relation with the international system since today, states not only depend on this organizations economically, but also, in regards with their legal systems. The creation of international institutions such as the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court or the European Court of Human Rights has taken the jurisdictional sovereignty away from states. It can be argued that states have to obey the policies of this organizations only because they have given their consent to their jurisdictions, however, there is still the problem whether some norms actually constitute customary law (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2011: 283). As another example, we can rely on the fact that constitutions have always been seen as one the main proves of the state sovereignty. However, we could see how last year, Spain had to reform its constitution to meet the European Union requirements without even making a referendum (Abad and Hernndez Galante, 2011: 2). Still, there are scholars who defend state sovereignty by giving examples of how, for example, United Kingdom or Denmark decided to remain outside the eurozone. They both decided not to get the euro, and by opt-outs, they defended their sovereignty from the European control (Adler-Nissen 2008: 96). Nonetheless, we can realise that these states sovereignties are not entirely real since both currencies are anyway affected by the euro zone crisis. Conclusion We cannot disagree with the fact that state sovereignty is still an important aspect of politics. Without the institution of sovereignty, the world of independent states, and the international politics it engenders, would simply not exist Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2011: 280). Therefore, there is still the possibility to defend state sovereignty according to this fact, since without sovereign states, instead of talking about international relations, we will start talking about another different topic: global governance. However, we cannot deny either that sovereignty is disappearing in a world controlled by markets. Furthermore, Kants perpetual peace (1795) will not ever be possible, since

hegemonic countries will always influence other states, making it difficult for them to actually exert their sovereignty. Finally, in a legal system where countries must act according to the organizations they belong to, jurisdictional sovereignty almost prevails as a historic reminiscence. Therefore, as a conclusion, I believe state sovereignty should still be considered as a political value and it should be defended. However, during the past century, humanity decided that organizations such as the United Nations or the European Union would benefit its members and, consequently, it would also benefit the world from the continuous conflicts that arise between different countries. Being more united will help us to overcome all those former disputes and wars, and it will hopefully lead us to a more peaceful life. Therefore, state sovereignty may be useful to defend national cultures and traditions but, in regards with politics, a divided world would cause more problems than benefits. Bibliography Abad J. M. and Hernndez Galante J. 2011. Spanish Constitutional Reform: What is seen and not seen, Centre for European Policy Studies Policy Briefs, [online] Available at: < http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1945775> [Accessed 22 December 2011]. Adler-Nissen, R. 2008. Organized Duplicity? When states opt out of the European Union. In R. Adler-Nissen and T. Gammeltolft-Hansen, eds. 2008. Sovereignty Games. New York: Palgrave McMillan. Ch.6. Baylis, J. Smith S. and Owens P. 2011. Globalization of World Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bretherton C. and Ponton G. 1996. Global Politics: An introduction. Oxford; Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Connolly, William E. 2004. The complexity of sovereignty. In J. Edkins, V. Pin-Fat and M. J. Shapiro, eds. 2004. Sovereignty Lives. New York; London: Routledge.

Ch.2. Gow, D. 2011. EU treaty reform: what does it mean? The Guardian. [online]5 December. Available at: < http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/05/eu-treaty-reformeurozone-crisis> [Accessed 27 December 2011]. Hermann, C. W. 2008. Play money? Comtemporary perspectives on monetary sovereignty. In R. Adler-Nissen and T. Gammeltolft-Hansen, eds. 2008. Sovereignty Games. New York: Palgrave McMillan. Ch.5. Heywood, A. 1997. Politics. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Heywood, A. 2011. Global Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kant, Immanuel. 1795. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. [online] Available at: < http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:f8v3r0lKAEJ:scholar.google.com/+kant+perpetual+peace&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5> [Accessed 28 December 2011]. Mansbach, R. W. and Taylor, Kirsten L. 2008. Introduction to global politics. London: Routledge. Puzzanghera, J. 2012. U.S. warns Iran against blocking oil passageway. [online]9 January. Available at: < http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/u-s-warnsiran-against-blocking-oil-passageway-1.165456> [Accessed 09 January 2012].