On the futures of sovereignty

The debate on the alleged end of sovereignty is reigning everywhere. The proponents of the end of sovereignty thesis argue that the sovereign state—the governments with an absolute right to control their own territory and independence of all other states in the international arena, that is to say having no superior authority internally and externally—is no more. Indeed, non-governmental organisations, media, international public organizations, multinational corporations, regional blocs, terrorist groups, and even ‘stronger’ states are but a few of the entities that constantly challenge the idea of states as self-ruling, independent entities. It goes without saying that the process of globalisation has shaken the traditional roots of sovereignty. The reflections of globalisation can most obviously be seen in three distinct areas: economy, human rights and warfare. In the economic sphere, the autonomous state in full control of ins and outs of its territory is a past story. Today, the global market forces more easily penetrate the borders and affect the national economies in unprecedented ways. As to the second issue; the humanitarian norms, the development of norms concerning international protection of human rights and humanitarian law are seen to infringe on sovereignty as they challenge the principle of non-intervention. Lastly, the states no longer have exclusive power over of the means of violence. Therefore, as Boutros Boutros-Ghali claimed “the time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty.has passed” [2]. Yet, are these factors sufficient for us to proclaim the death of sovereignty and lament for the dead? First of all, the question that should be asked is whether sovereignty is a stable and unchanging institution or not. As put by Sorenson “.sovereignty is an institution based on norms.” [3]. The word ‘norm’ is used to identify what goes as ‘normal’ at a specific juncture in time. This means that as an institution based on norms it is natural for sovereignty to develop and change in accordance with what is normal at the time. Thus, those who argue that the sovereign state is just about dead may be wrong in their assumptions. Futures 37 (2005) 563–566 www.elsevier.com/locate/futures