1. Introduction
In today’s International System, the
concept of sovereignty has become controversial than any political view. It is
widely believed that the concept of state sovereignty is in worldwide eclipse
in the face of overwhelming process of globalization. Hence the concept has become one of the most
critical and elusive topics in the international relations. One of the main
reasons for this is the evolution of the traditional international system,
which was believed to be emerged with the Treaty of Westphalia. State
sovereignty is mostly challenged by the globalization of economic activities,
International law, high technologies, internal and extern conflicts with the
central governments. This was also
complicated with the multinational interventions under the international
authority such as United Nations taking place in many parts of the globe today.
However, this idea of Westphalian
sovereignty and its practices have been questioned from the mid 20th
Century mainly due to the Internationalism and globalization. This essay
describes the evolution of the concept of state sovereignty through the history
and also the impact of globalization on the development of new view of
sovereignty.
One of the
remarkable events in the history, which made an immense influence to the
concept state sovereignty, is the European Integration process. Hence, the new
understanding of this concept was given the birth, where it introduced the
“pooling” or “shared” sovereignty and transformation from traditional nation
states to regional state and regional sovereignty. However, it was never
without a criticism and condemnations. Due to this new concept of sovereignty,
everybody started taking EU as a paradigm for other regions. South Asia being a
region with lots of internal and inter-regional issues has been focused by many
leaders and scholars to develop as an effective integration. However, question
always remained as these leaders were ever willing to give upon the traditional
concept of state sovereignty and move on with a shared and a common
sovereignty.
This study further
discusses the above areas, where the how far does the concept of state
sovereignty in the globalized world, especially in the context of European
Union can be applied to the developing region of south Asia.
2. Definition and the evolution of “State Sovereignty”
The principle of
sovereignty was born at the same time as the State, and very closely linked to
the state. The theory of sovereignty has been developed by political
theory as well as the events in the history. The concept and the meaning of
State sovereignty have been changing considerably over the centuries. Traditionally,
Sovereignty was always been considered as an absolute perception to bring about
that states are totally independent with all other states and are always
superior than the rules of international law.
Stephen D. Krasner distinguished the concept of sovereign in to four
categories such as below[1];
-
International legal sovereignty
-
Westphalian sovereignty
-
Domestic sovereignty
-
Interdependence sovereign
According to him, International legal sovereignty and
westphalian sovereignty involve factors of authority and legitimacy not the
control. When international legal sovereignty is the recognition given to
territorial entity, which has juridical independence, Westphalian sovereignty
is the exclusion of external actors. However, domestic sovereignty involves
both authority and control. Interdependence sovereignty is solely concerned
with the control not the authority. It refers to the ability of the state to control
the movements across its borders.
Starting from Aristotle, state sovereignty has gone
through many interpretations. Aristotle’s sovereignty wasn’t known to Greeks,
but developed from the Latin word “Superanas”, which defines the supremacy.
According to him, law itself is sovereign and there is no sovereign in addition
law. This sovereignty of law doesn’t mean the legal sovereignty; it means the
relation between law and the government.
He holds that “where laws have no authority, there is no constitution.
The law ought to be supreme over all and the rulers should judge of
particulars” [2]
State sovereignty was also discussed with Internal
and External sovereignty. Internal sovereignty is legal or political power
within a state, where there is no external interference. It is the authority to
exercise the functions of a state within national territory and maintain
internal affairs freely. External sovereignty meanwhile is described with a
superior political authority and legal independence from all external powers.
This is the authority granted by international law to each state to exercise
legal control over its own territory.
Later, Theorist John Austin came up with the concept of legal
sovereignty, where he argued that all laws were commands of sovereign who was
habitually obeyed by society without owing obedience to any other authority.[3]
This chapter discusses the evolution of the concept
during different period throughout the world history.
2.1 Traditional concept of sovereignty
The traditional understanding of State sovereignty is
that the state has the sovereign control over its national territory and in the
context of international law, this power is untouchable. Jean Bodin, a French
jurist and a political philosopher articulated the traditional understanding of
sovereignty, which involves the absolute capability of law making within the
territory of the state, where state doesn’t admit any other law-creating
authority above it. He believes that the sovereignty as the supreme power
within the state “cannot be restricted except by the laws of god and by natural
law”[4].
Bodin’s concept of sovereignty is totally exclusive, by allowing the King to
play a role of unique legislator by then it grants the state an unlimited
authority. Hence for Bodin, a state might be defined in terms of it’s identity,
culture or history, but politically he believes that the state should constitute
its sovereignty
However, the seventieth century’s Hobbes on
sovereignty went further and argued that sovereign
was not bound by anything and had a right over everything, including religion[5].
In his famous work Leviathan, Hobbes argues that supreme law-making power
within a political society should be laid with the ruler– or sovereign. According to Grotius, the universal
and binding natural law is the primary source of international law. Natural law
is supplemented by the secondary body of international law associated with the
consent of states. Although international law is partly independent of the will
of states, Grotius nevertheless sees it as binding on sovereign states.
2.3 Westphalian Sovereignty
The idea of state
sovereignty cannot be discussed without mentioning the existence of
International System, which was believed to be emerged after the Treaty of
Westphalia, which ended the thirty years war in Europe in 1648. This was considered as the start of a secular
Europe, where these new states were recognized as sovereign states despite
their size or power.
This new international system was based on the absolute
sovereignty of the member nations. This
treaty recognized the equality of states as the major principal of the
international system. Then started the norm recognize the nation state as an effective
instrument of power, where the international law was respected as law between
these sovereign states.
According to Krasner, “Westphalian sovereignty is
violated when external actors influence or determine domestic authority
structures.” Krasner explains that he chooses to use this terminology because
the “Westphalian model has so much entered into common usage, even if it is
historically inaccurate.”[6]
Westphalian state sovereignty is based on
two principles; territoriality and exclusion of external actors from domestic
authority. The primary rule of westphalian state sovereignty is that the state
is located in the defined territory, within which the local authorities are the
sole authority.
2.4 Classical Theory of State Sovereignty
Two major changes took place during the 18th
century, Industrial and French revolutions made a significant change in the
concept. These revolutions changed the
economic structure of the world, marking the rise of capitalism, finally led to
imperialism. This imperialist expansion changed all aspects of the
international system. The concept of popular sovereignty was developed by Jean
Jacques Rousseau in the third estate of French revolution, claiming that the
state sovereignty can be challenged by setting the claims of the people against
the claims of the state. The idea of popular sovereignty was taken to either
challenge the power of states or support it clearly through the view of the
people as a “nation”. [7]
As for this classical belief of sovereignty, even international law has no
enter and a state has the power to freely exercise their own competencies.
For centuries,
sovereignty was attributed to the ruler of such territory who has their
legitimacy and the authority. This was
changed and the sovereignty of the ruler became the will of people. After the
World War 11, the idea of sovereignty was mainly based on the will of the people.
Saskia Sassen in his piece “Losing Control; Sovereign in an age of
globalization” stated that “the will of
the people had become established as one of the conditions of political
legitimacy for a government”[8].
This was introduced as popular sovereignty. The universal declaration of Human
Rights of 1948, article 21(3) confirmed the above status in international law
“the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this
will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections…”[9]
During the past few decades, there have been significant changes in the international
system, between state and intestate relations, in economic activities and in
supranational institutions, where these activities were mainly emerged with the
globalization. Hence, the changing roles of the nation state made conceptual
change in “State Sovereignty” in the globalized world.
3. What is Globalization?
The concept of globalization is commonly and
increasingly debated concept, with various definitions given by various scholars.
Globalization is a complex phenomenon,
which encompasses various tendencies in the social, economic, cultural and
political spheres. So this has multidimensional features with various
definitions. Though this concept is interpreted in many ways, the driving force
to this concept is the process of integration of the world into a single arena.
Hence this notion makes that the events and developments occur in one place of
the world have effects on entire world.
In the
introduction to Globalisation and Legal Theory, Twining defines
globalization as: “… those
processes that tend to create and consolidate a unified world economy, a
single ecological system, and a complex
network of communication that covers the whole globe.”[10]A
widely cited sociologist, Anthony Giddens, who is the former director of the
London School of Economics and an adviser to the former British Prime Minister
Tony Blair, wrote on the globalization
process as “the intensification of
worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such way
that local happenings are shaped by
events occurring many miles away and vice versa[11]”,
thereby changing all aspects of our
everyday life.
The process of
globalization is not a novel phenomenon. This has occurred in three distinct
waves. The first wave of globalization happened from 1870 to 1914. This
happened with the decrease of tariff barriers and new technologies which
resulted the declining transportation costs. The first wave of globalization
was ended by World War I. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, governments
responded by practicing protectionism. The second wave of globalization after
the Second World War from 1945 to 1980, when the nationalism provided renewed
incentive for internationalism. During
this period, the world order changed from multi-polar to bi-polar due to the
cold war. Armed war and ideologies are the major focus and emphasis in the international
system in this period. Third wave or the
latest wave of globalization begun from 1980s during which the unipolarity of
the international system was believed to be emerged, where the united states to
be the sole super power in the world. A large number of developing countries,
such as China, India, and Brazil, broke into the world markets for
manufacturers. Though the traditional
understanding of sovereignty mainly focusing on “independence”, the sovereignty
as an absolute concept of unlimited freedoms and authority is always questioned
nowadays. The existence of states needs co-orporation and interdependence to
achieve the advantages of the international community
4. New
understanding of State sovereignty in Globalization
Some scholars argue
that the globalization caused the demise of state sovereignty as governments
are unable to control their own economies and societies, while some reject this
view and further argue that states and geopolitics remain the principal forces
shaping the world order. Therefore, while learning this so-called
globalizations and arguments for and against the same, I would like to suggest
that the globalization has brought a new understanding of globalized state
sovereignty.
The processes of global
economic integration, global patterns of communication and movement of people
across territorial boundaries have created the idea of a global culture. Free
trade movement, investment, capital flows, increasing technology and information
revolution are also making the world interdependent and interconnected. Globalization
has multidimensional phenomenon including economic, political, social and
cultural transformations. Politically, the globalization is challenging for a
considerable extend mainly the nation-states and their sovereign rights.
Globalization is pushing the countries to open their economies and alter
domestic as well as foreign policies. Globalists admit that the state authority
and the sovereignty have been evaporated by the process of globalization with the
increasing developments in all activities, so that the Westphalian system of
absolute state sovereignty is failing into pieces. Kenichi Ohmae, a very strong
globalist, argued in his book The End of the Nation-State, that the demise of
nation-state on the basis of four ‘I’s: investment, industry, information
technology, individual consumers. He emphasizes that the ongoing integration of
the global economy undermines the nation state in favor of the region.
However, another group of
scholars strongly oppose this view, arguing that sovereignty of nation-state
remained untouched despite the repercussions from globalization. They believe although
there’s an increasing influence of globalization on the sovereignty, the state
sovereignty is still in control and nation-states remain the main component of
the international system.
For Paul Hirst and Thompson, the
strength of globalization is exaggerated and the end of nation-state is an
illusion rather than a reality. Although
these two views opposite from each other, they believe one common point, that
there’s an immense impact from globalization on state sovereignty. It has
created undisputable challenge to the sovereignty of both developed and
developing countries. The transformation of state sovereignty is affected in
the globalized world when the power is being transformed with the active roles
of global actors, economic actors, supranational roles, international law and
many other non-state actors. Sub state actors such as international
organizations, Multi National companies and non-governmental organizations as
well as the supra national actors such as UN, International monetary Fund and
world Trade Organization has made a massive changes in the international
system.
With the establishment of the most influential world body
the United Nations in 1945, the traditional idea of sovereignty was changed and
limited.
According to the Article 2(1) of the UN Charter, the
United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of
its members. This principle of equality is characteristic of the Westphalian
model of state sovereignty. The Charter confirms that the sovereignty of states
is limited, in Article 2(2) of the Charter reads as follows:
“All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the right and
benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations
assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.”[12]
In addition to these explanations, the ruling in the UN charter on use of force
allows to use the force against another state on two occasions; with the
authority of Security Council and when states exercise right of individual or
collective self-defense in term of article 51.
The effects of
changing international norms, which are used to justify the intervention also,
have an impact on the notion of sovereignty today. Changes in these norms and politics justify
the international community intervening to the matters, which were
traditionally considered as the domestic affairs. Military intervention by NATO
in Bosnia and Kosovo can be taken as such intervention. Also one of the latest
development we can take in the UN Security Council’s expecting resolution on
Syria nowadays, however is currently being hold due to the lack of consent.
Promotion of human rights is also another factor in the globalized today. Even in the UN Charter, it is accepted that
the primacy of international law over state sovereignty, confirming that
sovereignty is accepted as a relative and limited concept. On the other hand,
the emergence of secessions and self-determinations after the world war period
also made a significant impact to the understanding of state sovereignty. Emergence
of Failed states in the international system is yet another important point. The countries mentioned in this context, besides Haiti, are
Somalia and Afghanistan. The existences of these states in law will continue
until their people, invoking the right of self-determination, establish a new
state.
The economic integration has the
impact of globalization and is reflected best in the economic sphere. With the
expansion of market economy, all nations are involved in huge wave of economic
integration. In this process,
multinational enterprises (MNEs), are one of the main actors of globalization
as an immense economic transformation. MNEs have commercial operations and
subsidiaries in two or more countries, usually engage in foreign direct
investment and own, or control, activities in these countries where they are
present. MNEs as sources of investment,
technology transfer and upgrading of labor force, has enhanced their impact on
state control over economic affairs. Economic globalization mainly involves with the integration of national
and regional markets. This Economic interdependence have narrowed the distance
between sovereign nations, where most members of international community have
adopted the market economic system. Subsequently, the legal norms and framework
were established to bring out the market both national and international
levels. IMF, WB and WTO can be taken as good examples for the pillars of such
legal framework. The regional bodies
such as EU, NAFTA and ASEAN provide the legal framework for international
investment activities.
As globalization has been given credit for
the extraordinary economic growth as discussed above, the marginalization of the poor low-income
countries should also taken in to
consideration. This exclusion of poor countries have raised severe challenges to the world, very specially to the national governments of the
developing countries. It is crucial task for
these governments
to strengthen sovereignty when fighting against the unjustness caused by current unequal international economy.
However, it
is very important to note that globalization is an ongoing process not an event.
Hence, the concept of state sovereignty won’t stay unchanged, even in future
international system, Therefore, the challenges to the concept of state
sovereignty can be predicted in many ways. In next two chapters I assess the
sovereignty in the globalization in small and large states taking the cases of
EU and South Asia, based on above discussion.
5. State sovereignty in EU
The integration process of the European Union made the
most significant land mark throughout this voyage. This chapter examines the
nature of state sovereignty in the European Union. Before, start the analysis, we have to
understand that the background of the EU integration. This development was
taken place in the 20th century, during which the notion of
sovereignty was spreading geographically in an extraordinary manner. More than
hundred new states emerged to the international system during 1945 and 1989.
After the collapse of Soviet Union, another 20 states were newly born. With
political development, the concept of self-determination was emerging since
1918. Within this background, where the nation states fought for their
sovereignty and interests, the emergence of this integration took place.
The EU is considered as one of the most successful
model of economic integration in the world history. EU without a doubt have
squabbles and occasional crises which make news headlines, however many think
that despite all these bad experience, EU is a remarkable successful lesson,
which can be learnt by other regional bodies. In just over half a century it
has contributed massively to deliver peace and stability in Europe, especially
after the most disastrous world wars, which affected the whole region. The
important development went through the EU integration with the abolition of
internal frontiers, the creation of a supranational legal system and the
introduction of the concept of a European citizenship. It has also become a key
trading power, and player in the areas such as environmental protection with 27
members and more countries want to join.
The state
sovereignty in the European Union is the most remarkable perception of the
state sovereignty in the globalized world. My study is trying to identify this
remarkable development in the EU context as well as to study how far EU can be
taken as a model for nation-state in contemporary globalized world or as a
regional entity with shared sovereignty. The different explanations given by
the scholars over the time on EU depict various pictures about the entity. The EU, which was initially began as a
regional trade association of nation-states, it has now gone further than any
other such entities, aiming at formal governances with jurisdiction on several
areas. Understanding the shared-sovereignty by the EU member states doesn’t
make a total loss of national sovereignty, but gives new means to regulate
their economic, social, political and cultural issues in a more coherent and
collective manner.
5.1. What is European Union?
Two world wars has caused massive
catastrophic loss of lives, nations, infrastructures leaving a fear among the
citizens to chose what keeps them alive. Almost all the c countries in the
region affected by these two devastating wars losing every aspect of life and
nation states. It was not the destruction of materials mattered to the region,
but the morale values of the citizens were highly affected. People lost their
faith in administration, politics and the system. Marshall Plan or the “European Recovery Act” with a huge package of
economic aid for reconstruction of devastated Europe was brought to the table
suggesting that the integration as the best possible way to speed up reconstruction in order
to restore the long-term peace and stability. Though this integration was
intended by the United states as to quickly recover their main market and ally
In 1952, the basis of the European Union began with
the signing of the Treaty of Paris, establishing the European Coal and Steel
Community (ECSC), to regulate European industry & improve commerce, post
WWII. Five years after, 6 members singed Treaties of Rome forming European
Economic Community (EEC) and European Atomic Energy Community. In 1967, ECSC, EEC, and EuroAtom merged to form
the basis of the European Community. In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was
ratified, and formed the European Union currently with 27 members, and also with a combined population of nearly 500 million and a
GDP of 20% of the total GDP of the world, EU has today become a strong
political and economic entity. EU has achieved its status as a common
market. EU as was created as a Customs Union then removed barriers to the
mobility of labor, capital and services then formed a Common Market (1958)
5.2. Nature of EU sovereignty
Opponents of the European Union have argued that this
threatens the “Sovereignty” while proponents have highlighted that the EU leads
to ‘pooled” or “shared” sovereignty. The debate on this has been going on since
the establishment of this entity. Before coming to any conclusion on these
views, I would like to bring the views given by theorists on this. According to
the realist theorists, states are the irreducible elements in international
politics. Realists view international relations
almost exclusively as a “struggle for power” among competing nation-states.
States, like human beings, have an innate desire to dominate others. Kenneth
Waltz believed that states are security maximizers
rather than being power-maximizers and that it is the structure
of the system that forces states to seek power.[13]
From this perspective, can EU be taken as a mean of managing potential
conflicts and struggle for power like they experienced with two destructive
wars in the history through the shared sovereignty in order to enhance the
security among member states? To
research on this question, we have to first take a look at the nature of EU
sovereignty. The notion of EU sovereignty is developed with the considerable
change of the national interests of EU members in their institutional context.
5.2.1. Pooling
Sovereignty
The Westphalian sovereignty with two attributes of
territoriality and exclusion of external actors from domestic authority,
described by Stephen Krasner cannot be exactly applied to the EU concept of
sovereignty. EU hosts wide range of authorities from the legal order
administered by EU’s supranational European Court of Justice, council of Europe
to monetary policy which made “Eurozone” and EU foreign, defence and security
policies etc. According to the European Commission,
Directorate-General for Communication, Manuscript completed in July 2007: the
member countries do pool some of their sovereignty — and thus gain much
greater collective strength and influence than they could have acting
individually. Members pool their sovereignty by taking collective decisions
through shared institutions such as the European Parliament, which is elected
by the EU citizens, and the Council, which represents national government. Pooling
sovereignty means, “in practice, that the member states delegate some of their
decision-making powers to shared institutions they have created, so that
decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at
European level”[14]
The three main decision-making
institutions are:
·
The
European Parliament (EP) -
Represents the EU’s citizens and is directly elected by them
·
The
Council of the European Union - Represents the individual member states
·
The
European Commission - Represents the interests of the Union as a
whole.
The European Union was from the beginning supranational. The Treaty of the European Community allows necessary powers to the Council, Commission, Parliament & Court of Justice to implement its provisions, and also to harmonize the domestic legislation of the member States in areas mentioned by the Treaty. The pooling sovereignty of European Integration in the globalized word is very important point, as we can highlight the most of benefits it gained so far. The establishment of EU as an economic integration is successfully essential for the development Europe. EU had seven enlargements throughout the history indicate the success of this process, since not even a single member broke away from this bloc, despite the crises they have been facing. Hence, EU became one of the major economic player in the globe as a strong and developing entity.
5.2.2. EU as a Regional
State and Regional Sovereignty
When analyzing the status of sovereignty in the
European Union, some label the EU in the context of regional sovereignty. The
EU is the only major regional agreement that gives all citizens right of
residence and employment in all member countries. Four types of free movements
were introduced by the EU;
1)
Freedom for Goods
2)
Freedom for Services
3) Freedom
for Capitals
4)
Freedom for Persons
In his book “Democracy in Europe” Vivien A. Schimidt
says that EU is-a new form of
'regional state'. The EU has many
features that differentiate it from an international organization. There in are no internal borders
disappeared between the member states, so that the there is free flow of goods,
persons, services and capital as mentioned above.
Just like national citizenship, Citizenship of the
union is also defined. According to Article 17 of the ECT, every person holding
the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the Union. The achievement of
EU on people movement is the introduction of “Schengen Area”, which is an
important development for internal market, which came into force on 26 March
1995. And then, established a common currency & common economic policies
which led to an Economic and Monetary Union. On 1 January 1999, the euro
became the official currency of the participating Member States within ‘Eurozone’ and it also
facilitates trade between those countries and gives them a common goal.
However, out of 27 countries only 17 states are using Euro as an Economic and
Monetary Union (EMU). EU was however, never labeled as a Nation-state though it
was always taken up, when dealing with the concepts such as power and
sovereignty. All these feature transform the traditional notion if
sovereignty. Probably the most important
development in this regard is what is called today the emergence of a separate
legal system, called “EU law”, “EC law” or “Community law”.
Nation-states are believed and
recognized to have a certain
finality of indivisible
sovereignty, defined territories, clear identity, established government, and solid democracy. Then, let’s see how we can
conceptualize EU in terms regional states, where the sovereignty
of its members is shared.
EU established this status with the internal acceptance as well as
international recognition. The European nation is the only regional integration
which shares and pools the sovereignty various ways with its member-states. EU
member-states shared their individual international recognition as they agreed
to be represented by the EU commissioner for international trade, such as in
European Central Bank; in the context of the single market. Most significant
thing is that although such sharing of sovereignty is demonstrated in nature of
‘regional’ sovereignty. The boundaries of the region is variable, hence EU’s boundaries are not fixed in terms of
territory. It also varies from
policy. We can see the differences in membership on Schengen group of countries which doesn’t
include some members such as Britain
and Ireland. When
we talk about the Eurozone, countries
like UK, Denmark, and Sweden as
well as the eastern enlargement countries remain outside. These can be
taken as good example for sovereign
decisions of member-states.
Nation-states are
traditional been recognized with the term of nationhood with the identity of
culture, language, values, citizens, history etc. EU has a unique citizenship
for every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen
of the Union. The EU
is successful in using European
passport, European license plates, the European
flag, the European anthem, and the euro, as well as various citizen
exchange programs and academic projects, as a regional sovereignty.
5.3. Criticism
“Our sovereignty has been taken away by
the European Court of Justice. It has made many decisions impinging on our
statute law and says that we are to obey its decisions instead of our own
statue law…Our courts must no longer enforce our national laws. They must
enforce Community law.”[15]
Eurosceptics are more concerned with the
evident loss of Parliamentary Sovereignty due to the expansion of EU powers. As
there are two sides to every story, there are many who argue that the member
states have lost their state sovereignty due to EU. EU
lost the popular support, was the rejection of 2004 constitution by France and
Netherlands. This became a shock to EU members since they didn’t expect a “NO”
from the French and Dutch voters. The Lisbon Treaty which came in 2007 was also
considered by some as a different name given to the 2004 constitution. And
protestors see it as part of a federalist agenda that threatens national
sovereignty. Tension
increased with the entry of Lisbon Treaty on 1st December 2009,
particularly on matters regarding EU governmental state sovereignty. Also, when
Eurozone in to consideration, not that all states have agreed to follow and it
is also the case with Schengen area. EU
is not as effective at managing many policy areas as nation states have been.
The conflicts within the eurozone provide an example of the
difficulties caused by handing over sovereignty.
Like the proposed European
constitution before it, the treaty is often described as an attempt to
streamline EU institutions to make the enlarged bloc of 27 states function
better. But its opponents see it as part of a federalist agenda that threatens
national sovereignty.
EU fund
distribution came under a huge criticism right after the launch of subsidy
programs in Hungary. According to the parties and the Government of Hungary,
“the use of EU funds was inefficient in Hungary due to the centralized,
bureaucratic and over politicized nature of the related institutions”[16].
Hungary alleged that this movement was degrading the people and forcing the applicants into a vulnerable
position
As discussed in
above chapters, my view on the sovereignty of the European Union is that I
don’t agree with the emphasis on that the concept of state sovereignty has
become invalid in the face of EU integration. I believe that what European
leaders and states have developed so far is the new understanding of
sovereignty for the welfare and betterment of individual nations, by pooling
their sovereignty as a regional
state, based on shared sovereignty, variable boundaries, several modes of governance, composite
identity, and fragmented democracy. It is without a doubt that I admit
that EU doesn’t host the traditional concept of sovereignty. However, this new
trend of regional sovereignty doesn’t exist without challenged mentioned above.
Question is whether we can use the EU as a model for developing region like
South Asia in this globalized era? Next chapter is a narration on this topic.
6. South Asia; EU as a
paradigm?
South Asia is a
region host diversified numbers of states with different religions, communities
and ethnicities with totally different sizes and shapes. As any other
post-colonial region, South Asia faces the realities of globalization. Globalization
as discussed in above chapters is considered as the golden age for the economic
expansion of activities around the globe, so as in this region. However,
political capacity and attributes in these post-colonial countries were also
remarkable affected by this globalization. Based on this situation, we can see
the transformation and re-examine one of the most important attributes of South
Asian politics; state sovereignty. It is important to study that the how the
continent is been facing the concept of state sovereignty with the onset of
globalization and whether the EU context of sovereignty can be applied to the
region, while pushing new political practices.
Question remains whether the
European integration can be served as a paradigm for such integration process
in south Asia as well. Before, examine the applicability of EU regional
sovereignty to South Asia, it is necessary to analyze the existing model of
regional body, which is experienced currently.
6.1. SAARC
As a first step for integration was taken place with the
formation of South Asian Association for Regional Corporation (SAARC). In 1980, the late president of Bangladesh Ziaur Rahman first proposed the need of a
regional corporation in south Asia based on factors such as political,
economic, security and economic benefit through regionalism. The smaller states
in the region such as Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka quickly accepted
this proposal, while India and Pakistan remained doubtfully. Within this
background, SAARC was finally established in 1985 comprising Bangladesh,
Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. In 2007,
Afghanistan entered as the eighth member state. In 2005, SAARC opted for
Observers - as part of Open Regionalism. Regional cooperation, however, remains
much nationalistic. SAARC was established as a voice to be free from the then
cold war rivalry and against the troubled world. Even though the formation of SAARC is considered as a diplomatic
breakthrough in the region, people both positively and negatives about it as a
regional integration.
6.2. Call for a South Asian Union and EU as a
Model
In January 2003, former Indian foreign minister Yashwant Sinha took EU
as an “Example of Regional Corporation that we in Asia could emulate” he said“
That is the direction in
which I suggest we move. I am not suggesting an end to Saarc but an upgradation
of Saarc into a South Asian Union”. [17] Former India PM Atal Bihar Vajpayee once said
that South Asian Union has the potential of introducing open borders, mutual
security cooperation and even a single currency in the region[18].
In order to implement EU like union among south Asian states, individual states
must meet some of basic criteria to undertake the regional integration
effectively. Even at 15th
SAARC summit in 2008, Representatives of human rights bodies,
trade unions, women groups and others from the SAARC countries demanded a union
of South Asian countries like European Union, while retaining their individual
identity and sovereignty. Some even saw the prospects of one market, one visa
and one currency.
6.3. Political and Security issues
One of the great difficulties
we can see against such integration is the prevailing political and security
issues in the region. The interstate relations in the
region are tense at best and development and security cooperation hurting all
most all the states in the region, with two nuclear-armed arch enemies, high
incidence of cross-border human trafficking and
terrorism. Due to this complicated issues, the corporation among the states in
the region is getting more and more critical. However, economically, south Asia
has become an emerging market, which attracts significant market and trade
activities, foreign direct investments and more economical benefits. Political
and security concerns in the south Asia still remain the same or may be getting
more crucial, with we can see the changing attitudes of three global powers
namely United States, China and Russia towards south Asia. In addition to these
external influences, South Asia is still having the inter-regional issues as
well as internal matters to focus on. Developments in economy and investment in
this region becoming positive outcome, while politically and in security sense
it is becoming a negative outcome, when states trying to enhance their security
especially with two nuclear rivals.
According to the World Bank report, 2007, South Asia is
the least integrated region in the world.[19]
Though the formation of SAARC is a
landmark step taken by the leaders of the region with the aim of developing
mutual relationships among the members to interact peacefully with each other
for peace, security, and economy of the region, some argue that South Asian
nations are not able to push the successful process of integration yet. Former
president Bill Clinton once said that south asia is the most dangerous region
on earth with two arch enemies with nuclear power. Being a region hosting two
arch rivals with nuclear power for a long time, south Asia is having the most
considerable reason for the failure of such integration. This must be one of
the main reason why the region doesn’t want to give up on the concept of state
sovereignty. Ethnical issues, border disputes, separatist demands, terrorism
and subversive activities,
communalism, religious problems are very common in the region. While India-
Pakistan conflict has become the major problem in the region, Nepali’s
unsuccessful government and Maoist political fundamentalism, internal and
ethnic conflicts experienced Sri Lanka and arrays of internal problems in
Bhutan and Maldives are some of the best examples for the complexities of the
region. Widespread tensions, mutual
distrust, hostilities, terrorism and nuclear rivalry are the highly considered
issues, which have a major impact on the sovereignty of the member states.
Among SAARC
nations, India has become a booming power in the world affairs, but it has
failed to develop the integration among other regional members due to the
rivalry it had mainly with Pakistan as well as some issues with the smaller
states. While SAARC can learn many aspects from EU it is really important to
keep in mind that we have integrate the member
states in this southern region with our specificity and uniqueness
adopting the understanding of sovereignty to our own way.
6.4. Different Entities
Before taking EU
as a paradigm for South Asia, it is important note here with a very basic
difference between two. SAARC is related with the term “Corporation” as an
association of countries which remain totally sovereign, while EU is a “Union”
whose member States delegate more and more of their sovereignty to common
institutions. The EU has supranational law and institutions and the members had
common desire to restrain elements of sovereignty by creating these
supranational institutions, but there was no such desire whatsoever in South
Asia to do so. The SAARC charter itself indicates that “ Desirous of promoting peace, stability, amity and
progress in the region through strict adherence to the principles of the UNITED
NATIONS CHARTER and NON-ALIGNMENT, particularly respect for the principles of
sovereign equality, territorial integrity, national independence, non-use of
force and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States and peaceful
settlement of all disputes”[20]. Hence, the transformation
of these EU outline towards SAARC is definitely not going to be an easy tasks
for the member states.
On the other hand,
when we take the powerful states in two regions, Europe have more than one
powerful member such as United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy who are
relatively similar despite the size of the territory or populations. Hence the
ability or the tendency of dominating other won’t be a threat to other member’s
sovereignty. But in South Asia, India looms large among the other members. There
is a overwhelming predominance of India in term of size, population, economic
and military strength in the region, comparing with other states.
This situation would be made worse,
when this big power in the region is been having a long term rivalry with it’s
neighborly Pakistan, and both being nuclear states.
Hence we have to consider
transforming a corporation in to union, along with all these structural changes
which should be changed at massive levels.
6.5.Managing common resources
Most significant
factors of regionalism in South Asia are managing common resources, enlarging
markets, and improving security. However, neighbors in South Asia is
having all kinds of disputes among them on borders ( India – Pakistan ), water
dispute ( India – Bangladesh/ Nepal ) disputes over sea areas ( India – Sri
lanka). These countries are still negotiating on these issues and those still
remain unsolved. Even without solving their basic disputes, can South Asia move
on to a huge step like a union even in times is a real question.
6.7. Steps
towards!
In order to plan an integration
process for future south Asia, it is essential to make a rapid lead towards a
truly free trade agreement and ultimately an Economic Union. Hence, it is
important to study whether and how south Asia can focus on applying the EU as a
paradigm and a model for the future integration of south asian region, and to
emerge as an organic process, can this
region with its member states pool their sovereignty like 'acquis communautaire' in
Europe.
South
Asia is likely heading towards integration at economic level. Political
integration in South Asia is however distant. There is a long dragged debate for a South Asian Union such as EU. EU is
a very good example where even historically rival countries worked together
towards the integration pooling their sovereignty towards common goals. Enemies in South Asia are very new compared to
the EU situation; this is also supported to say that south Asians were living under
one umbrella.
However,
it is important to note the difficulties SAARC is having in political issues,
hence most of the writings and opinions are arouse on consolidating the
integration process through economic influence. Having said that, with all the
political issues I highlighted above, it is necessary for the regional members
to seek compromises forfeiting the sovereignty for anextend by taking decisions
together for a common goal and goods. But how far it is success for these
members to forfeit their sovereignty and share or pool the same among neighbors
whom having conflicts since the creation of the region?
Meanwhile, most of the South Asia countries were
threatened by international community on many occasions even in present, and
the regional leaders are more concerns about their sovereignty and integrity
than any other day in the history. A familiar example that I can give is the
case of Sri lanka at post-war era, where the international community came up
with the alleged war crimes against the government and the military. Pakistan
recently had a big concern on their sovereignty, when the U.S. launched their
operations against Osama Bin Laden in Pakistani Territory. Hence, the
experience of South Asia shows that it needs a way in which human rights,
national sovereignty and people’s sovereignty can be brought together, fought
for, with remarkable success.
7. Conclusion
It is very significant that the concept of
state sovereignty has been gone through different changes and interpretations
through history. These changes took place due to the theoretical framework of
times and events happened in the international system. Emergence of
globalization made a great impact on the traditional concept of sovereignty
with the expansion of political, social, economical and legal activities in the
international community.
European Union has become the main paradigm of an integration and new
sovereignty in the globalized world.
While opponents
argue that this threatens the “Sovereignty”, proponents say that the EU leads
to ‘pooled” or “shared” sovereignty. My view is that even though the EU is not
practicing the traditional concept of sovereignty, they have become successful
in creating a new understanding of sovereignty adopted with the globalization.
I believe that this understanding has been taken as a mean of managing
potential conflicts and struggle for power like they experienced with two
destructive wars in the history through the shared sovereignty in order to
enhance the security among member states, as a concept developed by most of the
realists. That’s where EU is sharing their sovereignty as a regional entity and
as a regional sovereignty to maximize the security through the region.
State sovereignty
being one of the main attributes of South Asia, how the continent is been
facing the concept of state sovereignty with the onset of globalization and
whether the EU context of sovereignty can be applied to the region is the
question posed by many currently. When there are unsolved menaces such as human
rights issues, terrorism, neighbor disputes, trafficking and other problems
faced by the region, it is still doubtful whether the leader would ever agree
to group their sovereignty with clear trust. This situation is further made
critical when the region is highly concentrating on nuclear and food
sovereignty in the continent. However, as the region is likely becoming
stronger in their economic integration, it is important to focus their policies
on political integration through grouping their sovereignty for certain extend.
[1]
Sovereignty; Organized Hypocrisy, Stephen Krasner, 1999
[2] Aristotle, N. Jayapalan , Pg 57, 1999
[3] Democracy, Sovereignty and the European Union, Michael Newman, 1997
[4] Jean Bodin On Sovereignty: Four Chapters from the Six Books of the
Commonwealth
[5] Thomas Hobbes De Cive: Dominion: 24 De Iure Naturae et Gentium
[6]
Sovereignty Organized Hypocrisy, Stephen D. Krasner
[7]
Democracy, sovereignty and the European Union, Michael Newman, Pg 6 1997
[8]
Losing Control? Sovereignty in the age of Globalization, Saskia Sassen, Pg 2,
1996
[9]
Universal
Declaration of Human Rights,1948
[10]
Globalization and Legal Theory, William Twining, 2000
[11] Anthony
Giddens
[12]
Article 2(2), UN Charter
[13]
Theory of International Politics, Kenneth Waltz, 1979
[14]
European Commission, Manuscript 2007
[15] Lord Denning, judicial branch of the
House of Lords, in Denning 1990
[16]
Development Policy, Public policy foundation
[17] Sinha scheme to upgrade Saarc, The Telegraph
[18] A South Asian Union like European Union
with a single Currency (South Asian Rupee) like Euro, indiadaily.com
[19]
South Asia; Growth and regional integration, World Bank, 2007
[20]
SAARC Charter
No comments:
Post a Comment