Back then, topics like sovereignty, or sovereign
state were never actually discussed. I’ve
found out since then that it’s because no one seems to understand or agree
about what they really mean. They are an
amorphous cloud that shifts and changes over time. A medieval king shared
territory with his barons and had no exclusive control of it. He was in some
ways subordinate to the church, in other ways its co-equal, and often its
rival. He enforced not just laws, but
customs also. His face was on coinage
and the face changed with each new king.
He was not sovereign in the way we think of it now, and even today, U.S.
sovereignty as defined under the Constitution is not the same sovereignty
enjoyed by a Saudi monarch, who remains subject to Sharia, not secular law. China routinely exiles dissidents, a
sovereign power specifically rejected in our Constitution. So the next time a senator gets up and goes
on about some proposal violating our sovereign rights, for example the Kyoto
Treaty or The Law of the Seas or the International Criminal Court, ask him (if
only you could) just what he means. It
might prove interesting.
Sovereignty involves of course the question of
just who is in charge of the whole mess and responsible for fixing it, or at
least major parts of it. I’ve been interested in it lately as I ponder the
shifting responsibilities of governments, alliances, corporations and just
ordinary people to make the world a little better place. We are rapidly transforming the planet
through globalization of commerce, instant communication, international
terrorism, global climate change, migration, etc., into a place that could not
be recognized by our grandparents. One
of the hazards we face with such rapid change is unplanned entrenchment of notions,
practices, institutions, infrastructure, etc., that inhibit our futures and the
futures of our own grandchildren.
An
idea being circulated these days is the obsolescence of the sovereign state,
e.g., the U.S. or Russia or Germany, as something no longer able to cope with
the complexities of a truly global environment. The proposition is that its
powers are rapidly being eroded away until the nation state as we knew it
becomes at best only a puppet for institutions newly evolving from
international bodies, multi-national corporations, etc. Of course that raises the question of erosion
versus natural evolution of functions as times change. When I was growing up, they used to grumble
that the United Nations was going to take over everything. The erosion of sovereignty idea is a lot like
that, only a lot more sophisticated, and possibly a lot truer. And if sovereign states do fade into
unimportance, what will replace them? They provide a territorial base for provision
of goods and services that we collectively call government. Their historical importance has been as protector
and nurturer of individuals in a world that otherwise sees them only for their
utilitarian value, and as enablers for the voice of the individual to be heard. The policy-making decision process now seems
ground to a halt by continuing partisan impasse, we are relying more and more
on the power of non-territorial social networks to make ourselves heard, and
governments are contracting out goods and services to private corporations. If that’s our future, will our grandchildren
be better off for it?
So then, what are those sovereign powers being
eroded away, and how does it happen?
Bear with me on this, for I’m organizing myself for a trek that will
lead directly to issues like European debt, and what to do about climate change
and other less abstract topics, in subsequent posts. After searching vainly for one on the net,
I’ve cobbled together the following list.
I believe all sovereign powers, past and present, can be found under this list, but if there’s
one I missed, let me know.
SOVEREIGN POWERS
Legitimate (i.e., recognized) and exclusive right
to:
Acquire and hold territory subject to exclusive
jurisdiction
Control access to its territory via immigration,
emigration and exile
Exercise coercive force including execution, for defense and police
Establish rules for citizenship and personhood.
Make rules, laws and regulations superior to those
of any subdivision
Enter into agreements with other sovereign states
or declare war with them
Appoint representatives of the sovereign authority
and delegate limited powers to them
Coin, regulate the value and require use of money
(“legal tender”)
Provide for and regulate shared facilities for
transportation and communication
Regulate commerce internally and with other
sovereign states
Secure the natural, legal and customary rights of
persons and citizens subject to the sovereign authority
Exercise inherent powers required for carrying out
listed powers (e.g., collection of revenue).
Note that under my definition, sovereignty responsibility
includes things like promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings
of liberty to the extent they are recognized as the rights of persons or
citizens. That’s a heritage of our western European culture not necessarily
found in other parts of the world, before now.
That’s why nations like Syria or Afghanistan seem to us to be failing in
their responsibilities; they don’t have the same concept of the rights of the
individual as ours. A law protecting the
rights of women is not going to happen until there is a societal sense that
women have rights which must be respected; heresy and dissent are punishable
crimes so long as there is a societal belief that error has no rights. Part of the chaos on the international scene
from things like the Arab spring and the occupy movements arises from the
introduction via international communications of new ideas about rights into
societies without the sovereign structures to support them. A new concept, the responsibility to protect,
the basis for United Nations actions against Libya and Syria, implies a right
of citizens to be protected against excessive exercise of sovereign power; that
right is still not accepted as legitimate by nations like China and Russia, so
there is no law against use of excessive force.
My belief is that many of the current crises
around the world, from European debt to third world starvation to international
terrorism, have as a root cause either the erosion of sovereignty or the
inadequacies of traditional sovereignty to handle complex changes in the global
world. That is, our concepts of the
location and powers and responsibilities of so called sovereign authority are
outdated and must be redefined for a global age. Otherwise, we throw up our hands and feel
powerless to find solutions. Solutions of
global issues will require a better understanding of just who is responsible
for what. Subsequent posts will include my
little attempts to contribute to the process by looking at the crises through
the lens of sovereign powers and responsibilities, focusing on just a few of
them that, in my view, have special
weight in our current global environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment