VO2_Krasner-Sovereignty-2001

Author: Stephen D. Krasner
Source: Foreign Policy, Jan.-Feb., 2001, No. 122
Stable URL: JSTOR Link
Importance of sovereignty as a concept in international relations, exploring its history and contemporary relevance.

Early concepts of sovereignty as introduced by Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes focused on establishing a single authority to maintain order in inherently chaotic political settings.
Concerns about tyranny arose from empowering the sovereign too much, reflecting historical challenges such as the sectarian strife Bodin faced.
Key Point: Sovereignty historically equated to domestic authority but has evolved in practice due to challenges posed by both internal factions and external influences.

The assertion that states are autonomous and independent has been consistently challenged; not all states enjoy full control, with many being susceptible to external pressures and interventions.
Examples of weakened sovereignty include post-World War II Japan and Germany being influenced by the U.S., and the UK's EU membership despite rejecting the euro.
Sovereignty still offers benefits such as international recognition, which facilitates access to global finance and political status for leaders.

Critics of sovereignty claim it is nearly extinct, especially in light of globalization, yet this oversimplifies complex international realities where technology has altered but not eliminated state authority.
Sovereignty historically allowed for internal governance decisions, the establishment of treaties, and barring foreign intervention.

The Peace of Westphalia (1648) is often credited for solidifying the modern sovereign state concept, but it primarily reaffirmed pre-existing authority structures of the Holy Roman Empire rather than creating new ones.
Religious tolerance introduced by Westphalia contradicted later notions of national sovereignty, underscoring historical complexities surrounding authority.

The evolution of international norms regarding human rights has continuously challenged the traditional concept of sovereignty.
Historical attempts, such as minority rights provisions post-Napoleonic wars and post-World War I settlements, sought to impose limitations on state sovereignty concerning human rights.
Although the post-World War II focus shifted toward more generalized human rights, enforcement mechanisms remain weak, demonstrating the ongoing tension between sovereignty and international norms.

The assertion that globalization undermines state control overlooks the resilience of states in managing historical flows of people, goods, and ideas.
Technological advancements have helped states adapt; for example, lessons learned from previous financial crises have improved state responses to globalization.

States have occasionally reduced their control in certain areas, recognizing that intervention can lead to instability; religious authority was one instance where control was ceded.
The roles of states regarding monetary policies and citizenship have evolved, with governments recognizing the need for flexibility in a globalized economy.

The number and influence of NGOs have grown, challenging state sovereignty, particularly in terms of domestic decision-making.
However, the comparative political power of these organizations often remains limited relative to major states or financial institutions such as the IMF.

The rigid application of sovereignty rules can obstruct conflict resolution, exemplified by the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian situation and Tibetan autonomy.
Innovative political solutions may be necessary that stray from traditional sovereignty concepts to enable peace.

The EU represents a unique model of supranational governance, diverging significantly from conventional sovereignty norms, as member states now share authority in ways that complicate national self-determination.
Nonetheless, the EU model is not universally replicable due to historical and political specificities unique to Europe.
The context of international relations and the political history of member states, especially Germany's approach post-WWII, illustrates the complex layering of sovereignty in a modern context.