The concept of state sovereignty affects virtually all principles of contemporary international law. It is impossible to understand the essence and character of the whole system of modern international relations, without the essence of state sovereignty. This concept is an essential legal and political state property.
Sovereignty is inherent in any state since its inception. However, its scope does not remain constant, but varies with the development of the state and its participation in international relations and the extent of their obligations. State sovereignty is manifested in its territorial supremacy within the state borders and foreign policy activities in which the actions of the state and its powers are determined by a number of factors (Besson, 2006).
The sovereignty of each State determines real internal environmental conditions in which it is located and operates. Moreover, the freedom of the state not only in the international arena, but also in internal affairs is limited to the principles of international law, its foreign obligations. The state cannot, for example, pass laws restricting fundamental human rights and freedoms, in violation of its obligations.
Historically, the concept of sovereignty is the result of protracted and bloody conflicts taking place in Western Europe. The peace of Westphalia signed in 1648 that ended the Thirty Years' War, proclaimed among its members the right to State territory and supremacy of the principles of equality, independence and sovereignty. The provisions set forth in the Treaty of Westphalia, for several centuries, were the basis of intergovernmental cooperation (McCarthy, 2012).
The principles enshrined in the Westphalian system did not remain the same as in the future, they have evolved under the influence of the evolution of international relations, the conclusion of new bilateral and multilateral treaties. In this regard, it should be noted that some scientists and government officials currently absolutise the principle of state sovereignty, referring to the dogma of the Westphalian system. Moreover, they deny the primacy of international law and the direct effect of its provisions, as this may cause, in their opinion, to the "loosening of national legal systems".
Until the end of the Second World War international agreements absolutised sovereignty and proceeded from having to comply without any restrictions. The UN Charter was the first multilateral treaty in the history of international relations, to fix a wide range of principles and norms of international law, which have acquired the character of a recognized, valid "erga omnes"(Donath, 1999).
The sovereignty of states is limited by the principles of "jus cogens", acting "erga omnes". This is not a complete list of the sovereignty of the restrictions imposed by international law on the state.
Special mention should be made to the European Convention on Human Rights. Established in accordance with the said Convention, the mechanism is actually a supranational authority. Its establishment required the states - members of the Council of Europe to abandon stereotypes of absolute state sovereignty. Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, relevant precedent, have a significant influence on the formation and development of the doctrines of European law.
One of the most effective and dynamically developing regional formations, which the State has a significant portion of their sovereign rights, is the European Union. Its members recognize the primacy of international law and Community law. Thus, State sovereignty in contemporary international relations is limited not only international, but also the right of regional organizations. Some of these organizations are gradually transformed into the State Union. On their territory it applies not only national law, but regional and international law, which greatly restrict the sovereign rights of Member States (Mowbray, 2003).
The process of limiting the sovereign rights of states is not painless. One measure of the complexity of this process is the deviation of the EU Constitution in a referendum in a number of countries - EU members. On the one hand, some members of the European Union have called for further deepening of integration and the transfer of more rights to supranational bodies, and on the other – they call for decentralization and the return of a number of sovereign powers of the member states. The contradictory nature of this process is inevitable, because it is largely due to the complexity of the tasks facing the international community. In a globalizing world only through a reasonable combination of interests of the state, the individual and the international community as a whole, you can create a rule of law that will be worthy of the civilization of the XXI century (Donath, 1999).
A major limitation of the sovereignty of states was the recognition of a number of massive and flagrant violations of human rights, the commission of which entails criminal responsibility, as international crimes. In this regard, particular importance was the establishment and operation of the Nuremberg Tribunals and Japan. Finally, the International Criminal Court began to work after its Statute was adopted in 1998 (Welch, 2015).
In many cases, similar violations are a serious threat to global peace and security, the very existence of the human person, and the international community not only has the right to express its "concern", but also the duty to intervene. This it can do, according to the UN Secretary General, "even the most radical and expensive way - by military intervention." (Mowbray, 2001).
Humanitarian intervention, occurring as a result of unilateral acts of States without the approval of the UN Security Council, is not always dictated by their military, political, economic and other interests. Many of them do occur for humane reasons and justified by the facts of mass killings of civilians and the nature of the regime against which they are directed. It is suffice to recall the intervention of India in 1971, which resulted in was stopped by the civil war in East Pakistan and the Republic of Bangladesh achieved independence. In 1978, Vietnam has carried out humanitarian intervention in Cambodia, putting an end to the rule of Pol Pot regime, unleashed the genocide in that country, which killed between 2 and 3 million persons. In 1979 Tanzania intervened in Uganda and overthrew the dictatorship of Idi Amin. This list of interventions carried out in the name of truly humanitarian purposes, can be continued. It is unlikely that history will judge these incursions because the intervention was justified by the extreme forms of oppression and massacres and killings of civilians (Spiro, 2016).
The practice of international relations in a globalized world has shown that the use of force for humanitarian and other purposes may result in the establishment of long-term control over the whole or part of the national territory by a group of States or the international community (Yugoslavia, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq). It is therefore particularly important to use armed force only in accordance with the UN Charter and the UN Security Council and only when completely exhausted other measures impact on the State. Otherwise, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention to be used exclusively in foreign policy to those or other states.
References
Besson, S. (2006). The European Union and Human Rights: Towards A Post-National Human Rights Institution?. Human Rights Law Review, 6(2), 323-360.
Donath, J. (1999). Why Do State Give Up Sovereignity?. Int Studies Review, 1(3), 168-170.
McCarthy, C. (2012). Orna Ben-Naftali (ed.), International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law. Human Rights Law Review, 12(4), 820-825.
Mowbray, A. (2001). EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS AND RECENT CASES. Human Rights Law Review, 1(2), 333-354.
Mowbray, A. (2003). EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS PROPOSALS AND RECENT CASES. Human Rights Law Review, 3(2), 301-321.
Spiro, P. (2016). Sovereignity, statehood and self-determination in international law - The Kosovo case. Academicus International Scientific Journal, 13, 184-204.
Welch, R. (2015). National Human Rights Institutions: Domestic Implementation of International Human Rights Law. Human Rights Law Review, 17(8), 112-138
