This paper will discuss the idea of sovereignty after the Cold War, it will examine how the idea of sovereignty has changed as the world becomes more globalized and why the concept of non-interference is no longer acceptable in a world that is becoming more global.
Sovereignty is the dominion over a territory. There are four different types of sovereignty. These are Westphalian, which refers to the authority within a country and disregards external factors, interdependence sovereignty or the ability of the country to control the migration to and from their country, domestic sovereignty is the ability of the government to control the actions of people within the borders of their state, and international legal sovereignty, which is the idea of mutual recognition of judicially recognizable states. These countries are seen as being equal to each other. (Krasner 26)
The sovereignty of several nations was lost during the Cold War as nations in the Middle East and Asia were weakened during the first and second world wars and were unable to return to their former glory. The effect of the World Wars also caused the collapse of the British Empire, which lost India, its territories in the West Indies, and many other regions it had once controlled. The final loss of their status as a superpower came because of the Suez Crisis. The shift in power that occurred after the World Wars caused many of the states once under British control to become polarized and resulted in them aligning with another superpower. Several nations in the Middle East aligned themselves with the Soviet Union, as did some states in Asia, such as Vietnam and China. According to Alice Lyman Miller a superpower is "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony"(Lyman-Miller).
These alignments caused kingdoms like Poland, Yugoslavia, Latvia, Finland, Estonia and Lithuania, which were created after the end of the First World War to suffer identity crises as they struggled to keep the ideas and freedoms that they felt was necessary for the people of their country, while also taking on traits of the country that they aligned themselves with. There were other realms that had once been under the power of a superpower that were no longer. These states which included the Philippines, Burma, Pakistan, India, Ceylon, Indonesia, Israel and Palestine now had the freedoms that had long been denied to them. This was something that happened to several states that had once been under the control of the Soviet Union. These republics included, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. After the fall of the Soviet Union there were six new or restored republics in Eastern Europe. These states are Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova and the Ukraine. Other Eastern European countries that were under Soviet control, while not being a part of the Soviet Union were Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia. In 1989 the Berlin wall would fall uniting East and West Germany, Czechoslovakia would become Slovakia and the Czech Republic and Yugoslavia would collapse creating several nations in its place. These new nations consist of Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Slovenia (Owl and Mouse). When the nations were no longer under the control of the Soviet’s Communist regime, they began to support human rights, democracy and the people started speaking their own languages again.
The Cold War also brought the rise of failed kingdoms, such as the Republic of Congo. This is because the power was given to the Congolese intelligentsia, which did not have the experience to initiate and to keep control over the populace despite being granted authority over the country. The Congolese rulers also struggled to pass laws that were beneficial to the people and to enforce the laws that were passed. The general sense of tension in the country has caused it to become a hotbed of violence (Riggs in Rosenau, 91-92).
In order for a country to succeed it must have laws in place the showcase the moral fiber of the country, laws must be revised when it is needed, there must be a judicial and executive governmental body to administer the laws that are enacted and to settle disputes that arise in respect to the laws, there must also be a force that will enforce the laws when the populace is defying them and finally, the people should be content enough within their own lives that they do not seek to change their situation by engaging in acts of violence (Riggs in Rosenau, 90).
Overall the failed state is one that is not able to sustain itself when it comes to being a participant of the international community. This is primarily because it is unable to compete economically or politically creating instability and the lack of security within their own country. (Dorff). The problems within a failed state eventually effect the international community because countless people seek refuge in other states as they try to escape the human rights violations that often occur in nations where the leaders hold tenuous power. Even when a failed state is not plagued by a leader that is committing or condoning human rights violations, there is still the issues of disease and starvation which results in them becoming threats to global security. (Chase, et al).
The failed kingdoms were not the only ones to struggle after the culmination of the Cold War. Republics which have existed for many centuries found their power being shifted because of the United Nations redistributing power. This has caused numerous conflicts in the “developing” world on the intranational level. Resulting in several domestic conflicts in which the government is responsible for several of the deaths within the country.
When the Cold War ended the idea of state sovereignty remained as it had since the creation of the Munster and Osnabruck Treaties in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Peace of Westphalia made the state more powerful than the individual and the church, by making the state the most powerful political, social and economic entity in Europe. The Peace of Westphalia also gave the principles of state sovereignty that are still used today. These principles include that a state has complete control over the internal affairs that occur within the confines of their territory. The state is to govern its people and will not try to interfere with the rule of another government. States are entitled to self-defense and the ability to engage in non-intervention when it comes to other states. (Brown 54). The importance of the principles of Westphalia was emphasized by the United Nations when it was codified within its own charter that “The organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members” (Charter of the United Nations: Volume 1). Ultimately the states and not the people living within the state are seen as being members of the international community when it comes to Westphalia (Thomson 213). The implementation of the Peace of Westphalia was often dependent on the way that leaders controlled the populace. This control was often augmented by the fact that other countries practiced a policy of non-intervention and therefore allowed states to have absolute control over their population. This level of control has enabled leaders to fend off those who would challenge their power. One of the ways that this was done was by taking away the rights of the citizens to have guns and permitted armed military and police to actively engage citizens. (Tilly). The threat of violence and the loss of civil liberties within such republics meant that the people were not able to express themselves or challenge the laws of the country.
While there has been a shift from the interests of the state to that of the people, there is also the need of the United Nations to establish that a separation of the populace based on such concepts as race, religion, language, etc. is not something that is supported by the United Nations. This is because the United Nations has nothing within its laws that enables people or groups to succeed because they are not comfortable with the defined majority of the country that they live in. This was iterated by former Secretary General Boutros-Galli. “If every ethnic, religious, or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation; and peace, security and economic well-being for all would become difficult to achieve. One requirement for solutions to these problems lies in the commitment to human rights with a special sensitivity to those of minorities, whether ethnic, religious, social or linguistic” (quoted by Ayoob 177).
After the Cold War ended the United Nations were able to fulfill their international peacekeeping mission without feeling as though the organization had to abide by any ideological ideals when making a decision or constantly taking into consideration Cold War strategy when it came to making international decisions. In the 1990’s after the Cold War had ended the United Nations committed to over forty peacekeeping missions throughout the world. This was very different from the peacekeeping missions that had occurred during the Cold War, when they were focused on establishing peace between realms that were engaged in war.
During the Cold War nations were driven to terminate conflicts internally without subjecting themselves to external intervention. This did not last as the global awareness that has occurred over the last thirty years has brought to the forefront numerous human rights violations and crimes against humanity that has propelled states to react even though the nations in question are sovereign. This has resulted in an international community that is more aware of the world outside of their bubble and the increased willingness to stand against the atrocities that are occurring in several republics throughout the world. The international communities realized that it was impossible for countries to remain sovereign yet engage in globalization. This was addressed in 1992 by General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who stated “The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty, however, has passed; its theory was never matched by reality” (quoted by Weiss and Daws in The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations).
The reason for this is because while we had in the past ignored human rights violations that were occurring in other kingdoms, this perspective changed drastically after the Holocaust, when it was realized that the international community had not reacted to intervene when millions of people were executed by the Nazis because of their religion, sexual preference, deformities and countless other reasons. This realization, which became stronger during the Cold War, created the need of the international community to help and protect the people of other states. Countless citizens no longer saw themselves as cut off from the rest of the world, but as a part of an international community and they seek to create a global society that is based on equality, understanding, respect and the celebration of differences.
The move to create a world that was based on global awareness has also caused numerous realms willing to engage in more conflicts than before. As the policies of non-interference and sovereignty that had existed before are no longer enough to satisfy the needs of the populace, who find themselves more concerned with the needs of the people rather than the sovereignty of a nation.
Despite the overwhelming belief of several nations that they must address what they view as human rights violations in other republics, there is the still the desire for most countries not to interfere with how other countries are run. They want to stand against the violations while also taking a stance of non-interference and allowing the country to keep its sovereignty. Allowing nations to keep their sovereignty is important because it supports the rights of the nations that were established by the Peace of Westphalia and it prevents international conflicts from breaking out.
In Europe, it was important to examine sovereignty in regards to human rights when it came to the way that several European kingdoms handled international incidences after the Cold War. It was established by the Foreign Minister of China, Tang Jiaxuan, Boris Yeltsin, the former President of Russia and Jaswant Singh, the Foreign Minister of India in the late 1990’s that the states were to have continued sovereignty and that the boundaries of each state were to be respected. It was agreed that state sovereignty was not to be affected when a country carried out military actions against another country. Therefore the action that NATO took against Kosovo was criticized by both Russia and China. NATO, which was headed by the United Stated had gone against the wishes of the United Nations and had sent military troops into Kosovo with no regard for the country’s sovereignty all in the name of human rights and humanitarianism. This decision caused unrest amongst the members of NATO and the leaders of other countries who were worried that a new precedence had been set when dealing with international issues. This precedent included the idea of not only fighting wars based on maintaining a country’s sovereignty, but also because the rights of the people are as valued as the control of the state. The President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Havel said the following about the situation, “Kosovo is probably the first war fought that is not being fought in the name of interests, but in the name of certain principles and values” (Vaclav Havel, Speech to a joint session of the Senate and House of Commons quoted by Smith and Latawski).
Kosovo did not have any of the things that normally entice other nations to assist one another, such as oil fields, or any other major natural resource. The leader of Yugoslavia was not threatening any of the republics that were part of NATO in his attacks on the people of Kosovo. However, NATO decided to aid the people of Kosovo because they felt that it was necessary to stand up against those who were infringing on the rights of others. This was because people in other countries were not able to watch as a leader ordered the genocide of millions of people. It was with the action taken in regards to Kosovo that it was established that fighting on behalf of human rights was just as important as fighting for sovereignty.
Since the action in Kosovo, there have been numerous incidences around the world in which the sovereignty of a country has been put into question when it came to the way that human rights were being addressed within the country. This is seen in the United Nations challenging the results of elections where the winner belongs to a group that is known to have questionable pasts when it comes to human rights. Thereby strengthening the idea that the rights of humanity have become more important than the rights of a country to enjoy political independence, especially in a world that has become more globally aware.
Europe was not the only region that was affected by the conclusion of the Cold War. States within Africa that were created as a result of the Cold War. These states were soon discovered to be more powerful on an international context rather than a domestic one as they were able to use their rules and administrative structure to gain acceptance and to be treated by other states as strong political entities while lacking the ability to implement any real change and policies within their own nation. During the Cold War, other states had provided support to keep these regimes in power, but with the close of the Cold War these governments which were never able to strengthen themselves were found to be increasingly weak. Therefore, several of the leaders began to approach their leadership role from a more authoritarian perspective as they struggled to hold on to power.
The result of this global awareness is that human rights are seen as being as important as the four facets of sovereignty, which are authority, independence, population and territory (Hehir 67). For countless people not getting involved to stop the violations of human rights is as bad as committing the rights violations. (Hehir 68) After the events of Kosovo, the United Nations passed a Resolution that stated that if a country fails to defend the civil liberties of its citizens, then the international community can take decisive and timely action to protect the rights of the people of said state with approval from the Security Council (2005 World Summit Outcome: Draft Resolution Referred to the High-Level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly). Working to protect the rights of people on a global level is important in a world that has become interconnected internationally. Businesses and organizations are now polycentric as they seek to gain international cooperation in a global market. This has changed the decision making and political landscape of a number of countries because they have begun looking at how their actions may affect their standing in the global community. There has also been a change in the way that war is conducted. In the past, wars were conducted between states, with each having their defined boundaries. Now, wars are fought on philosophical lines with there being little to separate the two. Another issue is that terrorist organizations like ISIS are no longer confined to the states in which they have their issues, but have grown to operate on a global level as they now have members and supporters all over the world. It is believed that this shift has been caused by the increased influence of Western society on the rest of the world and the fear that many nations in the Middle East have that Western values and materialism will pervade their lives and overtake their culture.
In conclusion, the biggest changes that came about with the termination of the Cold War were the shift in the power structure that effected many states as well as the creation of a globalized society where it is necessary to balance, abiding by the Peace of Westphalia, which calls for countries to be able to govern their citizens without interference and the importance of the international community to stand up against human rights violations that occur in other countries. Overall, the change in perspective that has come about due to globalization and the willingness of other countries to forego the non-intervention of the Peace of Westphalia has been mostly positive. This is because countries are becoming more willing to engage and Democracy. However, there are still areas that are not interested in Democracy or Western ideals such as North Korea and many states in the Middle East.
Works Cited
2005 World Summit Outcome: Draft Resolution Referred to the High-Level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly. UN, 2005.
Ayoob, Mohammed. The Third World Security Predicament: State Making, Regional Conflict, and the International System. L. Rienner Publishers, 1995.
Brown, Chris. Sovereignty, Rights, and Justice: International Political Theory Today. Polity P, 2002.
The Charter of the United Nations: Volume 1. Oxford U press, 2012.
Chase, Robert, et al. The Pivotal States: A New Framework for U.s. Policy in the Developing World. W.W. Norton, 1999.
Dorff, Robert. "Democratization and Failed States: The Challenge of Ungovernability." Parameters, 1996, strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/96summer/dorff.htm. Accessed 3 Jan. 2017.
Hehir, Aidan. Humanitarian Intervention After Kosovo: Iraq, Darfur and the Record of Global Civil Society. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
Krasner, Stephen D. "Rethinking the Sovereign State Model. Review of International Studies (print). 7-42.
Lyman-Miller, Alice. "SJIR: China an Emerging Superpower?" Stanford University, web.stanford.edu/group/sjir/6.1.03_miller.html. Accessed 5 Jan. 2017.
Owl and Mouse. "Map of Iron Curtain and Ex-U.S.S.R. (former Soviet Union) Countries." Educational Software - Maps, Learn to Read and More, www.yourchildlearns.com/online-atlas/cold-war-map.htm. Accessed 5 Jan. 2017.
Rosenau, James N. "The Nation State and Other Actors." International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory, Free P, 1969, pp. 90-93.
Smith, Martin, and Paul Latawski. The Kosovo Crisis: The Evolution of Post Cold War European Security. Manchester UP, 2003.
Thomson, Janice E. "State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Empirical Research." International Studies Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2, 1995, p. 213.
Tilly, Charles. Coercion, Capital, and European States, Ad 990-1990. B. Blackwell, 1990.
Weiss, Thomas G, and Sam Daws. The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations. Oxford UP, 2007.
