Introduction
The concept of sovereignty has been an indefinite, ethereal issue both in the national and global arena. However, wars give a concrete shape to this concept. 'Old' interstate wars accurately defined state sovereignty as the right of nation-states to be free from outside intervention. This definition has been largely respected in the past. But all things changed when the notion of 'new wars' came into the fore. New wars are hostile to state sovereignty, asserting that human welfare and human rights are superior to state sovereignty. Thus, new wars entail humanitarian interventions that infiltrate sovereign borders in the name of protecting and preserving human rights. Therefore, this paper critically analyses the argument that newer forms of wars contribute to the disintegration of state sovereignty with the emergence of humanitarian military interventions.
In order to thoroughly examine the issue of state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention, it is necessary to identify the fundamental meaning of the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty is generally described in relation to external self-determination and internal power. Nevertheless, because both self-determination and power ebb and flow in the actual political world, it is more useful to describe sovereignty as jurisdiction-- the power to govern a demarcated territory and the people inhabiting it (Johnson, 2014). Such a description claims that sovereignty has both external and internal aspects. Nevertheless, it has particular uses because it is a standardised principle exercised to represent the behavioural norm among states. The normative rules of the international community, as well as sovereignty, ought to be valid in spite of violations or discrepancies, which take place in specific instances. Levels of self-determination and power can differ as they constantly do in specific cases, yet the power to govern stays as the fundamental component of sovereignty. However, the emergence of new wars changes these traditional principles of state sovereignty.
The Literature on War and Sovereignty
The literature on war and sovereignty generally talks about how the former defines the latter. Some scholars have shown that several features of the modern-day global order have resulted in the weakening of sovereignty. They have argued that the biggest threat to sovereignty arises from the duty to safeguard and defend international human rights. The literature is dominated by discussions of how sovereignty and human rights are brought together, conflicting and diverging systems (Johnson, 2014). For instance, it has been argued by some scholars, particularly Krasner, that traditional principles of sovereignty are threatened by the ideals of human rights (Johnson, 2014), claiming that the two concepts are contradictory and uncompromising.
Sovereignty is the key concept within state systems. Yet, it is also a quite misunderstood idea in the field of international relations. Such misunderstanding arises due to two key factors: first, the notion of sovereignty is actually a comparatively new idea associated with the formation of the nation-state as the main system of political organization; and, second, several present-day concerns and developments have increasingly restricted the practice of sovereign power (Kapferer, 2004). An expanded model of sovereignty currently visualizes non-state and state actors as taking part in a continuous course of reconstructing the principles of sovereignty.
Does RTP (Responsibility to Protect) Undermine State Sovereignty?
The notion of 'responsibility to protect' (RTP) is rooted in a particular interpretation of state sovereignty. However, RTP has been questioned for threateningly weakening sovereignty. In truth, RTP demands a difficult task for state sovereignty. Under given circumstances, RTP demands outside intervention and, hence, abandons the non-intervention rule being a core feature of state sovereignty (Shawki & Cox, 2009). In contrast, the basic international law doctrine of sovereignty hinders intervention or intrusion into domestic state affairs, and yet there is an expanding belief that the international community must respond to large-scale and methodical human rights violations by a state.
The RTP was referred to as 'new perspective' for it acknowledged the evolving aspects of global threats, the evolving nature of contemporary war, and emerging thoughts about human rights and state sovereignty (Glanville, 2013). The RTP recognized the limitations of current practices in dealing with these threats and hence the importance of developing new policies and principles to supplant them. In essence, RTP tackles the broad and expanding disparity between the established principle of international behavior as specified in the United Nations (UN) Charter and real-world behavior of the state. There is wide consensus that the primary importance of RTP to the debate on outside intervention and state sovereignty falls under the theoretical side (Glanville, 2013). The uniqueness of the RTP model of humanitarian intervention arises from how the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) described the fundamental feature of RTP, centred on an agreement on the appropriate steps to take when confronted with serious human rights violation, such as ethnic cleansing and genocide.
The paramount ideology of the ICISS is that state sovereignty involves RTP and, thus, all states have a duty to defend or safeguard its people from serious human rights violations (e.g. mass killings). Nevertheless, if any state is incapable or reluctant to fulfil that responsibility, the state revokes its sovereignty, and the RTP is handed over to the international community. Thus, the ICISS specified two key features of the RTP-- the responsibility of the international community in cases of gross human rights violations, and the responsibility of state sovereignty (Shawki & Cox, 2009). The ICISS also specified the criteria that should be met before military intervention-- the most repressive and forceful type of response-- occurs.
Therefore, if the 'responsibility to protect' encompasses and obliges sovereignty, then states, through the formation of international criminal courts (ICC), turn their protective duties over the international organization assigned to execute this obligation. This perception has led some to believe that the RTP undermines state sovereignty (Shawki & Cox, 2009). It is generally asserted that international institutions, which ensure that the responsibility to protect is met by states, threaten state sovereignty. Within this perspective, the responsibility to protect and state sovereignty are essentially in opposition. However, if the responsibility of state sovereignty to protect is taken into consideration, international institutions do not in any way undermine state sovereignty.
In contrast, the formation of international institutions is a natural outcome of sovereignty. If such protective responsibilities cannot be executed nationally, state sovereignty obliges that states look for other ways. The responsibility to protect as one of the natural features of state sovereignty eradicates the probability of inaction. By guaranteeing concerted response, international institutions hence accomplish the preventive or pre-emptive outcome of international criminal law (Glanville, 2013). Prospective human rights violators will be warned that their own state would make sure that they take responsibility for their actions.
The Nature of New Wars
The notion of 'new wars' defines a transformation in warfare. Mary Kaldor formulated the concept of 'new war' so as to distinguish between the new wars and the traditional interstate wars. Even though majority of new wars take place internally or domestically, they have varied global networks or connections (Flowers, 2013). Kaldor describes new wars based on globalisation's effect on warfare, emphasising key aspects that suggest a 'new war', namely, the decline of the state is aggravated; ethnic conflicts are bolstered; most of the targets are innocent civilians instead of soldiers; global crime affects how these wars are financially supported; terror and guerrilla techniques are exercised; and, it is rooted in asserting identity, not acquiring or defending territories (Kaldor, 2013). Two major examples of these new wars are the modern industrialised war and nuclear war.
Since the 1940s a number of highly industrialised nations have kept on producing and advancing weapons at a remarkably rapid rate. The dominant military at present are profoundly in the middle of what military scholars refer to as revolutionary changes in military operations-- these armed forces are restructuring their systems, tactics, and workforce around the most advanced technologies (Strachan & Scheipers, 2011). Because of the continuous advancement in technology, the threat of nuclear war has weakened, yet the threat of nuclear assault has grown. It is becoming more and more probable that a nuclear weapon will be used as an instrument of warfare in the foreseeable future (Strachan & Scheipers, 2011). Simply put, these wars are classified as 'new wars' because of their extensive international linkages and a more ambiguous objective.
These new forms of war are also exposed to militarised humanitarian interventions, which, in turn, contribute to the disintegration of state sovereignty. One perfect example is Russian involvement in the Turkey-Syria border conflict. A huge number of innocent civilians are deserting the Syrian Civil War combat zones after a new escalation in military actions by the government supported by the Russian military (Matthews, 2016). Russia appealed to the U.N. Security Council for the preservation of Syria's sovereignty, for transnational intervention and bombing to be relinquished (Matthews, 2016). Russia sees conflicts in the Middle East as an internal political issue. Russia backs up the Syrian government from the point of view that the state is the only genuine entity with the power to intervene in domestic conflicts.
New Wars: The Demise of Sovereignty with the Advent of Militarized Humanitarian Intervention
The contemporary global structure is rooted in the principle that state sovereignty encompasses the right to be free from unsolicited intervention of external forces in the affairs of the state. However, continuous humanitarian military interventions since the 1990s have challenged the notion of sovereign impunity in behalf of defending the civilian population from the adverse outcomes of hostilities (Weiss, 2013; Hehir, 2013). This human security model is based on the idea that human rights, not state sovereignty, are the foundation of a safe and fair global order. The importance of taking into consideration and recognising the numerous aspects of humanitarian military interventions have been raised by the reality that such interventions have grown in complexity and prevalence since the 1980s, and by the outcomes of the absence of intervention, like the 1994 Rwandan genocide, wherein a huge number of civilians were slaughtered in a short period of time (Grenfell & James, 2008). The same is true with Darfur, Sudan, wherein thousands of civilians were wiped out and dispossessed by government-supported forces (Everill & Kaplan, 2013). Thereby, militarised humanitarian intervention disregards state sovereignty in the name of defending or protecting even the most basic human rights.
New Wars and Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian intervention is generally needed due to the deceptive and unknown features of the new wars-- internal hostilities led mainly by non-state entities who exist on illegal and destructive economic practices, utilise low-technology mechanisms (e.g. small weaponry), and harass innocent civilians, such as media people and humanitarian workers. New wars have flared up and subsided in numerous regions across the globe, and humanitarian intervention has fulfilled a supportive task and, at times, hampered the process of conflict resolution (Badescu, 2010). Therefore, the concept of new wars is significant in numerous ways.
Above all, the concept of new wars has encouraged the examination of new policy frameworks. Through the connection of security to nonconventional origins of threats, national governments and the international community are provided a model that could guide the development of alternative measures, besides entirely militarised humanitarian intervention (Holzgrefe & Keohane, 2003; Lepard, 2010). The characteristics of these new wars demand distinctive types of intervention at different levels and in particular instances outside mere military intervention.
Conclusions
Contemporary wars or new wars, as named by Kaldor, are largely different from 'old' wars, most specifically in terms of its impact on state sovereignty. Old wars delineate sovereignty, but new wars weaken it. The 'responsibility to protect' doctrine of state sovereignty makes it possible for non-state or external actors to intervene during civil conflicts through humanitarian intervention. New wars have in fact made it possible. They hastened the breakdown of state sovereignty and bolstered justifications for militarised humanitarian interventions. But does RTP threaten state sovereignty? As discussed, the ICISS clearly identified the situations wherein the RTP must exercise outside intervention and abandon the traditional rule of state sovereignty, that is, in cases of serious human rights violations. So, if a state engages in any of these gross violations of human rights, the RTP would definitely undermine sovereignty by requiring the intervention of the international community.
The emergence of new wars, particularly modern industrialised wars and nuclear wars, has bolstered the need for humanitarian intervention and, in certain instances, militarised human intervention-- the Turkey-Syria conflict and the Russian intervention is a perfect example. These new wars involve serious human rights violation, which, consequently, necessitate the RTP doctrine to disregard the non-intervention rule of the traditional model of state sovereignty. Without a doubt, therefore, state sovereignty is greatly threatened by these new wars because of the needed humanitarian intervention accompanying it. Apparently, the international community also has a responsibility to protect, and its power over state sovereignty rises whenever crimes against humanity are perpetrated and the state involved refuses to take responsibility for its own actions. Non-intervention is not an option in instances of gross human rights violations, as vividly proven by the Rwandan genocide and the Darfur, Sudan mass killings.
References
Badescu, C. (2010) Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Security and Human Rights. London: Routledge.
Everill, B. & Kaplan, J. (2013) The History and Practice of Humanitarian Intervention and Aid in Africa. New York: Springer.
Flowers, M. (2013) Conflict Resolution: Peace Implementation in New Wars. UK: Lulu.com.
Glanville, L. (2013) Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: A New History. UK: University of Chicago Press.
Grenfell, D. & James, P. (2008) Rethinking Insecurity, War and Violence: Beyond Savage Globalisation? London: Routledge.
Hehir, A. (2013) Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holzgrefe, J. & Keohane, R. (2003) Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, J. (2014) Sovereignty: Moral and Historical Perspectives. UK: Georgetown University Press.
Kaldor, M. (2013) New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era. Sudbury, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
Kapferer, B. (2004) State, Sovereignty, War: Civil Violence in Emerging Global Realities. UK: Berghahn Books.
Lepard, B. (2010) Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention: A Fresh Legal Approach Based on Fundamental Ethical Principles in International Law and World Religions. Pennsylvania: Penn State Press.
Matthews, O. (2016). Putin's Winning in Syria-- But Making a Powerful New Enemy. [online] The Spectator. Available at: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/putins-winning-in-syria-but-making-a-powerful-new-enemy/ [Accessed 8 March 2016].
Shawki, N. & Cox, M. (2009) Negotiating Sovereignty and Human Rights: Actors and Issues in Contemporary Human Rights Politics. UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Strachan, H. & Scheipers, S. (2011) The Changing Character of War. Oxford, UK: OUP Oxford.
Weiss, T. (2013) Humanitarian Intervention. Sudbury, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
