Sovereign state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Member states of the United Nations, all of which are sovereign states, though not all
sovereign states are necessarily members
A sovereign state is, in international law, a nonphysical juridical entity that is
represented by one centralised government that has sovereignty over a geographic area.
International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined
territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign
states.[1] It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor
subjected to any other power or state.[2]
The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[3] While according to the
declarative theory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by
other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treatymaking powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

Contents
[hide]

1 Emergence of states

2 Westphalian sovereignty

3 Recognition
o 3.1 Constitutive theory
o 3.2 Declarative theory
o 3.3 State practice
o 3.4 De facto and de jure states

4 Relationship between state and government

5 State extinction

6 Ontological status of the state

o 6.1 The state as "quasi-abstract"
o 6.2 The state as "spiritual entity"

7 Trends in the number of states

8 See also

9 References
o 9.1 Bibliography

10 Further reading

11 External links

Emergence of states[edit]
States came into existence as people "gradually transferred their allegiance from an
individual sovereign (king, duke, prince) to an intangible but territorial political entity,
of the state".[4] States are but one of several political orders that emerged from feudal
Europe, others being city states, leagues, and empires with universalist claims to
authority.[5]

Westphalian sovereignty[edit]
Main article: Westphalian sovereignty
Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on territoriality
and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures. It is an international
system of states, multinational corporations, and organizations that began with the
Peace of Westphalia in 1648.
Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused.[6][7] Up until the 19th century, the
radicalised concept of a "standard of civilization" was routinely deployed to determine
that certain peoples in the world were "uncivilised", and lacking organised societies.
That position was reflected and constituted in the notion that their "sovereignty" was
either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of
"civilised" people."[8] Lassa Oppenheim said "There exists perhaps no conception the
meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable
fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science
until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon."[9] In
the opinion of H. V. Evatt of the High Court of Australia, "sovereignty is neither a
question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all."[10]

Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of
self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens
norms of modern international law. The United Nations Charter, the Draft Declaration
on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organizations
express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties
based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law.[11][12] The
right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent
sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognised.[13][14][15]
In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the
state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that
is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one.[16]
Named after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the Westphalian System of state
sovereignty, which according to Bryan Turner is "made a more or less clear separation
between religion and state, and recognised the right of princes 'to confessionalise' the
state, that is, to determine the religious affiliation of their kingdoms on the pragmatic
principle of cuius regio eius religio."[17]
The Westphalian model of state sovereignty has increasingly come under fire from the
"non-west" as a system imposed solely by Western Colonialism. What this model did
was make religion a subordinate to politics,[17] a problem that has caused some issues in
the Islamic world. This system does not fit in the Islamic world because concepts such
as "separation of church and state" and "individual conscience" are not recognised in the
Islamic religion as social systems.
In casual usage, the terms "country", "nation", and "state" are often used as if they were
synonymous; but in stricter usage they can be distinguished:[citation needed]

Country denotes a region of land defined by geographical features or political

boundaries.

Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common

customs, religion, language, origins, ancestry or history. However, the adjectives
national and international are frequently used to refer to matters pertaining to
what are strictly sovereign states, as in national capital, international law.

State refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have
sovereignty over a definite territory and population. Sovereign states are legal
persons.

Recognition[edit]
State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also
being a sovereign state.[18] Recognition can be either expressed or implied and is usually
retroactive in its effects. It does not necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain
diplomatic relations.

There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on
the criteria for statehood. In actual practice, the criteria are mainly political, not legal.[19]
L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn Polish and Czechoslovak states in World
War I and explained that "since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is
open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the
existence of territory or of an established government."[20]
In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be
recognised as sovereign.[21]

Constitutive theory[edit]
The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if,
and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was
developed in the 14th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state
recognised it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of
the international community or be bound by international law, and recognised nations
did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.[22] In 1815 at the
Congress of Vienna the Final Act recognised only 39 sovereign states in the European
diplomatic system, and as a result it was firmly established that in the future new states
would have to be recognised by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by
one or more of the great powers.[23]
One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states
recognise a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's
main proponents, suggested that it is a state's duty to grant recognition as a possible
solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give
recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only
recognise another state if it is to their advantage.[22]
In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:
International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it isn't
recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only
and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International
Law.[24]

Declarative theory[edit]
By contrast, the declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in
international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent
population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states.
According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition
by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933
Montevideo Convention.[25]
Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent
of recognition by other states, and the state is not prohibited from defending itself.[26] In
contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory
of statehood.

A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is

expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration
Committee, which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and
a political authority.[citation needed]

State practice[edit]
State practice relating to the recognition of states typically falls somewhere between the
declaratory and constitutive approaches.[27] International law does not require a state to
recognise other states.[28]
Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about
in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international
community of Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this. In the former
case, recognition was widely withheld when the white minority seized power and
attempted to form a state along the lines of Apartheid South Africa, a move that the
United Nations Security Council described as the creation of an "illegal racist minority
rgime".[29] In the latter case, recognition was widely withheld from a state created in
Northern Cyprus on land illegally invaded by Turkey in 1974.[30]

De facto and de jure states[edit]

Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e., they exist both in law and in
reality). However, a state may be recognised only as a de jure state, in that it is
recognised as being the legitimate government of a territory over which it has no actual
control. For example, during the Second World War, governments-in-exile of a number
of continental European states continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies,
notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation. The PLO and
Palestinian Authority claim that the State of Palestine is a sovereign state, a claim which
has been recognised by most states, though the territory it claims is under the de facto
control of Israel.[31][45] Other entities may have de facto control over a territory but lack
international recognition; these may be considered by the international community to be
only de facto states. They are considered de jure states only according to their own law
and by states that recognise them. For example, Somaliland is commonly considered to
be such a state.[46][47][48][49] For a list of entities that wish to be universally recognised as
sovereign states, but do not have complete worldwide diplomatic recognition, see the
list of states with limited recognition.

Relationship between state and government[edit]

Although the terms "state" and "government" are often used interchangeably,[50]
international law distinguishes between a non-physical state and its government; and in
fact, the concept of "government-in-exile" is predicated upon that distinction.[51] States
are non-physical juridical entities, and not organisations of any kind.[52] However,
ordinarily, only the government of a state can obligate or bind the state, for example by
treaty.[51]

State extinction[edit]

Generally speaking, states are durable entities, though it is possible for them to be
become extinguished, either through voluntary means or outside forces, such as military
conquest. According to a 2004 study, violent state death has virtually ceased since the
end of World War II.[53] Because states are non-physical juridical entities, it has been
argued their extinction cannot be due to physical force alone.[54] Instead, the physical
actions of the military must be associated with the correct social or judiciary actions in
order to abolish a state.

Ontological status of the state[edit]

The ontological status of the state has been the subject of debate,[55] specially, whether or
not the state, being an object that no one can see, taste, touch, or otherwise detect,[56]
actually exists.

The state as "quasi-abstract"[edit]

It has been argued that one potential reason as to why the existence of states has been
controversial is because states do not have a place in the traditional Platonist duality of
the concrete and the abstract.[57] Characteristically, concrete objects are those that have
position in time and space, which states do not have (though their territories have spatial
position, but states are distinct from their territories), and abstract objects have position
in neither time nor space, which does not fit the supposed characteristics of states either,
since states do have temporal position (they can be created at certain times and then
become extinct at a future time). Also, abstract objects are characteristically completely
non-causal, which is also not a characteristics of states, since states can act in the world
and can cause certain events (though only by actions taken on their behalf through a
representative).[58] Therefore, it has been argued that states belong to a third category, the
quasi-abstract, that has recently begun to garner philosophical attention, specially in the
area of documentality, an ontological theory that seeks to understand the role of
documents in understanding all of social reality. Quasi-abstract objects, such as states,
can be brought into being through document acts, and can also be used to manipulate
them, such as by binding them by treaty or surrendering them as the result of a war.[57]
Scholars in international relations can be broken up into two different practices, realists
and pluralists, of what they believe the ontological state of the state is. Realists believe
that the world is one of only states and interstate relations and the identity of the state is
defined before any international relations with other states. On the other hand, pluralists
believe that the state is not the only actor in international relations and interactions
between states and the state is competing against many other actors.[59]

The state as "spiritual entity"[edit]

Another theory of the ontology of the state is that the state is a spiritual[60] or "mystical
entity"[60] with its own being, distinct from the members of the state.[60] The German
Idealist philosopher Georg Hegel (1770-1831) was perhaps the greatest proponent of
this theory.[60] The Hegelian definition of the state is "the Divine Idea as it exists on
Earth."[61]

Trends in the number of states[edit]

Since the end of World War II, the number of sovereign states in the international
system has surged.[62] Some research suggests that the existence of international and
regional organizations, the greater availability of economic aid, and greater acceptance
of the norm of self-determination have increased the desire of political units to secede
and can be credited for the increase in the number of states in the international system.[63]
[64]
Harvard economist Alberto Alesina and Tufts economist Enrico Spolaore argue in
their book, Size of Nations, that the increase in the number of states can partly be
credited to a more peaceful world, greater free trade and international economic
integration, democratization, and the presence of international organizations that
coordinate economic and political policies