It’s frustrating that inhumane leaders can hide behind their right to sovereignty when they commit atrocities domestically. It’s clear that the prevailing opinion in the international community is that at the very least, cases exist where foreign intervention is justified in the domestic arena – whether it be in cases of civil war, gross human rights violations or severe discrimination. Just look at what the international community has not accepted in the past by intervening (if even indirectly with soft power): in civil conflicts like Darfur or human rights atrocities committed during Apartheid in South Africa; unconditional sovereignty is outdated and in need of revision.
So why not revise our understanding of “sovereignty” as a concept? We still cling to a world system comprised of sovereign nation-states, so sovereignty should still be a vital component of international relations. But there needs to be limits to sovereignty.
What international bodies such as the UN need to set forth are basic definitions of what is expected of a state. From this, the UN can justify intervention in a situation where people’s basic rights guaranteed by its nation-state are being violated. For example, say the basic responsibilities of a state are to be able to:
(a) ensure sufficient access to food, water and shelter
(b) protect its borders from outside aggressors
(c) have sole legitimate monopoly of the use of force for protection of its citizens domestically
(d) allow its people the freedom to earn a living and survive
If a state consistently and widely fails to meet these basic requirements and deliberately neglects their importance to all or specific citizens, it should be viewed as a dangerous regime that is violating its citizens’ rights.
To defend the integrity of states that honestly struggle to provide for their people, there ought to also be checks and balances to ensure that there is no hasty intervention where it is not justified. It might therefore be prudent for UN votes to intervene to pass through mulitple divisions with required supermajorities (for example, 60% of votes agreeing to it). In this way, only the most necessary intervention is sought in a responsible manner.
People: argue with me. I don’t know the answer but I am also not satisfied with resigning to sovereignty just being problematic. It is. Fix it.
Categories: