Connect with us

International Law

Born To Rule: Sovereignty in International Law

H.E. Datu Matthew Pajares Yngson

Published

on

When you ask those born in this age of the internet about the concept of royalty or monarchism, you should expect mixed answers. Anything from the latest Disney movie to the fairytales of the British royal family seem to be the accepted definition. The world has forgotten that just about a century ago, most of human civilization was governed by monarchies.

From the moment of birth, a monarch was taught to be a leader for the rest of his or her life. Today, many members of these ancient families have been reduced to footnotes in history. We know of eminent persons such as Dom Duarte Pio, the “king” of Portugal; Constantine II, the “king” of Greece; and Simeon II, the “king” of Bulgaria who do not administer their countries but retain certain rights according to international law. Though they lost all the pomp and circumstance, have they also lost their sovereign right to rule?

The Definition of Sovereignty

Sovereignty is one of the most important concepts of political science and international law. Many believe that no other term has given rise to more discussion and confusion than the word “sovereignty.” It is used in a variety of ways which are not clearly distinguished from each other. The word “sovereignty” is derived from the Latin word “superanus” which means “supreme power”.

Definitions of sovereignty are numerous and varied. French jurist and political philosopher Jean Bodin was the first Western writer to develop a systematic doctrine of sovereignty. He defines it as “the supreme power over citizens and subjects, unrestrained by law”. Dutch humanist, diplomat, lawyer, theologian and jurist Hugo Grotius, defines sovereignty as “the supreme political power vested in him whose acts are not subject to any other and whose will cannot be overridden”.

The ultimate authority to rule within a polity is known and commonly accepted at present times as a definition of sovereignty. Historically, the ultimate authority within a polity was vested in the person of the sovereign, a monarch whose rule was granted by divine right or local custom, and often by a good deal of force.

The Concepts of Sovereignty

Things were quite simple and defined up until the Middle Ages. God was sovereign, and that is all that mattered. In the Book of Psalms, Psalm 24:1 writes that “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein” offered soothingly emphatic confirmation of this. Few temporal leaders would dare usurp God’s position at the top of the

body politic. This gave the Church a central place and enormous influence in all affairs of the state. Eventually, God was good enough to delegate. He kept things simple by investing sovereignty  in  monarchs.  Now  they,  and  they alone,  had  absolute power  within  their territories. And they were at pains to stress that this monopoly of sovereignty was a “divine right.” Laws may now have emanated from human words and deeds, but for anyone thinking of causing trouble, such laws were still seen to be the expression of God’s will.

Similarly, the Quran affirms that the term “Sultan” meant moral or spiritual authority. It was used later by Muslim sovereigns to represent political and governmental power. This was written in the Surah ar-Rahman 55:33 which roughly states that “O assembly of the jinn and the human! If you have power to penetrate through the diametrical zones of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate (go through them)! You cannot penetrate through them except with a Sultan (authority)!”

As the “Age of Reason” or the Enlightenment took Europe by storm, the world of absolutes began to slip away. The concept of sovereignty started to mutate and increasingly became more complex. Ideas of popular will, individual rights and “parliamentary sovereignty” slowly gained a foothold across the region. Things were no longer simple.

What is de jure and de facto sovereignty?

Sovereignty being a query of fact, a contrast is sometimes made between de jure and de facto sovereignty. The de jure sovereign is the legal sovereign and the de facto sovereign, is obeyed by the people whether he has a legal status or not. A de facto sovereignty may rest purely on physical force, where de jure sovereignty has the legal right to command obedience.

The distinction between the two comes out abruptly in times of revolution or usurpation. Some developments mean a mere change in the personnel or organization of government, while others result in a complete destruction of the old legal sovereign and the establishment of a new one.

How long does a de jure sovereignty last?

Under the principles of public international law, a ruler who is deprived of the government of his territory by either invaders or revolutionaries remains the legitimate de jure sovereign of that country while the de facto regime set up by the revolutionaries or invaders is considered a “usurper”, both constitutionally and internationally.

The question of how long a de jure sovereign may continue in this status is answered by the book “Synopsis of the Law of Nations” written by Johann Wolfgang Textor, which states that de jure sovereigns retain their status as long as they don’t surrender their sovereignty to the de facto government. A dispossessed royal family may keep their claims alive by filing diplomatic protests against the usurpers as required by International Law. That claim can only be abandoned when the protests are stopped. The failure of royal heirs to prosecute or assert their claims may disqualify them from any consideration to the inheritance. This corresponds

to Emmerich de Vattel’s legal treatise “The Law of Nations: Or, Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns”, which states that only when such protests  cease does  a prescription  arise  against  the de jure  rights of a legitimate claimant. When this occurs, the sovereignty passes back to God, who gave it or may be passed in some cases to the de facto government which at that point would be legitimized and will acquire the full de jure rights of the former sovereign.

Such  legitimate  claimants  are  de  jure  sovereigns  and,  as  such,  remain  head  of  the government-in-exile of their usurped territory.

Public international law towards the legal validity of objections against the usurpation of sovereignty applies to both republic and monarchical states. Prof. Stephen P. Kerr in his academic paper entitled “Dynastic Law” states that “The United States of America refused to recognize the 1939 Soviet usurpation of the three Baltic Republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. This facilitated the maintenance of Governments-in-Exile of the Baltic Republics and the maintenance of embassies in Washington, D.C., which persisted through the Cold War Era until these countries managed to recover their independence. Accordingly, matters pertaining to  de  jure  Governments-in-Exile  are  matters  of  public  international  law.  The  de  jure sovereignty of a state which has been usurped by a foreign conqueror is not extinguished by such usurpation but survives as long as such sovereignty is kept alive by competent diplomatic protests.”

Conclusion

Non-reigning or dispossessed monarchs, who, as de jure sovereigns, may continue to exercise their sovereignty. This conforms with public international law fully taking into consideration that they do not surrender their sovereignty to the de facto government. This is legally supported for as long as such sovereignty is kept constantly affirmed with strong diplomatic campaigns.

Resulting from this, any monarch that has been relieved of his power yet continues to perform his birth right across the globe does not lose this immutable sovereignty.

Datu Sadja Matthew Pajares Yngson, a Commercial Diplomat and Cultural Ambassador, is the Representative Councillor of the Caribbean ASEAN Council, and Executive Director and Envoy for Diplomatic Affairs of the Eastern Caribbean-Southeast Asia Chamber. He is also the Secretary General of the 35th Sultan of Sulu and North Borneo and a Diplomatic Representative of the non- U.N. state of Liberland. Datu Yngson is an alumnus of H.R.H. The Duke of Edinburgh’s Commonwealth Study Conferences.

Continue Reading
Comments

International Law

Transition of Balance of Power from Unipolar to Multipolar World Order

Fatima Arif

Published

on

The international system may be described as a complex system of social, scientific, political, military and technological systems. This dynamic structure is very difficult to evaluate and it is even more difficult to predict its future.

The distribution of power potential in the international system defines the number of major powers and thus the international system’s polarity. The system would be multi-polar if the great powers are more than two; if they are two it would be bipolar and systems with only one great power are called unipolar.

It can be expected in the future multipolar world that the global economy does not settle with a couple of significant nations but rather with multiple nations of varying capabilities. In the limited arena of affairs pertaining to their country, each state with its particular notable qualities will have decisive say. Beyond the US, Japan, China, the EU, and India are capable of economic influence due to their advancements in technology, increasing economy, and large population base. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, African Union countries and Brazil will have an impact, owing to their large energy reserves. Russia should have preferences for both. Because of their geostrategic location such as Pakistan, Central Asia, Ukraine and Turkey, a few nations will have some regional influence because these nations are situated on the energy routes from which energy resources would be on route to other parts of the world.

United States and the Changing World Order

There is a broad bipartisan consensus within US political leadership that the country must remain a global leader / world leading power. This assumption in its re-eminence also comes with the fundamental underpinnings that the United States will lead the world to freedom and liberty. Its third term is resolve to contain China.

It’s troubling to what extent the US continues to pursue China’s containment. The’ democracy alliance’ or the’ pivot to Asia’ are examples of US designs. China too, because of its part, diverted from the usual cautious approach and its proclaimed strategy of’ peaceful progression’ to an unambiguous stance on the South China Sea. Right now, however, the condition does not appear to come to a head-on collision anytime far. Yet the contest could bring a serious and dangerous situation to the fore. The US is not going to communicate directly with its forces on the field. There is a lot of resistance for another war at home. This doesn’t mean the US is ineffective. What we have is a hegemon with a diminishing power and a reluctance to give up his position of leadership. At the other hand, there is no other country capable of replacing it while they frequently seek to question its authority. Chinese occasional deviation from caution, and reluctance on the part of the US to yield, build a dangerous situation.

Decline of the Unipolar System

The U.S. has been the only hegemony since the end of the Cold War, but since the economic crisis of 2008 its world hegemony has been undermined. The gap in power between China and the US is diminishing. In 2011, China’s GDP contributed for around half of the US GDP. If China’s GDP continues to rise at 8.5 per cent and US GDP increases at less than 3.8 per cent, the current gap between the two forces will level out in the decade to come. Meanwhile, the economic gap between these two nations and the other major powers will continue to expand over the next ten years. In the next five years, only the US and China will spend more than $100 billion annually on defense, growing the difference in power between them and the others. Accordingly, the international structure would not be unipolar.

International Players That Can Change the International World Order In 21st Century (Analytical Approach)

Bipolar global structure collapsed by the end of the Cold War. The United States has become the sole superpower and as expressed in the new industrial order of defense, the international structure has become unipolar. The major powers of the global community are China, Russia, Japan and the E.U. Whether the international system can turn into a bipolar or multipolar system depends on developments in many countries and regions in technological, political, economic, and military terms. China, Russia, Japan, the EU and India have the power to change their international structure. In the last twenty-five years, China’s capacities have steadily increased in magnitudes that significantly restructure the international order. Economic prosperity for China goes hand in hand with the advancement of science and technology. It is developing expensive weapons systems that are increasingly capable compared to developed countries ‘ most advanced weapons systems. Another important determinant of the future of the international community is the relative dominance of the U.S. in science, technical, economic and military capacities compared to other major powers.

Conclusion

The position of emerging states, which influence the range and change of the international system, is very difficult to comprehend. The general outlines of what is happening with this phenomenon are becoming more evident, as transition happens under intense internal dynamic conditions and not from external factors. There is a group of candidates that can be considered growing powers, and there are rapid bursts in this phase of transition, but it is longer than expected. Under conditions of changing institutionalization a central component of these changes occurs. Yet there is also a gap in the assumptions regarding the principles of collaboration and conflict. National interests and principles are certainly the most significant in the changing world order, and these can also lead to deeply complex and frustrated bargaining situations that need to be resolved by enhanced collaboration at the state level. Joined societies dissolve, along with the old beliefs. According to different ideas of world system, that countries are not less divided, and they can constantly struggle and communicate with each other at the same time. Therefore, the future multi-polar system would be no different from the other multi-polar moments that history has seen, resulting in more chaos and unpredictability than in the current unipolar world. Nevertheless, multi-polarity does not only carry the risks involved in researching balance of power among great powers for the first time in history.

Continue Reading

International Law

The UN reforms are required to make it functional

Published

on

Today, the world we live in has become more unpredictable, insecure, and exposed to more vulnerability. Geopolitics is changing rapidly, new problems are often emerging, while old issues remained unresolved. Humankind is under threats and challenges; some of them might be natural disasters, like Earthquakes, Floods, Fires, Valconos, Pandemic, etc. But most of the difficulties and problems are man-made, creation of some powerful countries, the result of over-ambitions, greed, expansionism, biases and jealousy. Big and more muscular countries are keeping eyes on the natural resources of small and weaker nations, etc.

In 1945, the United Nations was established to replace the League of Nations. Because the League of Nations was unable to solve most of the problems faced by the world, unable to resolve conflicts and wars, unable to protect human lives, unable to maintain justice and equality, the failure of achieving objects, the League of Nations was dissolved, and UN was established.

The UN was established with the following four objectives:

Maintaining worldwide peace and security

Developing relations among nations

Fostering cooperation between nations in order to solve economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian international problems

Providing a forum for bringing countries together to meet the UN’s purposes and goals

UN Charter was written by very professionals and experts in their own fields. The Charter is comprehensive and based on many considerations, satisfying almost the needs of nearly everyone at that time. Considering the disaster of the Second World war, the Charter was considered a most appropriate document to address practically all concerns.

The UN has been functioning since 1945 and ready to celebrate its 75th anniversary soon. At this moment, if we look at the performance of the UN, there are many things one can mention as achievements or in the UN’s credit. No doubt, in the early days of the Establishment of the UN, the objectives achieved were rated quite well. However, over time, the UN was politicized, and some of the countries, who were a major donor to UN contribution, were using the UN and its structures to achieve their political objectives. They were misusing the UN platform to coerce some other nations or using UN umbrella to achieve political of economic goals by harming other nations. On the other hand, geopolitics became so complicated and complex that the existing structure of the UN is unable to meet the challenges of the modern world.

Just, for example, Afghan is under war for the last four decades, people are being killed in routine matters, foreign intervention caused the loss of precious lives and economic disaster to people of Afghanistan. Iraq war, Libya War, Syria war, Yemen War, the situation in Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Venezuela, Ukraine, somewhat more complicated conflict among the U.S., Iran, Israel, and the Persian Gulf, U.S.-North Korea tussle, and Kashmir, all are remained unresolved under the current structure of the UN.

Should we remain silent spectators and keep the status quo, and let the humankind suffer more? Should we justify ourselves as helpless and let the more powerful kills more human beings? Should we remain in isolation and keep our self busy with our own interests? Should we compromise with our conscious? Should we ignore our inner voice? Should we prove ourselves as innocent and not responsible such crimes committed by someone else?

Think and thing smartly, and consider yourself in the same situation and a victim, what we should be expecting from other nations, the international community, and the UN. We must do the same thing to meet the expectations of the victims.

The UN is unable to achieve its objectives with the current structure; the reforms are inevitable. We must strengthen the UN and transform the current dysfunctional UN to a more effective UN, which should satisfy the core issues of all nations. Africa is a major continent, and facing many challenges, but have no say in the UN; there is no single country from Africa in the Security Council of the UN as a permanent member having veto power. The Muslim world, having an estimated population of two billion, every fourth person in this world is a Muslim, there are 57 independent sovereign countries as member f the UN,m but no voice in the UN, no permanent member of UNSC, no veto power, who will protect their rights and who will look after their interests. Should they remain at the mercy of the current five permanent members of the UNSC?

Some countries are rebellious to the UN; some states are defaulter of the UN, and not implementing the resolutions passed by UNSC. Some countries have bypassed the UN and imposed war or sanctions on other nations. They must be held responsible for their acts, the UN should kick such countries out of the UN, and their membership may be suspended or cancelled.

It is time to introduce, comprehensive reforms in the UN, to address all issues faced by today’s modern, complex and rather complicated world. An appropriate representation of all nations, groups, ethnicity or religion should be ensured. The UN has a heavy responsibility, deserve more budgets, more powers and needed to be strengthened further.

Continue Reading

International Law

Coronavirus Shaping The Contours Of The Modern World

Nageen Ashraf

Published

on

Globalization vs. Protectionism:

Globalization means the movement of ideas, products, technology, and people across borders and different cultures. It is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. It has social, cultural, economic, political and legal aspects. Globalization has made the world a global village and talks about co-operation and interdependence. Protectionism, on the other hand, is the restriction of movement of goods and products across borders to protect the national industries and economy. The major goal of protectionism is to boost up national economy, but protectionist measures can also be applied for security purposes. So, we can say that protectionists are basically anti-globalists and prefer domestic strength as compared to foreign co-operation.

Protectionism and Covid-19

Globalization has made the world so interdependent and interconnected that any economic or political change in one state creates a domino effect and influence many other states. For the pandemic, most states were initially blaming China, but as it slowly healed and the pandemic caused more devastating impacts in the western states, more fingers are pointing towards globalization. Multiple narratives are building regarding globalization where protectionists finally got a chance to prove how right they were all along.

Globalization not only played a vital role in the spread of this epidemic, it also made the economic crisis go global by affecting the supply chains. An epidemic that affected a single city in Dec, 2019, grew to become a pandemic affecting almost every state in the world through movement of people and goods. States that adopted strict measures and restricted the movement of people, have relatively less cases of corona virus as compared to other states. The worst impacts of corona virus so far can be seen in USA where New York City was initially the epicenter.

New York City is definitely one of the most crowded cities in the world where daily, thousands of people move in and out for various purposes. This could be one of the reasons of such devastating impacts of corona in NYC because the free circulation of people and goods allowed the virus to spread exponentially. On the other hand, if we talk about African continent, where most states are under developed, and the movement of people in and out of the continent is very less as compared to Europe and Americas, reported cases of corona virus are very low. As of Sep 11, 2020, in the whole continent, the highest number of corona cases is in South Africa, with a count of642k as compared to USA’s count of 6.49m. This provides evidence that movement of people played a vital role in the spread of this virus and movement of people has increased a lot since the rise of globalization.

Critiques of globalization also argue that globalization is to be blamed for an epidemic that spread across borders and will soon plunge the whole world into recession. Interdependence because of globalization has made the world more vulnerable to such situations. For instance, China is one of the biggest markets in the world that exports antibiotics and telecommunications and remains an important part of most of the global supply chains. Half of the world’s surgical masks were made by China, even before pandemic. So, when the pandemic struck Wuhan, China, the supplies from China to the rest of the world affected many states that were dependent on China, and they ran out of important pharmaceutical inputs. Even the developed states like France ran out of medical masks and had to suffer because of lack of important medical equipment. This reveals the cost of such deeply interconnected global supply chains that create a domino effect.

Is Globalization ending?

Globalization has made the world a global village and undoubtedly facilitated the free movement of people, goods, ideas, cultures, information, and technology across borders. But on the other hand, it has also played a major role in the spread of diseases and has made states vulnerable to unexpected shocks. Globalists also believe that the medical or health consequences of corona would prove less destructive if states work together instead of working separately for the vaccine, as a competition. Adopting the nationalist or isolationist approach during the pandemic would crash the international economy and further increase the tensions. As the protectionists suggest, if we’d continue to protect only our national economies and keep on putting barriers on international trade, the national recession would soon turn into a global depression, as happened in 1930’s.Timely economic recovery is only possible through global cooperation.

 I think that the threat of Covid-19 has created an extraordinary situation. Originating from Asia, and then causing millions of deaths all around the globe, the blame on globalization is legitimate. Most of the states in the world rely on their tourism revenue that has been affected badly due to corona virus. For instance, Saudi Authorities decided to cancel Hajj because of growing pandemic, and the impact on KSA’s economy would be dramatic. Similarly, Japan is one of the states that depend highly on tourism revenue from Chinese tourists and travel restrictions have caused severe losses. We have also seen how the supply chains are affected just because one of the major producers (China) was badly hit by the virus. Globalization seems to have conquered the world so there is no way that it can be avoided completely. However, after the pandemic, there might be a little change in the world order regarding high interdependency. States that were mostly dependent on China for their important supplies might try to produce the supplies on their own and prioritize their domestic industries over foreign industries because of the consequences they had to bear during the pandemic. Similarly, travel bans will surely be removed but people might hesitate to cross borders and move freely because there will be awareness regarding the risks related to free movement. So, I think that the pandemic has highlighted some backlashes in globalization, but it doesn’t mean that globalization has failed. We can say that it is fragile, despite or even because of its benefits.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending