Sovereignty of the State and International Regulation

Résumé du document

Today, the situation in Georgia can be considered as a prime example of international intervention and national sovereignty, particularly with respect to the principle of defense. Is national sovereignty more important than international regulation? It is difficult to recognize that international regulation is entirely legitimate in all situations that involve conflict. Nowadays, most countries agree with the principle of intervention if a problem exists within a country's borders. It is looked upon as a type of political cooperation. Therefore, international regulation consists of some form of political intervention. For instance, whenever there is a conflict within a country the duty of intervention is authorized by states, humanitarian organizations and organs of collective security to intervene.

Extraits

[...] Is national sovereignty more important than international regulation? It is difficult to recognize that international regulation is entirely legitimate in all situations that involve conflict. Nowadays, most all countries agree with the principle of intervention if a problem exists within a country's borders. It is looked upon as a type of political cooperation. Therefore, international regulation consists of some form of political intervention. For instance, when there is a conflict within a country, the duty of intervention is authorized by states, humanitarian organizations and organs of collective security to intervene. [...]

[...] Political, Economical, cultural interdependences lead to the gradual elimination of borders. Nevertheless, this international regulation is really needed to solve problems inside a country. To conclude, we could say that the equality between States involved in the concept of sovereignty cannot resist to the huge inequalities of power based on scientific, technical, industrial and economical capacities. The international regulation is here to keep the world safer and to intervene when and where it is needed by respecting the Human Rights. [...]

[...] The state has its independence and its territorial integrity. National sovereignty joins the idea of the right of nations to self determination declared by the UNO after the Second World War. We can say that almost the majority of States are sovereign and decide their own future. We could also be skeptical because there is a clear difference of sovereignty among the countries. The cultural gap of what Western countries rule their countries is consequential. For instance, a lot of South States saw the "turquoise operation" in Rwanda as a potential offence against their sovereignty and neocolonialist views. [...]

[...] Without regulation, genocides would be perpetuated without any inconvenience; civil riots would take place in dictatorships; populations wouldl die; economies that cannot regulate themselves - would lead to social crisis as it is seen today. Many countries decided to get involved in this global financial crisis in order to prevent a collapse of global economies. This is why international regulation is crucial. But if we decide to talk about the sovereignty of people, we should say that the regulation should be considered with imperious aspects and ethnocentric view. Actually, human rights are at the core of societal values and we could criticize international interventions as an ideological duty of interfering. [...]