So
far, we know what TERRITORIAL DISPUTES are. We introduced the two key concepts
of STATE and SOVEREIGNTY.
We
started by reviewing the main elements that characterize a sovereign STATE and
some of their sub-elements. First, POPULATION (including language, ethnicity,
religion); second, TERRITORY (including natural resources, defence, extension);
third, GOVERNMENT (forms of government, division of powers, autarchy, currency,
diplomacy); fourth, LAW (national law and international law). It is time now to
introduce one last key concept in territorial disputes: SOVEREIGNTY.
SOVEREIGNTY
is a characteristic that every STATE should have both at national and
international level. Broadly defined, SOVEREIGNTY is the exclusive right to exercise with autonomy and
autarchy, within a specific state, the ultimate authority in terms of creation
and application of law. Following this
notion, we find:
- exclusive right;
- with autonomy and autarchy;
- within a specific state;
- ultimate authority;
- creation and application of law.
a) what do we mean by “exclusive right”?
Whenever a new act or omission becomes part
of the law in the form of a permission, prohibition or an obligation, one (and
only one) government is allowed to decide what is legal and/or illegal in
relation to such act or omission. This prerogative is not divided or shared
with other states and/or agents.
Taking an example in Criminal Law: if the
death penalty were to become valid again in a given country, only its highest
authorities would be able to create the norm that could put in place such a
penalty as a result of committing a certain crime. These authorities (for
example, the Parliament) would be the only ones to decide what kind of actions
and/or omissions would constitute the criminal offence so as to result in such
a punishment.
It is a right as synonym of prerogative.
The authorities are not obliged to rule but it is a privilege they have to
represent their population and determine what is legal and/or illegal. The
scope and exercise of such power is always center of dispute and goes beyond
the present post.
b) what is the difference between autonomy and autarchy?
Directly linked to the previous question,
a state possesses autonomy when it is able to determine on its own what is
legal and/or illegal within its borders and for its population.
Autarchy is the financial side of the
autonomy. Currently, some states may seem legally autonomous and independent
(“sovereign” at first glance) but their internal and external affairs are
decided by some other states or agents due to the fact that their economy is
heavily indebted with them. Arguably, such a state is not autarchic and, consequently,
not completely autonomous because its decisions in the law-making process will
be affected by other interests.
In an ideal scenario, a sovereign state should
have both legal autonomy and autarchic economy.
NOTE:
This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Territorial Disputes and State
Sovereignty: International Law and Politics,” London and New York: Routledge,
Taylor and Francis Group, 2020 (forthcoming)
Previous
published research monograph about territorial disputes and sovereignty by the
author, Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and
Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue,” London and New York: Routledge, Taylor
and Francis Group, 2017.
NEXT
POST: Sovereignty (continued)
Tuesday 24th September 2019
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
No comments:
Post a Comment