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 give flesh to 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.
Previous
posts:
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 can highlight
and analyse these components:
a) exclusive right
b) with autonomy and autarchy
c) within a specific State.
d) ultimate authority.
e) creation and application of law.
We shall now proceed to review each
term of the definition:
a) what do we mean by exclusive right?
Whenever a new act or omission needs or
is supposed to be part of the law one (an 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 was 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 certain crime. These authorities (i.e.
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.
At the same time if this norm was to be
derogated, only the same body of representatives would be allowed to do so
following a prescribed procedure.
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 centre of dispute and it is out
of the scope of the present article.
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 economic side if the
autonomy. Due to the importance this concept has we prefer to keep it separate
for better clarity in the exposition. In nowadays world, we can appreciate that
although some States may seem legally autonomous and independent (“sovereign”
at first glance) their internal and external affairs are decided by some other
States or agents due to the fact that their economy is heavily in debt with
them. We do not consider such a State autarchic (hence not completely
autonomous, at least factually) since its decisions in the law making process
will be affected by outer interests.
In an ideal scenario, for a State to be
sovereign it should have both, legal autonomy and autarchic economy.
6th
March 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment