About the Impossibility of Absolute State Sovereignty

Abstract

State sovereignty is often thought to be absolute, unlimited. This paper argues that there is no such a thing as absolute State sovereignty. Indeed, absolute sovereignty is impossible because all sovereignty is necessarily underpinned by its conditions of possibility—i.e. limited sovereignty is the norm, though the nature of the limitations varies. The article consists of two main sections: (a) the concept of sovereignty: this section is focused on some of the limitations the concept of sovereignty itself presents; and (b) a historical account of the notion of sovereignty as it was used in the Ancient Times. The particular focus on early notions of a modern concept such as sovereignty has to do with the fact that this early notion has been anthropomorphised with societal evolution. Therein, the current concept of State sovereignty embraces the same limitations it had in its ancient form as a non-fully developed conceptual idea. The implications of understanding State sovereignty as limited rather than absolute are several, both directly and indirectly. A main immediate consequence is that sovereign States can cooperate together, limit their sovereignty and still be considered sovereign.

 

Complete article:

 

About the Impossibility of Absolute State Sovereignty by Jorge Emilio Nunez

Falklands and the right to self-determination (part 2)

The Falkland Islands will have a referendum soon. There are political and legal elements present. Amongst them, a crucial one is the term ‘self-determination’. We have previously seen how this same term has been used by both the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom with different contents, even in the same country. Moreover, we have mentioned some International Public Law (IPL) documents that embrace the idea. See below the link if you want to revisit the respective post:
Falklands and the right to self-determination

In one case and the other, political speeches and IPL, the main problem is given by the term itself  and its lack of a precise definition. However, that is not exclusive of self-determination. For those who are into political and legal sciences, an ambiguous, not clearly defined concept, is something almost to be expected by default. So let us try and bring some light into what appears to be a dark problem.

In a simple and schematic way, we could see that:
1) Self-determination is globally recognised as imperative even included in many International Public Law documents.
2) Broadly speaking, it means that people “can decide their destiny”.
3) By people it is meant inhabitants.
4) The Falklands/Malvinas Islanders have asserted their right to self-determination.
5) The Falklands/Malvinas Islanders have previously expressed their intention to remain as Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.
6) In consequence, the rest of the international society can only acknowledge their wishes.

So far it seems a simple, straight forward and –even- logically correct argument. Is this so easy? Why then so many arguments? We will focus now only on one of the elements mentioned in the previous 6 sentences to see possible weakness in this way of understanding self-determination. From there we will see how an easy thing changes into an interpretative and argumentative nightmare.
In the particular case of the Falklands/Malvinas the Argentinean government deny that the islanders are “people”. And let us highlight that not only the Argentinean government but also many others around the world either supporting Argentina’s claim or that have their own similar sovereignty conflicts interpret “people” in the same form.
In any case, assuming we follow this interpretation (Falkland islanders are not ‘people’ in the sense they fulfill the requirements for the right to self-determination), they base their argument in several reasons, being the most important ones:

a) The islanders do not have roots in the territory being claimed. They were “implanted” by one of the competing parties.
This is one of the crucial arguments the government of Argentina uses against the Falklands islanders. A well known counter argument: Argetineans are mainly descendent of European ancestors. Therefore, they would also be a non-original American population and hence somehow implanted. Who is right?!

b) Number: the islanders are too few.
It is a fact: the Falklands islanders are less than 3000 people. Is that a number large enough to acknowledge their right to self-determination? Is any minimum number of inhabitants required at all?
Reality shows as several examples of countries with extremely large populations like China and India. But it also includes others with much smaller number of inhabitants like Vatican
City (even less than the Falklands). It seems numbers do not matter. Or it may seem like numbers do matter, but not absolutely.

c) UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 Art. 6: “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.
That is known as “territorial integrity”. Indeed, Argentina’s continental platform extends upto the Falklands islands. But it is also true that if we applied the principle to the extent, some other countries would be also affected with their overseas territories. And would France be able to claim British territory if they demonstrated they were territorially attached?!

Although this is an interesting point to discuss, there is one more important related to this last argument. What about if self-determination is only a subterfuge for separatists to secede? In other words, is it a right granted by default or does it need to fulfill certain requirements?
We will seek the answers to these and some other questions on Thursday. Until then, see you all.

Falklands and the right to self-determination (part 3)

The government of the United Kingdom supports a referendum based on the idea of recognising the right to self-determination to the Falklands islanders. The government of Argentina rejects both the referendum and the right to self-determination. In fact, Argentina’s representatives reject any attempt of the Falklands islanders in order to have a discussion with them (or to be more precise, they simply ignore them).

The government of Argentina believes that accepting the right to self-determination of the Falklands islanders would result in resigning to their claim in regards to sovereignty. It is true that self-determination is often seen as linked to or as an step prior to independence. However, that is completely different from seeing them as concepts that have the same implications. So, we have to make clear that self-determination does not mean independence. We need to make clear that it may lead to solutions other than independence.

We have previously seen that self-determination is a principle that allows people to decide their destiny, who will govern them. See below the link to the respective posts:

Falklands and the right to self-determination (part 1)
Falklands and the right to self-determination (part 2)

Although both are legal and political concepts, sovereignty gives priority to the State whereas self-determination gives preeminent place to the people. It is more often than not in sovereignty conflicts that the population of the territory that is being claimed wants independence by applying the principle of self-determination. However, the fact that this territory is granted self-determination, and may become independent, translates into the rejection of at least one of the States that is claiming sovereignty. Falklands islands and the Argentinean position in relation to self-determination is an example.

Indeed, self-determination may result in final independence. But it is not true that independence is the only way in which self-determination may evolve. Indeed, the population may vote to be administered by, or integrated into, one of the States claiming sovereignty. Then self-determination may lead to different results since the population might decide: a) to be independent; to be administered by or be part of one party; c) to have shared sovereignty.

The main problem in the Falklands case for Argentina is that the government of Argentina has been and still is towards rejecting any attempt the islanders make in order to have a closer relationship with the continent. So, why would they be interested in any other result than independence or association to the United Kingdom if the other interested party (Argentina) simply keeps pushing them away? Or is is that the Argentinean government wants to secure a never ending story? For a clarification about what I mean by never ending story in the case of the Falklands see:

Falklands: another never ending story? (part 1)
Falklands: another never ending story? (part 2)

To recapitulate, self-determination may have been useful in specific cases because of their characteristics (e.g. Kosovo). But to use the same international institutions in the same form in cases in which the interrelation amongst the involved agents is already peaceful, apart from the sovereignty difference, adds an unnecessary element of disagreement that goes against peaceful international relations.

To obtain independence through self-determination is not a solution that can be
taken by default. It is exceptional remedy for situations in which a given sovereign State has a certain tension with a group of people, this group of people is large enough, their human rights are not acknowledged, and they have a common identity.
Then, it is not that self-determination is good or bad as a right or as an international remedy per se. Yet, because of the specific situation in which it is applied and the way in which it is used may be.

Therefore, in the case of sovereignty conflicts like the ones we are dealing with, a
solution between status quo and complete independence could be reached. And self-determination can indeed open the door for such a solution.

Self-determination is a collective right a group has to determine their political status. The government of the United Kingdom acknowledges the right to self-determination to the Falkland islanders. The Falkland islanders themselves maintain they have the right to self-determination. The government of Argentina rejects the right to self-determination. Hence, we will see the referendum in March. We will see what the islanders decide. However, because of the lack of Argentinean “validation”, the right to self-determination may only have a moral weight.
Indeed, the right to self-determination can be an institution that may offer a positive result. But until the claiming parties recognise they are three and that they have their interests, and therefore, mutually accept their existence and these interests, any solution will be virtual.

Malvinas y el derecho de autodeterminación (parte 3)

El Gobierno del Reino Unido apoya un referéndum basado en la idea de reconocer el derecho a la autodeterminación de los isleños de Malvinas. El gobierno de Argentina rechaza tanto el referéndum cuanto el derecho a la autodeterminación. De hecho, los representantes de la Argentina rechazan cualquier intento de los isleños de Malvinas con el fin de tener una discusión con ellos (o para ser más precisos, simplemente los ignora).


El gobierno de Argentina considera que la aceptación del derecho a la autodeterminación de los isleños de Malvinas daría lugar a renunciar a su reclamación respecto de la soberanía. Es cierto que la autodeterminación es a menudo vista como vinculada a o como un paso previo a la independencia. Sin embargo, esto es completamente diferente a verlos como conceptos que tienen las mismas implicaciones. Por lo tanto, tenemos que dejar en claro que la autodeterminación no significa independencia. Tenemos que dejar en claro que puede dar lugar a soluciones distintas a la de independencia.

Ya hemos visto que la autodeterminación es un principio que permite a las personas decidir su destino, quien los gobierna. Véase más abajo el enlace a los respectivos artículos:

Malvinas y el derecho de autodeterminación (parte 1)
Malvinas y el derecho de autodeterminación (parte 2)

Aunque ambos son conceptos jurídicos y políticos, la soberanía da prioridad al Estado, mientras que la autodeterminación da lugar preeminente a la gente. Es cierto que frecuentemente, en los conflictos de soberanía la población del territorio que se reclama quiere la independencia mediante la aplicación del principio de autodeterminación. Sin embargo, el hecho que se conceda a este territorio la autodeterminación, y pueda llegar a ser independiente, se traduce en el rechazo de al menos uno de los Estados que reclama la soberanía. Islas Malvinas y la posición argentina en relación a la autodeterminación es un ejemplo.

En efecto, la autodeterminación puede resultar en definitiva independencia. Pero no es cierto que la independencia es la única manera en la que la autodeterminación puede evolucionar. De hecho, la población podrá votar para ser administrado por o integrarse a uno de los Estados que reclaman soberanía. De esta manera, la autodeterminación puede llevar a resultados diferentes, ya que la población puede decidir: a) ser independiente; b) ser administrado por o ser parte de uno de los reclamantes; c) compartir soberanía.

El principal problema en el caso de Malvinas para Argentina es que el gobierno de la Argentina ha rechazado y sigue rechazando cualquier intento de los isleños con el fin de tener una relación más cercana con el continente. Así que, ¿por qué estarían interesados ​​en cualquier otro resultado que la independencia o la asociación con el Reino Unido si la otra parte interesada (Argentina) simplemente sigue empujándolos fuera del juego? ¿O es que es que el gobierno argentino quiere asegurar un cuento de nunca acabar? Para una aclaración acerca de lo que quiero decir con historia sin fin, en el caso de las Malvinas ver:

Malvinas: otra historia sin fin? (parte 1)
Malvinas: otra historia sin fin? (parte 2)

En resumen, la autodeterminación puede haber sido útil en casos específicos, debido a sus características (por ejemplo, Kosovo). Sin embargo, utilizar las mismas instituciones internacionales en la misma forma en los casos en que la interrelación entre los agentes involucrados es pacífica, a excepción de la diferencia respecto de la soberanía, añade un elemento innecesario de desacuerdo que va en contra de las relaciones internacionales pacíficas.

Obtener independencia a través de la autodeterminación no es una solución que pueda ser tomado de forma automática. Es un remedio excepcional para situaciones en las que un Estado soberano dado tiene una cierta tensión con un grupo de personas, este grupo de personas es suficientemente grande, los derechos humanos no son reconocidos y tienen una identidad común.

Entonces, no es que la autodeterminación sea buena o mala como un derecho o como un recurso internacional per se. Eso lo determina la situación específica en la que se aplica y la forma en que se utiliza.

Por lo tanto, en el caso de conflictos soberanía como el que nos ocupa, una solución entre status quo e independencia total se podría alcanzar. Y la autodeterminación de hecho puede abrir la puerta a esa solución.

La autodeterminación es un derecho colectivo que un grupo tiene para determinar su estatus político. El gobierno del Reino Unido reconoce el derecho a la autodeterminación de los isleños. Los isleños mantienen que ellos tienen el derecho a la autodeterminación. El gobierno de Argentina rechaza el derecho a la autodeterminación. Por lo tanto, vamos a ver el referéndum en marzo. Vamos a ver lo que los isleños decidan. Sin embargo, debido a la falta de  "validación" argentina, el derecho a la autodeterminación sólo puede tener un peso moral.
En efecto, el derecho a la autodeterminación puede ser una institución que puede ofrecer un resultado positivo. Pero hasta que las partes reconozcan ser tres y que tienen intereses propios, y por lo tanto, reconozcan mutuamente su existencia y los intereses de éstos, cualquier solución será virtual.

Falkland islanders and equal worth

The participation of the Falklands islanders in any negotiation in regards to the sovereignty goes beyond politics, law and international relation. It is indeed a question of moral principles. Thereby, as any morality thesis it needs some general principle. In this case, that all human beings have equal worth. That is different from saying that we are all equal. In fact, it is accepting that even though we are all different our existence has the same relative value.
No general moral principle can be refuted by using the morality of a particular State or an actual practice, even an international one.

The Falklands islanders are people. It may be argued that they are not “people” in the sense the concept of self-determination requires. In that respect see our previous articles:

Falklands and the right to self-determination (part 1)
Falklands and the right to self-determination (part 2)
Falklands and the right to self-determination (part 3)

But if the Falklands islanders are or not considered “people” in relation to self-determination is but a tangential argument. Under the umbrella of the United Kingdom sovereignty or that one of Argentina, any decision that was made in relation to them would affect them (and their future generations) directly. Hence, even if their right to self-determination was rejected, in any case they would still be understood as “people”, as a group of human beings, and would have a right to be listened.

An iconic Argentinean film gives a hint. “Esperando la carroza” (or “Waiting for the funeral car”) deals with the story of a funeral in which the only one missing is the dead. And in fact, she is not even dead. So, why a funeral in the first place? I know, we all know: it is bizarre.
But, isn’t it bizarre as well not to let the Falklands islanders have a say about their future? To reject the participation of the Falklands islanders in any negotiations in relation to the sovereignty of the place they are inhabitants of is simply to reject their say has “equal worth”. This leads to a question: in the hypothetical case Argentina was granted the sovereignty over the Falklands, would the islanders be removed? If they were “allowed” to stay, would they be “allowed” to participate in decisions that had to to with their daily life?
What kind of legal and political status is Argentina considering for the islands? If it was, as the speech says, to be part of the Province of Tierra del Fuego, they would have an “equal say” as any other Argentinean, wouldn’t they? However, their “equal worth” is currently rejected. Why would this attitude change?

Indeed, there are too many points at stake for both the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom. But, there are many more for the Falklands islanders. Therefore, to reject them a say in any negotiations is to reject their mere presence. In other words, it is to consider them on no “equal worth” morally speaking. And that seems to be, at least, unfair and unjust.

Any negotiations that welcomed the participation of the Falklands islanders wouldn’t mean accepting the British claim to the sovereignty over the islands. Argentina has made and still does make clear their claim for exclusive sovereignty. So, the Argentinean government could perfectly accept the Falkland islanders in any negotiations without threatening their right to claim or its extent. Besides, if they did so they would only be acknowledging something that is currently an international moral principle: every human being has equal worth.

Argentina, as a society, has a tradition in toleration. Their current government is probably the most forward thinking in terms of human rights since 1982. Human rights, as any basic and fundamental right, stem from moral principles. The Falkland islanders have the inalienable right to a say in regards their future without even considering the sovereignty issue. Not only is it just and fair to let them participate, it is something any reasonable being with basic moral values would accept.

Isleños de Malvinas e igual valor

La participación de los isleños de las Malvinas en cualquier negociación en lo que respecta a la soberanía va más allá de la política, el derecho y las relaciones internacionales. Es una cuestión de principios morales. De suyo, como cualquier tesis de base moral es necesario algún principio general. En este caso, todos los seres humanos tienen el mismo valor. Esto es diferente a decir que todos somos iguales. De hecho, se está aceptando que aunque todos seamos distintos nuestra existencia tiene el mismo valor relativo.
Ningún principio moral general puede ser refutado mediante el uso de la moral particular de un Estado o de una práctica específica, incluso una internacional.

Los isleños de Malvinas son personas. Se puede argumentar que no son "pueblo" en el sentido que el concepto de autodeterminación exige. A este respecto, véase los artículos anteriores:

Malvinas y el derecho de autodeterminación (parte 1)
Malvinas y el derecho de autodeterminación (parte 2)
Malvinas y el derecho de autodeterminación (parte 3)


Pero si los isleños de Malvinas son o no considerados como "pueblo" en relación a la autodeterminación no es más que un argumento tangencial. En el marco de la soberanía del Reino Unido o de Argentina, cualquier decisión que se tome en relación a las islas afectaría directamente a sus habitantes (y sus generaciones futuras). Por lo tanto, incluso si su derecho a la autodeterminación fuera rechazado, en cualquier caso, todavía se entendería como "gente", como un grupo de seres humanos, y que tienen derecho a ser escuchados.

Un icónico film argentino da una pista. "Esperando la carroza" se ocupa de la historia de un funeral en el que el único que falta es el muerto. Y de hecho, ni siquiera está muerto. Así que, ¿por qué un funeral en el primer lugar? Lo sé, todos lo sabemos: es bizarro.
Pero, ¿no es también bizarro no dejar que los isleños de Malvinas digan algo acerca de su futuro? Rechazar la participación de los isleños de las Malvinas en cualquier negociación en relación con la soberanía del lugar del que son habitantes es simplemente decir que su opinión no tiene "el mismo valor". Esto lleva a una pregunta: en el caso hipotético que a Argentina le fuera concedida la soberanía sobre las Islas Malvinas, ¿serían los isleños removidos? Si se les "permitiera" quedarse, ¿estarían "autorizados" a participar en las decisiones que tengan que ver con su vida diaria?
¿Qué tipo de estatus legal y político está Argentina considerando para las islas? Si fuera, como dice el discurso, para ser parte de la Provincia de Tierra del Fuego, ¿un isleño tendría el "mismo peso" que cualquier otro argentino, ¿no? Sin embargo, su "igual valor" es actualmente rechazado. ¿Por qué este cambio de actitud?

De hecho, hay muchos puntos en juego, tanto para los gobiernos de la Argentina y del Reino Unido. Sin embargo, hay muchos más para los isleños de Malvinas. Por lo tanto, el rechazo al diálogo con ellos en cualquier negociación es rechazar su mera presencia. En otras palabras, considerarlos de “valor no igual", moralmente hablando. Y eso parece ser, al menos, inequitativo e injusto.
Cualquier negociación que diera la bienvenida a la participación de los isleños de Malvinas no significaría aceptar la pretensión británica a la soberanía sobre las islas. Argentina ha hecho y todavía hace claro su reclamo de soberanía exclusiva. Por lo tanto, el gobierno argentino podría perfectamente aceptar a los isleños en las negociaciones sin poner en peligro su derecho a reclamar o la extensión del reclamo. Además, si lo hicieran que sólo se estarían reconociendo algo que es actualmente un principio de moral internacional: todo ser humano tiene el mismo valor.

Argentina, como sociedad, tiene una gran tradición en la tolerancia. Su gobierno actual es probablemente el de pensamiento más avanzado en términos de derechos humanos, desde 1982. Los derechos humanos, como cualquier derecho básico y fundamental, se derivan de principios morales. Los isleños tienen el derecho inalienable a expresar su opinión en cuanto a su futuro, sin siquiera considerar la cuestión de la soberanía. No sólo es justo y equitativo hacerlos participar; es algo que cualquier ser racional con valores morales básicos aceptaría.

Toleration and the Falklands

Different genders, ethnicities, religions and beliefs, social and financial situations: the world is a mixture of different diversities. Argentina, the United Kingdom and the Falkland islands are but one of many examples around the world with three societies with their problems, interests, realities. Therefore, how can joint enterprises amongst sovereign States with different interests be possible? How can sovereign States of different kinds participate in shared projects? Is that possible at all?


In order to live together in concord a minimum mutual acceptance is required amongst sovereign members of any societal organization (national or international), which establishes a sort of invisible net that makes them part of the same conglomerate: e.g., a nation or the international scenario. They are tolerant with respect to each other’s existence and difference. However, what does it mean to be tolerant? To tolerate something or someone implies to recognise its existence. If the thing or person did not exist, the first individual would not even need to think about tolerating them. The fact that individuals tolerate each other does not imply they are equal or even similar. The same ideas can be applied to the sovereign State. The international community is constituted by several agents; amongst them, the State has a pre-eminent role. Every State is expected –at least- to tolerate its peers although they may have important internal and external differences (e.g. type of government).

It may be argued that sovereignty and tolerance are not conceptually closed. As sovereignty implies absolute imperium or supreme authority over a given territory and its population (sovereign State), it may have an antithetical relationship with tolerance. However, the fact that sovereignty can –and it does- have constraints refutes that postulate. The question here is what it is understood by a tolerant behaviour amongst sovereign States.

A sovereign State is not tolerant if it does not respect its peers –i.e. if it does not respect others’ sovereignty. Does Argentina respect the United Kingdom in the case of the Falklands and viceversa? In what specifically concerns to sovereignty conflicts, every involved sovereign State objects or disapproves its opponent claims over the third territory resulting in a zero sum game for all the involved agents. By adding toleration to the equation, these sovereign States would at least secure its reciprocal respect as international peers and, possibly, the mutual acknowledgement as interested agents in relation to the third territory. How far can this special kind of international toleration be extended? The answer to this question is crucial because depending on its outcome, toleration may imply respect of the status quo in sovereignty conflicts or include behaviours to move towards a viable solution.

At first glance, toleration seems to be usually understood as implying negative obligations –in the form of not to do, not to interfere with someone else. Similarly, at international level, the principle of non-interference is core to international relationships.

Both Argentina and the United Kingdom can act in relation to the Falkland islands, they know about their existence and that of their competitor, and they refrain from fully putting their claimed rights into action. There is indeed a certain degree of toleration between Argentina and the United Kingdom. In fact, the main –only?- problem between them is the dispute about the sovereignty over the Falklands. Can an umbrella of toleration be the answer?

A first –and mature- step in order to move forward is that both the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom accept their competitor in the conflict as well as the Falkland islanders. We have already seen why the Falkland islanders should be included in ANY negotiations and have a say. See:

Falkland islanders and equal worth
Sovereignty over the Falklands: who has the right to claim?

Once they finally acknowledge mutually their existence and the FACT that there are all claiming the same piece of land, the THREE parties can go into negotiations. And all this is actually covered simply by being tolerant. Is that so hard to ask for?