In 1648, 135 European Princes signed the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the bloody Wars of Religion and denounced the intervention of states in one another's domestic affairs. Most scholars agree that this resolution was the first formal acknowledgement of state sovereignty(Bierstecker and Weber 1996; Brown 1995; Bunck and Fowler 1995; Camilleri and Falk 1992; Hinsley 1986; Morganthau 1985; Bull 1977; Carr 1964). Ideally, this theory has come to express the idea that the state "is a final and absolute authority in the political community." (Hinsley 1986: 1) However, state sovereignty still remains an ambiguous and convoluted theory. As one looks at the role of state sovereignty in today's international system it is important to set some basic guidelines. This web presentation argues that the empowerment of local movements by strong international non-state actors poses a serious challenge to the theory of state sovereignty. In order to make a more effective argument it is necessary to define the foundational elements of the state and of sovereignty.
Thomas Biersteker and Cynthia Weber define sovereignty "as a political entity's externally recognized right to exercise final authority over its affairs." (Biersteker and Weber 1996: 12) They claim that a state must carry out specific actions in order for other states to recognize its sovereignty. "The state has specific roles designated to it by sovereignty." (Bierstecker and Weber 1996: 14) These roles include the maintenance of external independence, internal supremacy and a national identity.
The modern world system is composed of states that are demarcated territorially. These geographical borders are important elements in the concept of state sovereignty. Fowler and Bunck maintains that state sovereignty is impart defined by its external independence. In order to remain a sovereign entity, the state must sustain its independence from its peers in the international arena. "The state must demonstrate not only domestic political supremacy, but actual independence of outside authority in foreign affairs." (Fowler and Bunck 1995: 48) This theory of state sovereignty is not based on the supremacy of one state over another, but rather on the concept that all sovereign states are equal units in the world system. They are independent units, able to make choices based on their own self interest. Such independence leads to what realists tern the anarachy of the world system. (Morganthau 1985; Carr 1964)
Hedley Bull claims that "states assert, in relation to [their] territory and population, what may be called internal sovereignty, which means supremacy over all other authorities within that territory or population." (Bull 1977: 8-9) This view demonstrates the idea that states have absolute control over the activities within their borders. The state's territorial borders play an essential role in defining the area of internal sovereignty. Each state maintains its supremacy within these boundaries. This ideal has been carried down from the absolute monarchs, whose supremacy was checked only by God. The state had its own government and was free from rule by governments abroad. Self-rule is essential to the sovereign state, thus establishing an international system in which "no country, no world or regional organization, no foreign citizen or organization would act within the territory of another country without its [state] consent." (Brown 1995: 12)
State identity is also a key component to a state's maintenance of sovereignty. Brown states that the "ability to sustain such sovereign statehood requires substantial cooperation among the people living within the territory." (Brown 1995: 13) He argues that this cooperation maintains the exchange of goods and services within the state and protects the state from foreign intruders. The idea of the nation remains an ambiguous term, but refers to a common identity shared by groups with strong bonds (cultural, religious, ethnic etc.). States elicit this type of loyalty with the creation of a distinctive flag, national anthems and oaths and rituals of citizenship. This loyalty is best expressed at the Olympic Games, where passionate fans cheer for their country. It is this loyalty that characterizes the nation- state.
The nation-state is not the only focus of identification for the individual; religious, ethnic, cultural and gender groups also make strong claims to the loyalty of humankind. However, Brown states that the state has the highest claim to loyalty among its citizenry. He claims that: "Only the national government has generally recognized authority and power to require individuals to put their lives at stake, to draft them into armed forces, and to defend the common interests of the population." (Brown 1995: 11) Roxanne Doty declares states are in a constantly and ardently constructing such a state identity. Even Britain, a very strong and established state, Doty argues has actively had to cultivate a national identity. For "when it is no longer clear who makes up the nation, a state's internal sovereignty and the existence of the state itself is threatened." (Doty 1996: 122) If the boundary between who is part of the state and who is not part becomes blurred, then the basic theoretical tenets of state sovereignty are diminished. No longer can the state govern over a particular population and thus it cannot maintain traditional sovereignty.
The theory of state sovereignty has lead many theorists to characterize international relations by an anarchical, state-centric system. (Waltz 1996; Morganthau 1985; Carr 1964) There is no authority above the state to enforce any policies. Thus, conflicts arise in which the application of force becomes inevitable. Realists characterize world politics as power politics (Morganthau 1985) Thus, prudent statesmen must cultivate power and maintain the state’s interest. The nation-state becomes the basic unit of international relations. However, how accurate is this characterization in today’s world system?
As international relations becomes more complicated, this theoretical view of state sovereignty erodes. Severe challenges to internal supremacy, external independence and state identity have developed as a result of the complex interdependencies of the world system. New international actors have risen as a result of improved communications and transportation. Multiple channels of communications, which involve numerous transnational alliances are making the essential borders of sovereignty obsolete. New actors have emerged in the international system and have challenged this theory of state sovereignty. In particular, international environmental nongovernmental organizations have internationalized local resistance movements and have undermined state sovereignty. The Brazilian Rubber Tapper Movement and the Narmada Bachao Andolan are two movements whose internationalization has undermined state sovereignty. These transnational alliances have cut across territorial borders and have diminished state identities, in effect challenging state sovereignty.