Assessing The Correlation Between Sovereign State and Global Governance

Assessing The Correlation Between Sovereign State and Global Governance

Kenwilliams Nyakomittah, Leah Jelimo

Egerton University, Kenya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.70617

 Received: 25 April 2023; Revised: 17 May 2023; Accepted: 20 May 2023; Published: 20 June 2023

ABSTRACT

                The relationship between sovereign states and global governance has been a topic of interest for political scientists, policymakers, and academics for many years. This paper explores the dynamics of this relationship, focusing on the ways in which sovereign states interact with global governance institutions, the challenges and opportunities presented by global governance, and the implications for the future of international relations. Using a mixed-methods approach that includes both qualitative and quantitative analysis, this study sheds light on the complexities of this relationship and offers insights into how it might evolve in the coming years.

INTRODUCTION

International Relations is said to be basic to the study of world politics because it represents a means of explaining the world in various ways. It provides a framework for understanding various concepts that form the debates in, among others, foreign policy, law, ethics, and security studies. In a nutshell, international relations is an attempt at elaborating the general principles that can help us familiarise ourselves with the complexities of world politics (Neumann, 2018). International relations provides a means of understanding an academic discipline that is both complex and multidisciplinary. By presenting the world of politics, a deeply multifaceted area of study, in small portions which can be understood, the student is able to comprehend international politics through its various theories. This is done by ensuring that the causal and deterministic factors of international relations are presented in an array that encourages and delivers on understanding the critical areas (Qin, 2016). It is akin to having a mental shape of international relations; from the various appendages that consist of the shape, law, economics, and politic, a better understanding of international relations is grasped. The potency of studying international relations cannot be gainsaid: a good understanding of world economy or international law is dependent on a proper grasp of international relations.

Research Objectives:

The objectives of this study are to:

1. Explore the ways in which sovereign states interact with global governance institutions
2. Identify the challenges and opportunities presented by global governance for sovereign states
3. Analyze the implications of this relationship for the future of international relations

LITERATURE REVIEW

A sovereign state is one that has several characteristics; a geographical reality; a legal concept; sovereignty; equality; and, non-intervention. The geographical reality of a state is characterised by a definite boundary. This means that the land mass, the water bodies, the airspace, and also a certain reach of the sea if it is a coastal state, are identified as belonging exclusively to the state (Qin, 2016). The reaches of the state are defined by physical and geographical markers which are internationally recognised and respected. Entry within these boundaries is highly restricted and controlled to outsiders. The state’s laws are effective within these laws and governance is exercised by leaders and officials determined as per the state’s laws. The state is also defined by a population with a specific identity (Stuenkel, 2016). This identity is realised by them being confined in the geographical boundaries and their nationality being acknowledged by the state. Lastly, the state is recognised by other states as existing within the specified boundaries. It is this last act that completes the international status of a state; without it, it is just a breakaway entity that is seeking recognition

The legal concept of a state is described by the presence of a constitution (written or unwritten); a law corpus that governs the state and its inhabitants; and, international convention and treaties defining its relations and obligations in respect to other states and humanity in general. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and defines key issues of governance, human rights, leadership, the judiciary and the political administration of the state (Neumann, 2018). There also exists the law corpus which is the delegated legislation from the constitution and other allied laws that are used to govern the state. Due to its membership to international politics, the state is also governed by international treaties, conventions and other international legal instruments.

Third is the state’s sovereignty which means that the state decides its own matters and is not under the rulership of any external force. It is sovereignty that form the central argument for anarchism (Qin, 2016). The concept of sovereignty is further expressed in equality with other states and further by the principle of non-interference; that the state conducts its internal affairs without external intrusion.

Global Governance

It has been opined that anarchy is central to the concept of state centred international relations because it is co-regent with sovereignty. Sovereignty is central to a state internally as there is only one supreme ruler of that state. Concomitantly, among states, sovereignty is expressed in the fact that there is no supreme ruler who is subservient to another or to a system of fellow supreme rulers. The absence of an external superior points out to the lack of government; the quintessential definition of anarchy.

Statehood is understood to be both a juridical and political concept. As a juridical status, a state is regarded as a legal entity; it recognises no legal superior. In its political conceptualisation, a state is taken to possess certain capacities and hence be able to perform certain tasks (Qin, 2016). On the one hand a state either possesses legality and on the other, it has powers and capacities which can grow larger or reduce.

 A state’s responsibility to realise its internal social goals might lead it to cede some of its sovereignty to a pool of like-minded states; or in some instances to a world body (Neumann, 2018). This ensures that international cooperation is central to well-being of a country in matters such as economy. Since the development of large-scale manufacturing brough about the need for expanded markets, states have had to cede some of their ‘economic’ sovereignty to a world body for the sake of not only their development but also the uplifting of the global economy (Qin, 2016). As such, the state is governed by principals and individuals who are not only eternal but decide in which way global business will be run.

This process of institutionalised regulation goes further than police world social and economic issues; even the manner in which states behave militarily is under the ambit of this regulation. Through the various conventions under the UN ambit and the emergence, development, and implementation of restraints to the use of force, the world, though lacking in a central government is essentially under a system of global governance.

               In order to achieve the above, states have ceded their sovereignty and adopt collective security. This leaves them with room enough to decide when legality suits them and thence adopt it or disregard it altogether since it does not augur well with their self-interests (Stuenkel, 2016). Thus, a state will cede those functions that are necessary for its expansion and also for the cohesion of the global political body. This is known as functionalism.

On the other hand, integration theory posits that instead of states creating a new world order in taking a back seat, as opined by functionalism, states will collapse into a new state; regional at first them morph into a global state in the future (Qin, 2016). A good example is the coming together of European countries into the European Union. The other variant is the development of federalism. Different from the well-known concept of federalism that takes power from the region and centralizes it, the nascent concept is based on having the central body exercise certain powers without deferring to lower levels and vice versa.

The relative ceding by states to federalism, integration theory, and functionalism has given birth to global economic institutions; namely the Bretton Woods institutions (Gray, 2016). This was realised in two ways: through the depoliticization of international economy and the formation of specific bodies to deal with specific aspects of the economy; and, the introduction of regulatory rather than managerial responsibilities to such organisations.

               Other than economic concerns, world politics is keenly engaged in security matters. As such the doctrine of Collective Security was adopted. It follows the mantra ‘one for all and all for one’. States are the ones to determine when the obligations of collective security are binding on them; a departure from an earlier proposal that a central body make the decision.

METHODOLOGY

This study employs a mixed-methods approach that combines qualitative and quantitative analysis. The qualitative data is collected through a comprehensive review of the relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and reports. The quantitative data is collected through a survey of policymakers and experts in the field of international relations. The survey is designed to elicit their views on the relationship between sovereign states and global governance, the challenges and opportunities presented by global governance, and the implications for the future of international relations.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

The findings of this study indicate that the relationship between sovereign states and global governance is complex and multifaceted. While many sovereign states are active participants in global governance institutions, others are more skeptical of these institutions and are hesitant to cede authority to them (Breuning, 2017). This divide is reflected in the differing approaches of states to issues such as climate change, trade, and human rights.

One of the major challenges presented by global governance is the tension between the principles of sovereignty and interdependence (Brown, & Ainley, 2005). While sovereign states are ultimately responsible for their own affairs, they are also interconnected with the global community and must take into account the impact of their actions on other states and the world as a whole. This tension is particularly acute in areas such as trade and finance, where the actions of one state can have far-reaching implications for others.

Despite these challenges, global governance also presents significant opportunities for sovereign states. By working together through global institutions, states can achieve outcomes that they could not achieve on their own (Breuning, 2017). This is particularly true in areas such as climate change, where collective action is essential for success.

The implications of this relationship for the future of international relations are significant. While some have predicted the decline of the nation-state in the face of globalization, the findings of this study suggest that sovereign states will continue to play a central role in international affairs. However, the nature of this role will be shaped by the evolving relationship between sovereign states and global governance institutions.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the relationship between sovereign states and global governance is complex and multifaceted, presenting both challenges and opportunities for sovereign states. While the tension between sovereignty and interdependence is a persistent challenge, global governance also offers the potential for collective action on issues of global importance. The future of international relations will be shaped by the evolving nature of this relationship, and policymakers and academics must continue to engage with this topic in order to better understand its implications.

REFERENCES

1. Acharya, A. (2014) .‘Global International Relations (IR) and regional worlds: a new agenda for international studies’, International Studies Quarterly, 58(4): 1–13.
2. Bertucci, M., Hayes, J. and James P. (2016) ‘Constructivism in international relations: the story so far’, in B. Mariano, J. Hayes and P. James (eds), Constructivism Reconsidered: Past, Present and Future. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
3. Breuning, M. (2017). Foreign Policy Analysis. A Comparative Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
4. Brown, C., & Ainley, K. (2005). Understanding Foreign Relations. (3 ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
5. Gray, C. S. (2016). War, Peace and International Relations. An Introduction to Strategic History. London: Routledge.
6. Jonsson, C., & Hall, M. (2015). Essence of Diplomacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
7. Sutch, P., & Elias, J. (2017). International Relations – The Basics. London: Routledge.