One of the greatest benefits of a sovereign nation is the attainment of political power which allows Native American tribes a point in with they can override constitutional law and political rule made by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is also the concept of equality for nations that is connected with the issue of sovereignty. Hence, Native American tribes will benefit from this concept. Sovereignty encourages the idea of fairness where there is no nation or state that has higher power. This means that sovereignty generally negates the thoughts of having higher power that rules a place whether it is international or foreign.
The rights and status of a nation or state are defined by sovereignty, and this is the same to those Native American nations that are sovereign to the United States. They will, therefore, recognize sovereign and consequential immunity that they can use for different official purposes as a nation. Furthermore, sovereignty protects a nation by providing them with rights against intervention or interference from international or foreign powers. Another benefit of sovereignty is the ability to enforce concepts that are extravagant, but are of special importance to government officials. It is also typically understood, that sovereign nations hold the right to determine “the nature and definition of the characteristics of citizenship within themselves” which provides them with aspect of “dual citizenship” (Wunder, 1999, p. 80). In general, sovereignty plays an antidemocratic role within a sovereign nation, as well as within the Native American tribes (Krasner, 1996).
Understandably, sovereignty concepts and foundations are connected to international law sources. Most laws set by such sovereign tribes usually contradicts international laws on crime, economic policies, and human rights among others since they are usually based on the traditional cultures. Such cultures are usually biased especially along gender lines. This shows that sovereignty is a monopoly of power which resulted in the highest authority in the nation in 1648 as Treaty of Westphalia (Philpott, 1998).
Sovereignty is a source of stability for the Native American tribes. This is because sovereignty has provided legal protection for the Native American tribes, against any sort of external attacks or interventions. Additionally, sovereignty has offered the Native American tribes diplomatic foundations forming international treaties, organizations and laws through negations. It has also provided these Native American tribes with a stable framework whereby, market economies and the government are represented allowing different nations to emerge together (George, 1997).
Despite the fact that Native American tribes benefit from their status as a sovereign nation and political entity within the United States, they also suffer in some way from this status. There are many challenges that come with being a sovereign state within the United States. For example, some tribes may find themselves persistently negotiating the boundaries of their physical territory and political sovereignty. Sovereignty could also be classified as a threat to Native America tribes because it weakens their strengths as a nation. Self-government typically leads to economic globalization, growth and rise of human rights and supranational institutions as a result of economic integration (Sikkink, 1993). The rise of human rights is usually of great concern in most international laws since it is directly affecting sovereign status (Jackson, 1990). The set principles normally limit the government authority in Native American nations leaving them with less power to act within their own territory. The sovereign nation’s ability to fashion economic and social policies will be lowered due to difficulties experienced in growing multinational franchises. Their power in promoting economic development will be lessened due to lack of free flow of capital (Thomson, 1996). Additionally, sovereignty actually constrains war against transnational terrorism. Sovereignty has failed to articulate technological, environmental, economic and ideological interdependencies that have a direct link to humans across the world because they are based on traditionally cultural practices (Davies & Clow, 2009).
In conclusion, the sovereign nation status and political entity of the Native American tribes within the United States, has both advantages and disadvantages. Sovereign powers have empowered Native American tribes to determine their own form of government, tax, regulate property use, administer justice and enforce laws. While, on the other hand, it has also weakened their strengths through the set principles that have limited Native American tribes authority to act as a nation. The bottom line, sovereignty has remained to be an essential foundation for prosperity, democracy and peace for Native American tribes in the United States.
Works Cited
Anderson, C. P. (1907). The extent and limitations of the treaty-making power under the constitution. The American Journal of International Law, 1(3), pp. 636-670. Retrieved from JSTOR database.
Biersteker, T. & Weber, C. (1996). State sovereignty as social construct. New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from GoogleBooks database.
Davies, W. & Clow, L. (2009). American Indian Sovereignty and Law: An Annotated Bibliography. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Retrieved from GoogleBooks database.
Goldberg-Ambrose, C. (1994). Of Native Americans and tribal members: The impact of law on Indian group life. Law & Society Review, 28(5, Symposium: Community and Identity in Sociolegal Studies), pp. 1123-1148. Retrieved from JSTOR database.
Jackson, R. (1990). Quasi-states: sovereignty, international relations, and the Third World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kidwell, C. S., & Velie, A. R. (2005). Native American studies [Electronic version]. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Retrieved from netLibrary database.
Kourvetaris, G.A. (1997). Political sociology: structure and process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Krasner, S. D. (1995). Compromising westphalia. International Security, 20(3), pp. 115-151.
Philpott, D. (1998). Sovereignty. Stanford: Stanford Encyclopedia of Sociology
Sikkink, K. (1993). Human-rights, principled issue-networks, and sovereignty. New York: International Organization Publishers.
Thomson, E. (1996). . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wunder, J. R. (1999). Native American sovereignty ([2nd ed.) [Electronic Version]. New York: Garland Pub. Retrieved from Google eBooks database.
