Does the principle of sovereignty promote security or threaten it?

        The period of between the two world wars saw the introduction of the League of Nations, which was the first attempt at international law with one of the aims, being protecting the sovereignty of territories. This endeavour failed, aggressive nations such as Italy, Germany and Japan, whom all invaded territories, disregarding sovereign states, and ignoring the wishes and the rules and regulations of the league. The territories (i.e. Abysinia, Czechoslovakia,) whom being sovereign had the right to control their own affairs, excluding external governments from any interference, had this violated, so it can be said that their sovereignty as in individual nation state certainly didn’t promote security within their borders. The sovereignty of Czechoslovakia clearly threatened security as it contained former German Towns around the border with around 3million Germans populated here. This is why Germany attacked trying to restore parts of this territory to their control after it was taken from them after the 1st world war. This doesn’t however directly point to this being a collapse of the recognition of sovereignty amongst nations, as there were obviously many states that complied with the principles of sovereignty. Therefore you can lead to a different conclusion that sovereignty does promote security, but this feeling becomes jeopardised when an aggressive territory wants to re-shape territories thus the principle of sovereignty can threaten security.

        When there are aggressive powers operating within the global system, states are going to be concerned for their own security. Despite the fact that their sovereignty may be recognised by all other nation states, for one not to recognise or accept this would be classed as a threat. Prime examples of the sovereignty of nations not being accepted by others could be the troubles in Northern Ireland or probably more prominent at the moment the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. Being sovereign in the case of Israel has certainly not been a promotion of security within the state; Palestine’s failure to accept the sovereignty of Israel has been the very cause of this. The sovereignty of Israel certainly acts as a threat to security be it only from Palestine. Thus the actions of one nation can throw out the idea of the sovereign state promoting security within a territory.

        The above idea brings upon another concept of sovereignty being able to promote security. Becoming sovereign leads to membership in the international system, therefore the sovereignty of a government within their territory is acknowledged by other states. Diplomatic relations and membership in the UN extend this further. The UN attempts to maintain and protect the sovereignty of nations, in times of war it acts as a peacekeeping force to try and re-establish the territories concerned status as a sovereign state. This is a means of enforcing international law, taking action against the recalcitrant country for which has broken these laws. Looking at this point you could say that the principles of sovereignty, the international laws that make it legal, have helped to make the nation secure from an aggressive power that has failed to recognise states sovereignty. A state being a member of the UN can act as a deterrent for an aggressive nation when considering any for of interference in a territories internal affairs. The power for which the UN has is massive, and with the aggressor seeing that their targeted state has their backing, they (aggressor) are almost sure to stand off. Looking at this, the strength of the UN and it acting as a form of security for the sovereign state. Could it be argued that the principles of sovereignty have nothing to do with the security created by the UN, or is it that the UN’s very existence is due to the need for protection of the sovereign state? Surely the latter is more strongly founded, the UN helps to enforce international law, and this was created to legalise the concept of sovereignty, so there is definitely a link between the principles of sovereignty creating security. From this point it is difficult to argue the principles of sovereignty threaten security.

        If you look back at the period from the late 17th century to the early 20th century you can see that that their was a great deal of conflict within European countries, constantly trying to gain parts of territory that would once again be of benefit to them. There was very little recognition of state sovereignty, as the attraction of land and potential of increased power was more important. At this stage in time a nations economy wasn’t so responsive to these conflicts and there was also less importance on trade with these nations. Unlike today’ global markets where there is a great deal of interdependence between states. As the states are reliant upon each other there is going to be little desire amongst them to interfere within a territory that they have established trade links with. Also a period of war and hostility between nations can produce low confidence within economies that can often lead into a slump, possibly recession. This is not likely only to affect the economies of the two countries concerned, it could over spill into the economies of other territories thus causing negative feeling toward the aggressive country. In the western world where trade is so important between countries the sovereignty of states is recognised, not only this but also each nations may sometimes attempt to help other states. Thus moving further away from the security threat to a more allied approach. Again you must look at this economic independence creating security amongst sovereign states, and link it to the principle of sovereignty as too what influence they play on this creation of security. Is it that states are becoming less selfish and becoming more prepared to recognise other states sovereignty? Is it because they are better off acknowledging this due to the success of the global markets? It is my view that this is a separate form of promoting security within territories. There are numerous organisations within the world that can have this effect on security such as the WTO, OECD, EU etc.

        I believe that the principle of sovereignty can both promote and threaten security. In the modern era I believe that it’s principles offer more to promote security than to threaten it. The days appear to be gone for the need of a country to grow by means of land and land only, we have now moved more into an era where economics plays a massive part in the political behaviour and policies of a country. Also in the last century we have been able to enforce international law much more easily, thus that the principles of sovereignty point towards national security but are only achieved through these laws. The enforcement of the laws is a big step in the recognition of sovereignty and thus the promotion of security, in the first centuries of the concept of sovereignty, not much could be done to preserve states rights to sovereignty against a large aggressive nation. The increase in military technology is a big factor in this increased security from the recognition of sovereignty. When Frenchman Richilieu wrote the ‘Raison d`etat’ the first modern ideas and principles of sovereignty he believed that each nations selfish interests would lead to the security and progress of all the others. In many senses his concept doesn’t seem too far off of modern day happenings.

        Before this increased technology and organisations such as the UN and the EU the basic principles of sovereignty very much threatened security. There appeared to be little attention placed on ethnic groups and religions when drawing borderlines, these groups could become separated causing great unrest. Thus the principles of sovereignty threatened security as they had separated the same groups into different territories, main example East and West Germany. I believe that in today society the main security threat is that of terrorism, their reasons for certain atrocities remain blurred so it makes it difficult to analyse with respect to sovereignty.

        The principles of sovereignty if managed correctly certainly promote security, but I believe that this has only become the case in recent years when the legal side of it has been made more effective. Sovereignty and national individualism no longer have their importance in the global system as they once did so obviously the principles of this offer a greatly reduced threat to security as they once did.