From the international law perspective all states are sovereign and are vested with judicial capacity to govern matters within their territorial frontiers. The constituent ingredients of sovereignty and their different perspectives are as follows:
137Military and Paramilitary Activities Case (Nicaragua v. United States of America (1986), ICJReport 14).
138 R Jackson, ‘Sovereignty at the Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) 10.
139 B Gonin, ‘Multilateral Intervention and the international Community in M Keren and D Sylvan eds, International Intervention: Sovereignty versus Responsibility.’ (London,Frank Cass, 2002)p.26.
140E Nijman, The Concept of International Legal Personality: An Inquiry into the History and Theory of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) p.45.
41 2.5.1 Absolute Sovereignty
The conception of absolute sovereignty connotes the exclusive control of matters within a sovereign domain without any form of external interference.This was the prevailing practice under the Westphalian sovereignty of State doctrine that is anchored as an absolute right of the State to regulate its internal affairs and this provide the sovereign State with the latitude to infringe on the human rights of its nationals with impunity.141
Thus, it has been contended that the conception of State sovereignty encapsulates the States liberty from foreign influence which essentially depicts the absolutist domestic control characteristic of absolute sovereignty of State.142
It is important to point out that sovereignty is the foundation of sovereign equality of States. It is the respect for the sovereign equality of States that contributes to the recognition and creation of State Sovereignty in current international law. Accordingly, under the dictates of international law, sovereign states are equal and independent constituent of the international community that operates on the principle of non-intervention as the basis for interstate-relations.143However, it has been argued that the absolute character of a sovereign State is not sacrosanct. This contention was rightly captured by Welsh when he pointed out that, „even during Thomas Hobbes age of absolution, the legitimate power of the sovereign could be circumscribed in situations where the State was either itself a threat to individual or where it was either unwilling or unable to protect the individual from other threats to his or her security.144 The views thus expressed here, which we find valid is to the effect that sovereignty of States was founded on the consent of the States citizens. It is in this respect that sovereignty of State was never contemplated as a mere capacity to compel, but there was always in existence limitations to exercising power within the confines of morality.145
The notion that a State exercises absolute control of its internal affairs is a misapprehension. This is against the backdrop that under the Current State System in
141J. Pattison, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) p.2.
142Ibid.
143Ibid, pp 2-4.
144J Welsh, loc cit.
145Ibid.
42
international law, States require cooperation on several issues ranging from technology, communication, transportation interalia. This brings to the fore the concept of globalization being a restraint on the application of absolute sovereignty of State doctrine.
According to Steven Smith and John Baylis, globalization is „the process of increasing inter-connectedness between societies such that events in one part of the world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far away.‟146
Globalization, essentially presents sovereign states with new challenges to their autonomy and authority.147It must be noted that globalization considers the pursuit of interest on the global arena vide the application of unrestricted capitalism.
Accordingly, it has been opined that, „implications for the sustaining of multilateral post-war arrangements are explored and analysed particularly in terms of war, its causes and its prevention. The notion of peace as human rights in action leads to the consideration of stances in a globalizing world of key multinationals in education – UNICEF, UNESCO and World Bank.‟148
Thus, globalization which is facilitated today by unhindered flow of information and geometrical progression in technology constitute a driving force this, in this period of globalization, geographical distances are fading away and territorial frontiers do not constitute barriers.149 Thus, technological advances in transportation and communication are eroding the boundaries between hitherto separate markets territorial boundaries, so much so that the most basic sense of state sovereignty is in a process of redefinition by globalization and international cooperation.150
Although absolute sovereignty postulate exclusive domestic jurisdiction devoid of external interference, the dictates of globalization presents a limitation to the sanctity of state sovereignty in reality.This was aptly captured by Oji and Ozioko when they opined that, „We have lived in a world of essentially unchallenged sovereignty for several
146S Smith & J Baylis, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (6th edn, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011) p.14.
147M Beeson, ‘Sovereignty Under Siege: Globalization and the State in Southeast Asia’ (2003) vol 24 Third World Quarterly, 358.
148P W Jenes, ‘Globalization and Internationalism: Democratic Prospects for World Education’ (1998) vol 34
149M Beeson, op cit, p.362.
150R M Rocha, ‘Does Sovereignty Remain as the Foundational Principle of the International System’ (2013) vol 4, No. 2, Law International Review, 195.
43
generations now, and had begun to think of it as the national state of affairs. However, the idea of states as autonomous, independent entities is collapsing under the combined onslaught of monetary unions, global television, the internet, governmental and non-governmental organization.‟151
However, inspite of the impact of globalization on international relations, state sovereignty still retains its pride of place as the foundational principle of international law.152More revealing is the fact that even the fundamental principles of sovereignty of States are in opposition to each other as evident in the competing imperatives of humanitarian intervention and non- intervention.International law encourages and promotes friendly relations among independent States pursuant to which conventions and treaties are subscribed to by States which in turn renders the absolute conception of Sovereignty of State a mirage.