Sovereignty and the Impracticality of State Takeovers in Modern International Relations

-

In the modern international system, the concept of state sovereignty forms the foundation of global peace and cooperation. Sovereignty is enshrined in various international laws and agreements, such as the Montevideo Convention and the Vienna Convention, which clearly outline the principles that govern the recognition and independence of nations. These principles are further reinforced by the United Nations (UN) Charter, which explicitly demands respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all member states.

Recently, an interesting suggestion was made in a public forum that the United States might consider forcefully taking over Canada and Greenland, and that Australia could potentially take over Papua New Guinea (PNG) for security reasons against perceived Chinese influence and expansion. While such ideas may arise from genuine concerns about national and regional security, they contradict the core principles of international law and global diplomacy.

Sovereignty is not just a theoretical concept; it is a practical framework that ensures nations have the right to govern themselves without external interference. The Montevideo Convention, for instance, outlines four key criteria for statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. These criteria guarantee that all recognized states, regardless of their size or power, have equal standing in the international arena.

The UN Charter goes further, stating in Article 2(1) that the organization is based on "the sovereign equality of all its Members." Moreover, Article 2(4) explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. These principles collectively safeguard nations from the arbitrary actions of more powerful states.

A forced takeover of one sovereign state by another, whether for security or any other reason, would not only violate international law but also invite widespread opposition from the global community. For example, if the United States attempted to annex Canada or Greenland, it would face resistance not only from those nations but also from other countries and international organizations committed to upholding sovereignty.

Similarly, the suggestion that Australia should take over and govern PNG would undermine the self-determination and independence that PNG has enjoyed since its independence in 1975. Such an act would be met with strong opposition from PNG citizens, neighboring Pacific countries, and the broader international community. The historical context of colonization and its lingering effects in many parts of the world further highlights why forced takeovers are deeply contentious and unacceptable.

In addressing security concerns, it is crucial to rely on multilateral approaches and diplomatic engagement rather than unilateral actions. The UN and regional organizations like the Pacific Islands Forum provide platforms for nations to discuss and resolve security challenges collaboratively. For instance, issues related to China’s growing influence in the Pacific can be addressed through dialogue, mutual agreements, and strengthening existing partnerships within the framework of international law.

Rather than entertaining ideas of state takeovers, we should focus on fostering stronger bilateral and multilateral relationships that respect sovereignty while addressing security concerns. In the case of PNG and Australia, their long-standing relationship offers opportunities for collaboration in areas such as defense, trade, education, and climate change. Such partnerships, built on mutual respect and shared goals, are far more effective and sustainable than coercive measures.

The idea of powerful nations taking over smaller sovereign states for strategic reasons may stem from legitimate security concerns, but it is neither practical nor legal in the contemporary world order. Upholding the principles of sovereignty and fostering cooperation through dialogue and multilateralism remain the best paths forward. As global citizens, we must advocate for solutions that respect the independence and dignity of all nations, ensuring a more peaceful and equitable international community.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FPA: Organizational Process Model

-
This model centers on the fact that different bureaucracies have different standard operating procedures. These procedures are made in order to allow day to day operations to be carried out. Thus, a foreign policy decision is made based on these standard operating procedures. It is hard for a bureaucracy to make a decision or let alone function out of character or contrary to their standard operating procedure. The reading Chapter 4: Foreign policy shares a straight forward explanation of the OPM: "An alternative to the rational model of decision making is the organizational process model. In this model, foreign policy decision makers generally skip the labor-intensive process of identifying goals and alternative actions, relying instead for most decisions on standardized responses or standard operating procedures. For example, the U.S. State Department everyday receives more than a thousand reports or inquiries from its embassies around the world and sends out more than a ...
Read more

Commercial liberalism and the six norms

-
Image
Liberal internationalism is defined by Griffiths, O'Callaghan and Roach (2008, p.190) as a project to transform international relations so that they conform to models of peace, freedom, and prosperity allegedly enjoyed within constitutional liberal democracies. The same scholars go further by dividing liberalism into three distinct groups. They say these are the three ways to implement the project. The way they present liberal internationalism as a project makes their work interesting. Three distinct groups Firstly, commercial liberalism is about free trade between states. States bilaterally or multilaterally via a platform like APEC pursue the goal of trade liberalization. Griffiths, O'Callagahan and Roach (ibid.) argued that economic interdependence would decrease the likelihood of going to war. Republican liberalism is about democratic peace. The scholars argued that the spread of democracy among states so that governments will be accountable to their citizens makes it di...
Read more

Allison's rational actor model

-
There are 3 common models of foreign policy decision making according to Graham Allison: rational actor model organizational process mode government politics model.  We will discuss the 3 models and compare them with the 3 levels of analysis. However, I challenge you to use your own initiative to learn about the other models of decision making. This will help you as future decision makers or analysts to understand how decisions are made and the processes. When one wakes up from bed he or she decides whether or not to brush their teeth, comb their hair and have a shower. These decisions are paramount, they affect and influence how the individual interacts in a social setting. This highlights the fact that as human beings we make decisions every day. Decision making is defined as the thought process of selecting a logical choice from the available options. In the case of the ‘Kibung peles boy’ analogy; the male student had a choice of approaching the girl to ask he...
Read more