Has sovereignty essentially changed with the end of the Cold War?
Sovereignty has long provided the framework for domestic and international interactions. However the rules and norms of sovereignty are not static consequentially with the end of the Cold War sovereignty has essentially changed. Prior to 1991 notions of sovereignty harked back to the peace of Westphalia in the mid 16th century. The treaties of Munster and Osnabrück provided the basis of state sovereignty, which at its core meant ‘supreme authority within a territory’ (Philpott, 2001) and ‘non intervention in the internal affairs of other states’ (Krasner, 2004). However the end of the Cold War was a pivotal turning point in history that spurred a number of historical changes …show more content…
Prior to the end of the Cold War interventions, that could be considered humanitarian, were depicted as sovereignty violations. The response to the 1978 Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia supports this notion. Vietnam’s intervention exposed ‘widespread killings, torture and persecution by the Khmer Rouge’ (Murphy, 1996). However multiple states in the United Nations Security Council ‘held that Vietnam had illegally intervened in Kampuchean internal affairs’ (Arend,1993). When compared with the humanitarian endeavours of the post-Cold War era the Cambodian intervention becomes emblematic of the change undertaken by sovereignty. During the 1990s countries such as Somalia, Iraq, Kosovo and East Timor witnessed humanitarian interventions (Seybolt, 2007). These humanitarian missions were authorized by the UNSC, which is a contrast to earlier humanitarian operations like that of Vietnam in Cambodia, which was condemned by the UNSC on grounds of sovereignty. It is not the position of the UNSC that has changed but rather the nature of sovereignty. After the end of the …show more content…
This change is echoed in the words of United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan in 1999 when he stated ‘state sovereignty in its most basic sense is being redefined by the forces of globalisation and international cooperation’. The post Cold War world recognized that there are many non-state actors playing a role on the global stage. Transnational organizations like the European Union, The World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, have influenced state policy consequentially restricting sovereign states realm of power. States no longer have unrestricted controls over their economies as multinational organizations have intensified their influence. One prominent example of this is when the European Union placed pressure on states to implement austerity measures in order to receive assistance from the union essentially managing the economies of supposedly independent states (Karger, 2014). Globalisation has further affected the nature of sovereignty in terms of warfare. Prior to the advent of globalisation aggravated groups were concentrated to a single state with their protests against that particular state. Now conflict, in particular terrorism transcends state borders and operates on a global scale (Bayliss, Smith & Owens 2011). This complex transnational web of grievance has led states to become dependent
Sovereignty has long provided the framework for domestic and international interactions. However the rules and norms of sovereignty are not static consequentially with the end of the Cold War sovereignty has essentially changed. Prior to 1991 notions of sovereignty harked back to the peace of Westphalia in the mid 16th century. The treaties of Munster and Osnabrück provided the basis of state sovereignty, which at its core meant ‘supreme authority within a territory’ (Philpott, 2001) and ‘non intervention in the internal affairs of other states’ (Krasner, 2004). However the end of the Cold War was a pivotal turning point in history that spurred a number of historical changes …show more content…
Prior to the end of the Cold War interventions, that could be considered humanitarian, were depicted as sovereignty violations. The response to the 1978 Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia supports this notion. Vietnam’s intervention exposed ‘widespread killings, torture and persecution by the Khmer Rouge’ (Murphy, 1996). However multiple states in the United Nations Security Council ‘held that Vietnam had illegally intervened in Kampuchean internal affairs’ (Arend,1993). When compared with the humanitarian endeavours of the post-Cold War era the Cambodian intervention becomes emblematic of the change undertaken by sovereignty. During the 1990s countries such as Somalia, Iraq, Kosovo and East Timor witnessed humanitarian interventions (Seybolt, 2007). These humanitarian missions were authorized by the UNSC, which is a contrast to earlier humanitarian operations like that of Vietnam in Cambodia, which was condemned by the UNSC on grounds of sovereignty. It is not the position of the UNSC that has changed but rather the nature of sovereignty. After the end of the …show more content…
This change is echoed in the words of United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan in 1999 when he stated ‘state sovereignty in its most basic sense is being redefined by the forces of globalisation and international cooperation’. The post Cold War world recognized that there are many non-state actors playing a role on the global stage. Transnational organizations like the European Union, The World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, have influenced state policy consequentially restricting sovereign states realm of power. States no longer have unrestricted controls over their economies as multinational organizations have intensified their influence. One prominent example of this is when the European Union placed pressure on states to implement austerity measures in order to receive assistance from the union essentially managing the economies of supposedly independent states (Karger, 2014). Globalisation has further affected the nature of sovereignty in terms of warfare. Prior to the advent of globalisation aggravated groups were concentrated to a single state with their protests against that particular state. Now conflict, in particular terrorism transcends state borders and operates on a global scale (Bayliss, Smith & Owens 2011). This complex transnational web of grievance has led states to become dependent