in this post-colonial era: human rights”.
19 Direct interventions in Africa and Asia
were grounded on the argument that the governments under intervention had
violated humanitarian values. Intervenors claimed to act in a way compatible with
the maximization of justice, what made the intervention “morally justified in natural
law, if not legally justified in international law”.
20 Hence, sovereignty continued to
be a plastic concept, to be invoked in propagandistic and instrumental ways whenever one version or the other would suit the invoking part.
Despite the controversies surrounding the concept of sovereignty, which has been
referred to as plastic, or “organized hypocrisy”,
21 it is still resilient. It is a faitaccompli that states cannot simply close themselves to the scrutiny of the rest of the
world in thorny issues such as the protection of human and minority rights or the
increasing role of international financial institutions, and that has led to a certain
erosion of the original concept. However, sovereignty, albeit weakened, is far from
being moribund. The consent-based conception of the relationship between sovereign states and between them and international organizations “precludes the argument that state sovereignty is under threat of some form of overarching ‘world
government’”.
22 Instead, it has been through changes and adaptations, to the point
that, nowadays, a modern notion of sovereignty can mean interdependence of states
in the global context.
Nowadays, sovereignty corresponds in essence to the collection of rights held by
a state both as a powerful entity within a given territory and as an independent entity
on the international sphere. The current view equates sovereignty to competences
and makes it possible for the international lawyer to refer to jurisdiction by the terms
of “sovereignty” and “sovereign rights”. At the end of the day, sovereignty depicts
states’ powers, which originate from legal custom and do not depend on consent of
any other state, but the sovereign state itself.
19 See Wallerstein (2006), p. 12.
20 Id. 15. The author brings as examples of human-rights based interventions the Entebbe Operation
(by Israel in Uganda) in 1976, the Vietnamese overthrow of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in 1978
and the Tanzanian counterattack of Idi Amin’s Ugandan troops, which led to overthrow of Idi Amin
and the installation of a new president in Uganda, also in 1978.
21 The idea behind the provoking affirmation is that despite longstanding and internationally
acknowledged, norms containing the meaning of sovereignty (such as non-interference in domestic
affairs) have been systematically violated. This “organized hypocrisy” has been, thus, an enduring
attribute of international relations since many centuries. See Krasner (1999), p. 2.
22 Crawford mentions the erosion of the concept of “domestic jurisdiction”, understood as the
“reserved domain” of topics under exclusive discretion of states. Since the adoption of the UN
Charter, article 2 (7) has been given an interpretation that permits UN intervention in “matters which
are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”, the exact contrary of that article’s
original intent. Thus, UN bodies have acted in several occasions on topics related to the relationship
between governments and their own people, as in the case of human rights violations. As an
example, one may refer to Resolution 1973, of 2011, passed by UN Security Council, authorizing
“all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya, which resulted in the death of former Libyan
Staatschef, Muammar Gaddafi. For more information on this process of “erosion”, see Crawford
(2012), p. 454.
90
4 Sovereignty and Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea
19 Direct interventions in Africa and Asia
were grounded on the argument that the governments under intervention had
violated humanitarian values. Intervenors claimed to act in a way compatible with
the maximization of justice, what made the intervention “morally justified in natural
law, if not legally justified in international law”.
20 Hence, sovereignty continued to
be a plastic concept, to be invoked in propagandistic and instrumental ways whenever one version or the other would suit the invoking part.
Despite the controversies surrounding the concept of sovereignty, which has been
referred to as plastic, or “organized hypocrisy”,
21 it is still resilient. It is a faitaccompli that states cannot simply close themselves to the scrutiny of the rest of the
world in thorny issues such as the protection of human and minority rights or the
increasing role of international financial institutions, and that has led to a certain
erosion of the original concept. However, sovereignty, albeit weakened, is far from
being moribund. The consent-based conception of the relationship between sovereign states and between them and international organizations “precludes the argument that state sovereignty is under threat of some form of overarching ‘world
government’”.
22 Instead, it has been through changes and adaptations, to the point
that, nowadays, a modern notion of sovereignty can mean interdependence of states
in the global context.
Nowadays, sovereignty corresponds in essence to the collection of rights held by
a state both as a powerful entity within a given territory and as an independent entity
on the international sphere. The current view equates sovereignty to competences
and makes it possible for the international lawyer to refer to jurisdiction by the terms
of “sovereignty” and “sovereign rights”. At the end of the day, sovereignty depicts
states’ powers, which originate from legal custom and do not depend on consent of
any other state, but the sovereign state itself.
19 See Wallerstein (2006), p. 12.
20 Id. 15. The author brings as examples of human-rights based interventions the Entebbe Operation
(by Israel in Uganda) in 1976, the Vietnamese overthrow of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in 1978
and the Tanzanian counterattack of Idi Amin’s Ugandan troops, which led to overthrow of Idi Amin
and the installation of a new president in Uganda, also in 1978.
21 The idea behind the provoking affirmation is that despite longstanding and internationally
acknowledged, norms containing the meaning of sovereignty (such as non-interference in domestic
affairs) have been systematically violated. This “organized hypocrisy” has been, thus, an enduring
attribute of international relations since many centuries. See Krasner (1999), p. 2.
22 Crawford mentions the erosion of the concept of “domestic jurisdiction”, understood as the
“reserved domain” of topics under exclusive discretion of states. Since the adoption of the UN
Charter, article 2 (7) has been given an interpretation that permits UN intervention in “matters which
are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”, the exact contrary of that article’s
original intent. Thus, UN bodies have acted in several occasions on topics related to the relationship
between governments and their own people, as in the case of human rights violations. As an
example, one may refer to Resolution 1973, of 2011, passed by UN Security Council, authorizing
“all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya, which resulted in the death of former Libyan
Staatschef, Muammar Gaddafi. For more information on this process of “erosion”, see Crawford
(2012), p. 454.
90
4 Sovereignty and Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea