The Individual, the State, and International Relations: Toward an Interest Contiguity Theory of Parallel and Competing Sovereignties

Abstract

In the contemporary world, broadly three types of sovereignty exist parallel to one another. These are the sovereignties of the individual over what concerns none but him/her-self, of the nation-state over its territory and people, and of the institutions established to give expression to the will of the “international community,” howsoever defined. The frequent conflict between and among the various types of sovereignty raises a few questions. First, against whose moral standards would the freedom claimed by each type be legitimized? To put it differently, is the right to freedom “God-given,” as argued by the creationists? Or is it a dictate of pure, undiluted reason, as maintained by the Kantians? Does it evolve with society over time, as contended by the social Darwinists, or is it simply fabricated to assert and defend one among competing interests, which is the underlying thesis of Machiavellian realism? Second––and springing directly from the first question––under what circumstances is it justified to subordinate one type of sovereignty to another? Third, how will the boundary between and among the various types of sovereignty be drawn to ensure that each performs only those functions for which it is best suited? Fourth, what checks and balances have been or can be devised to hold each sovereign to account?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

—US Declaration of Independence, 1776