Advertisement

Defining Down Sovereignty

  • Amitai Etzioni
Chapter
Part of the Library of Public Policy and Public Administration book series (LPPP, volume 11)

Abstract

In a globalizing world where transnational terrorism poses a serious threat to the security of many people, the Westphalian system of state sovereignty based on the sanctity of borders is increasingly obsolete. Today’s counterterrorism efforts have yielded to sovereignty rhetorically while routinely violating it in practice—this is unsustainable, and a new definition of sovereignty is called for. This chapter proposes building on the precedent of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) paradigm, which redefined sovereignty as a form of citizenship that entails responsibilities as well as rights, and asserts that the international community should recognize a further responsibility of states to curb any transnational terrorism that emanates from within their borders. The chapter concludes by stipulating that coercive regime change should not factor into upholding the rehashed sovereignty norm, but that a failure to prevent transnational terrorism could result in partial loss of sovereignty as nations respond to the threats against them.

References

  1. Ackerman, B. 2011. Obama’s unconstitutional war. Foreign Policy.Google Scholar
  2. Arbour, L. 2008. The responsibility to protect as a duty of care in international law and practice. Review of International Studies 34 (3): 445–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellamy, A.J. 2010. The responsibility to protect—five years on. Ethics and International Affairs 24 (2): 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilefsky, D., and Landler, M. 2011. As U.N. backs military action in Libya, U.S. role is unclear. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  5. Bobbitt, P. 2009. Terror and consent: The wars for the twenty-first century. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
  6. Byman, B. 2005. Passive sponsors of terrorism. Survival 47 (4): 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chimni, B.S. 2002. Forum replies: A new humanitarian council for humanitarian interventions? The International Journal of Human Rights 6 (1): 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Commission on Global Governance. 1995. Our global neighborhood: Report of the commission on global governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cornell University Law School. n.d. Section 2405 foreign policy controls. Accessed 18 Jul 2017. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50a/usc_sec_50a_00002405----000-.html.
  10. de Jouvenel, B. 1957. Sovereignty: An inquiry into the political good. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. De Nevers, R. 2007. Sovereignty and ethical argument in the struggle against state sponsors of terrorism. Journal of Military Ethics 6 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deng, F.M. 1996. Sovereignty as responsibility: Conflict management in Africa. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  13. Deng, F.M., S. Kimaro, T. Lyons, D. Rothchild, and I.W. Zartman. 1996. Sovereignty as responsibility: Conflict management in Africa. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  14. Department of Justice. n.d. Lawfulness of a lethal operation directed against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al-Qa’ida or an associated force. Washington, DC: DOJ Memo.Google Scholar
  15. Doyle, M.W. 2012. Dialectics of a global constitution: The struggle over the UN Charter. European Journal of International Relations 18 (4): 601–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etzioni, A. 2013. A liberal communitarian paradigm for counterterrorism. Stanford Journal of International Law 49 (2): 330–370.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2014. Rules of engagement and abusive citizens. Prism 4 (4): 87–102.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2015a. COIN: A study of strategic illusion. Small Wars & Insurgencies 26 (3): 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2015b. The democratization mirage. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 57 (4): 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans, G., M. Sahnoun, et al. 2001. The responsibility to protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
  21. Gallagher, A. 2014. What constitutes a ‘Manifest Failing’? Ambiguous and inconsistent terminology in the responsibility to protect. International Relations 28 (4): 428–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garigue, P. 1993. Intervention-sanction and droit d’ingerence in international humanitarian law. International Journal 48 (4): 668–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glanville, L. 2011a. Darfur and the responsibilities of sovereignty. The International Journal of Human Rights 15 (30): 462–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———. 2011b. The antecedents of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’. European Journal of International Relations 17 (2): 233–255.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2012. The responsibility to protect beyond borders. Human Rights Law Review 12 (1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldsmith, J., and D. Levinson. 2009. Law for states: International law constitutional law, public law. Harvard Law Review 122 (7): 1792–1868.Google Scholar
  27. Guha, R., and Spegele, B. 2013. China-India border tensions rise. The Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  28. Hannum, H. 1990. Autonomy, sovereignty, and self-determination: The accommodation of conflicting rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hehir, A. 2010. The responsibility to protect: ‘Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing’? International Relations 24 (2): 218–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ikenberry, G.J. 2011a. Liberal leviathan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2011b. The future of the liberal world order. Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
  32. Khan, A.N. 2011. Legality of targeted killings by drone attacks in Pakistan. Pak Institute for Peace Studies 1, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
  33. Krasner, S. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maritain, J. 1951. Man and the state. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Martin, S. 2011. Sovereignty and the responsibility to protect: Mutually exclusive or codependent? Griffith Law Review 20 (1): 153–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nexon, D. 1999. Zeitgeist? Neo-idealism and international political change. Review of International Political Economy 12: 700–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Norton-Taylor, R. 2012. Libya campaign ‘Has made UN missions to protect civilians less likely.’ The Guardian.Google Scholar
  38. O’Connell, M.E. 2005. When is a war not a war? The myth of the global war on terror. ILSA Journal of International, and Comparative Law 12: 535–573.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2010. Rise of the drones II: Examining the legacy of unmanned targeting: Hearing before the subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress. Statement of Mary Ellen O’Connell, Robert and Marion Short Chair in Law, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN.Google Scholar
  40. Philpott, D. 2001. Revolutions in sovereignty: How ideas shaped modern international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. ———. 2010. Sovereignty. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E. N. Zalta. Summer 2010. http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=sovereignty
  42. Piiparinen, T. 2012. Sovereignty-building: Three images of positive sovereignty projected through responsibility to protect. Global Change, Peace and Security 24 (3): 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Priest, D. 2005. Foreign network at front of CIA’s terror fight. The Washington Post.Google Scholar
  44. Rogers, A.P.V. 2004. Humanitarian intervention and international law. Harvard Journal of Law and Policy 27 (3).Google Scholar
  45. Schmitt, E. 2015. U.S. caution in strikes gives ISIS an edge, many Iraqis say. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  46. Slaughter, A.M. 2004. Sovereignty and power in a networked world order. Stanford Law Review 40: 283–329.Google Scholar
  47. ———. 2011. Intervention, Libya, and the future of sovereignty. The Atlantic. Google Scholar
  48. Tams, C.J. 2009. The use of force against terrorists. European Journal of International Law 20 (2): 359–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thakur, R. 2010. Law, legitimacy and United Nations. Melbourne Journal of International Law 11.Google Scholar
  50. Trapp, K.N. 2012. Holding states responsible for terrorism before the International Court of Justice. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 3 (2): 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. United Nations. 1945. Charter of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  52. ———. 2000. The Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.Google Scholar
  53. United Nations Department of Public Information. 2004. A more secure world: Our shared responsibility. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  54. United Nations, Department of Public Information. 2011. Security Council approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to protect civilians, by vote of 10 in favour with 5 abstentions, SC/10200.Google Scholar
  55. United Nations General Assembly. 1986. General Assembly Resolution 41/38, A/RES/41/38.Google Scholar
  56. ———. 2005. 2005 World Summit Outcome (Draft resolution referred to the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly by the General Assembly at its fifty-ninth session).Google Scholar
  57. ———. 2006. General Assembly Resolution 60/288, A/RES/60/288.Google Scholar
  58. United Nations Security Council. 1985. Security Council Resolution 573, S/RES/573.Google Scholar
  59. ———. 2004. Security Council Resolution 1566, S/RES/1566.Google Scholar
  60. ———. 2006. Security Council Resolution 1674, S/RES/1674.Google Scholar
  61. United States Department of State. 2015. Country reports on terrorism 121. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/239631.pdf.
  62. ———. n.d. State sponsors of terrorism. Accessed 19 Sept 2015. http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm.
  63. Woods, C. 2012. .CIA drone strikes violate Pakistan’s sovereignty, says senior diplomat. The Guardian.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amitai Etzioni
    • 1
  1. 1.The George Washington UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations