Events in the year 2005 have raised significant questions about who has the starring role when it comes to the international stage. The U.S.-led war in Iraq and the Dutch and French rejection of the European Union constitution, for example, reinforce for many the idea that sovereign states continue to dominate the international system, setting the political agenda and calling the shots. Other events of this year, however, have led many to question the absolute sovereignty of the nation-state. From the expansion of World Trade Organization rules and jurisdiction to the international resistance to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, certain global trends and events are challenging the sovereign authority of states and are creating a system where states are not the only actors that need to be considered on the world stage.

Yes: Proponents of Absolute State Sovereignty

The situation in Iraq is a perfect example of just how strong the sovereign state is in contemporary politics. The fact that the United States acted unilaterally in Iraq, in opposition to the majority opinion of the United Nations, demonstrates the sovereign nature of state power regardless of international opinion or, more importantly, the authority of international institutions. Although many international organizations exist within the system, they still do not rival state authority and often serve as vehicles for promoting the interest of the states that dominate them.

The realist camp, broadly defined, often points to states as the primary actors on the world stage. In this sense, states are seen as unitary and even rational actors that operate in a system of anarchy (no central/world government) and are thus motivated by national interest alone. Because states exist in a self-help system, power politics becomes the name of the game. International organizations such as the United Nations are considered politically irrelevant in this power struggle because they lack the tangible power wielded by states (often conceived as military might).

No: Opponents of Absolute State Sovereignty

On the other side of the debate are those who point to emerging international institutions, growing international interdependence among states, and the way in which these trends are fundamentally transforming the landscape of the international system. The recent war in Iraq also provides some meat for those who fall in this camp. The fact that the United States went to the UN Security Council in the first place for support in Iraq—in addition to the follow-up appeals to the Security Council for aid and assistance after the invasion—suggests that no state, even the United States, is capable of handling alone the complex global problems facing the world. Since the war was declared “over” in early 2003, the United Nations has played a critical role in rebuilding the state of Iraq, reinforcing the notion that international organizations like the United Nations are important world actors that limit the scope of state sovereignty. In this changing environment, states are not entirely free to act without influence or interruption from other world actors.

For liberals, broadly defined, global actors include not only states but also international organizations (both governmental and nongovernmental) and multinational corporations. While liberals recognize that international institutions, rules, norms, and interdependence do not create or enforce the type of stable international order that might be provided by a strong world government, they support the idea that these relationships play an indispensable role in shaping the international environment, building incentives for cooperation, enhancing trust between states, and promoting negotiation over military confrontation in settling international disputes. In this sense, power comes to have a much broader meaning than it does from a realist’s perspective. Power is wielded not only through military means but through economic incentives and sanctions, through shaming techniques and threats to international credibility, and through the growth of international law.

In the end, the jury still seems to be out as to the power of state sovereignty. Will the United States be successful in building democracy in Iraq? How important will United Nations’ participation be for success in Iraq? While international institutions are making their presence known, states are still asserting their power and cannot be ignored. But although states still seem to be the primary actor, the way they interact on the global level is continually and increasingly being affected by the action of international organizations.

Whatever side of the debate you find most convincing, the concept of sovereignty remains central. Below you will find some links that further discuss the meaning of state sovereignty and its role in contemporary international politics. Use these links to help shape your ideas about who are the important actors on the world stage.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/soverindex.htm
Numerous articles addressing issues of state sovereignty from the Global Policy Forum

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html
“Why the Security Council?”—Article by Michael J. Glennon from Foreign Affairs

http://www.policyreview.org/dec03/plattner.html
“Sovereignty and Democracy”—Article from Policy Review Online

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/kaecon.html
“Two Concepts of State Sovereignty”—Article written by UN secretary-general Kofi Annan