Sovereignty and International Law: Westphalian Concept of State Sovereignty
Sovereignty and International Law
MIYOSHI Masahiro
Professor Emeritus of International Law
Aichi University, Japan
Abstract
Despite occasional claims for a fade-out of the Westphalian concept of State sovereignty, the international community does in fact continue to depend on it.
The Marxist
doctrine once predicted the fate of the concept, but developing countries, while adopting
Marxist teachings in their criticism of the traditional international legal institutions, have tended to reinforce their sense of sovereignty in their dealings with the established international order.
International law has developed through increased co-operation among sovereign States in recent years as, for example, in the European Union, but it allows the State to assert sovereignty in a variety of ways: persistent objection to the formation of a customary rule of international law; nuclear threat in a world of general prohibition of the use of force; and above all, the unchanged concept of territorial sovereignty. The very notion of the State has these essential components: “(a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government, and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other States” (Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States of
1933, Article 1).
This is evidenced in the actual state of the international community:
sovereign States generally refrain from interfering in the domestic affairs of the others.
Whatever political regime and social institutions a State may have is a matter for it within its own territorial limits.
In so far as international boundaries exist as a matter of fact, they may be disputed between the States concerned, as history abundantly shows.
In the
foreseeable future, therefore, boundary disputes, especially maritime boundary disputes, could inevitably arise or emerge if and when natural resources are involved in the boundary areas. The IBRU will never lose its jobs.
1
I
Historical Roots of Sovereignty
To start with the
MIYOSHI Masahiro
Professor Emeritus of International Law
Aichi University, Japan
Abstract
Despite occasional claims for a fade-out of the Westphalian concept of State sovereignty, the international community does in fact continue to depend on it.
The Marxist
doctrine once predicted the fate of the concept, but developing countries, while adopting
Marxist teachings in their criticism of the traditional international legal institutions, have tended to reinforce their sense of sovereignty in their dealings with the established international order.
International law has developed through increased co-operation among sovereign States in recent years as, for example, in the European Union, but it allows the State to assert sovereignty in a variety of ways: persistent objection to the formation of a customary rule of international law; nuclear threat in a world of general prohibition of the use of force; and above all, the unchanged concept of territorial sovereignty. The very notion of the State has these essential components: “(a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government, and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other States” (Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States of
1933, Article 1).
This is evidenced in the actual state of the international community:
sovereign States generally refrain from interfering in the domestic affairs of the others.
Whatever political regime and social institutions a State may have is a matter for it within its own territorial limits.
In so far as international boundaries exist as a matter of fact, they may be disputed between the States concerned, as history abundantly shows.
In the
foreseeable future, therefore, boundary disputes, especially maritime boundary disputes, could inevitably arise or emerge if and when natural resources are involved in the boundary areas. The IBRU will never lose its jobs.
1
I
Historical Roots of Sovereignty
To start with the