Fragmentation And Integration: Undermining State Sovereignty

The concept of State Sovereignty is an ideal that nations hold onto passionately, often engaging in war to protect it, both on the battlefield and in the boardroom.

Defined as the "entitlement of states to rule within their own territorial space (Baylis & Smith 2005, p. 780)," state sovereignty is increasingly becoming undermined by the forces of nationalism, globalisation, and fragmentation - exemplified by war and destruction. This paper will identify how these forces undermine state sovereignty, and offer contemporary examples of how they do so.

Integration is "a process of ever closer union between states, in a regional or international context (Baylis & Smith 2005, p. 774)," and is perhaps best exemplified by the amalgamation of a number of European states in 1992 to form the European Union (EU).

Undermining state sovereignty could not be clearer in the EU example than member-states giving up their chance to veto decisions as policy is determined by a majority vote. For example, if a new economic policy that the EU wishes to adopt does not quite work out for the entire benefit for France, then their ability to overrule the policy until changes are made is now redundant, as the other member-states may rule in favour of the policy, forcing France to comply. This style of majority-voting is not uncommon; in fact it is a staple of democratic society. Translation to a state-level however, blatantly undermines state sovereignty.

Voting however, is not the only sovereign right that member-states have relinquished.

Krasner (2001) states: "The EU is inconsistent with conventional sovereignty rules. Its member states have created supranational institutions (the European Court of Justice, the European commission, and the Council of Ministers) that can make decisions opposed by some member states (p. 28)."

These institutions strike at the heart of sovereignty, as sovereignty works on the principle that there is no higher authority than the nation-state (Jackson 2003).

Where there is argument that members of the European Union were not coerced into joining (Ahern 2004), there is a strong sentiment that states were required to integrate because of the perceived negative impact on trade, and to maintain a strong voice in negotiations with other states (Christiansen 2005).

Whilst the EU is the end product of years of negotiation and amalgamation, there is already the seed of integration planted in various treaties and organisations around the globe, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which incorporates Canada, Mexico and the United States; the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and even the 'Common Market of the South' - abbreviated by its Spanish acronym, MERCOSUR - operating in South America. Whilst these groups still allow for a degree of state sovereignty, albeit with their trade and economic policies heavily regulated, there is the likelihood that they will escalate to a more integrated body, such as the EU. Calls for further integration regarding policy, defence (Acharya 1991) and money (Political and Regional Organizations 1964) are mealy stepping stones towards full political integration.

The opposite force - equally detrimental to the notion of sovereignty - is Fragmentation. Broadly defined as the "[b]reakup of a country or other governing body (Wadsworth n.d.)," fragmentation is notorious for leaving violent disputes in its wake. Some of the key examples of this concept would be the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the 1947 Pakistan-India division and the Eritrea-Ethopia separation of the late 90s. In all situations, there has been fallout, whether it is internal disputes (Miller 1992), or economic devastation (Pike 2005).

The best post-Cold War example of Fragmentation in-force is Nationalism. Although a relatively new concept, Nationalism is "both opposed to globalization and a product of it (Halliday 2005, p. 524)," and can be the cause of wars through individual's collective belief, that loyalty to the nation-state - above all else - overrides any other loyalty (Halliday 2005).

A term that is almost synonymous with war, Van Evera (1994) offers four hypotheses as to Nationalism being the cause of conflict:

1. The greater the proportion of state-seeking nationalities that are stateless, the greater the risk of war.
2. The more that nationalities pursue the recovery of national [dispersion], and the more they pursue annexionist strategies of recovery, the greater the risk of war.
3. The more [dominating] the goals that nationalities pursue towards one another, the greater the risk of war.
4. The more severely nationalities oppress minorities living in their states, the greater the risk of war. (p. 8)

These fears can perhaps be exemplified in the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict, which involves the one state (Israel), but two nations - the original state of Israel, and the proposed state of Palestine.

Barnett (1995) believes that contemporary scholars are less likely to discuss 'nation-states' more than 'nations against states.'

"[S]ome of the most important sources of regional and international instability clearly are rooted in contending national and ethnic claims and the failure of the state to capture the loyalties of its citizens (p. 479)."

Ideally, individual loyalty to the state would avoid a number of dilemmas; however history reveals that it is unlikely. Fragmentation of this nature occurs regularly, from the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict to the emergence of East Timor as its own nation-state, and whilst it can provide long-term benefits for the new state (eg. The fragmentation of Russia can allow smaller nation-states easier access into markets such as the EU - see Hale & Taagepera 2002), the short-term effects on sovereignty are dramatic, as states struggle to maintain order, formulate policy and control the populace as Nationalism leads to Fragmentation, which can lead to war.

There is little doubt that both integration and fragmentation undermine state sovereignty. This paper draws two main conclusions about how these two forces do so:

1. Integration can result in political powers being deferred to a higher authority, such as the European Union - who has relinquished veto control to other bodies such as the European commission. It is a natural aspect of globalisation that states are obliged to take part in for fears that they will loose their negotiation powers in relation to trade and economics.
2. Fragmentation is often a cause of Nationalism, which relies on loyalty to the nation as opposed to the state. This concept hinders a states' ability to control within its defined boundaries, and can result in the state loosing part of its country all together, such as East Timor.

The EU and Nationalism examples are two of the most potent and relevant contemporary examples of how state sovereignty can be undermined in an increasingly 'shrinking' world. Whilst an honourable concept, perhaps 'state' sovereignty is soon to be a thing of the past.

References
Acharya, A 1991, 'The Association of Southeast Asian Nations: "Security Community" or "Defence Community"?', Pacific Affairs, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 159-178
Ahern, B 2004, 'Ask Bertie Ahern', Talking Point, BBC News Transcript, retrieved 5 April 2006 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3626759.stm

Barnett, M 1995, 'Sovereignty, Nationalism, and Regional Order in the Arab States System', International Organization, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 479-510

Baylis, J & Smith, S 2005, The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford, New York

Christiansen, T 2005, 'European Integration and Regional cooperation', in J. Baylis & S. Smith (ed.), The Globalisation of World Politics, Oxford, New York, pp. 579-598

Hale, H & Taagepera, R 2002, 'Russia: Consolidation or Collapse?', Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7, pp. 1101-1125

Halliday, F 2005, 'Nationalism', in J. Baylis & S. Smith (ed.), The Globalisation of World Politics, Oxford, New York, pp. 521-538

Jackson, J 2003, 'Soverignty-Modern: A New Approach to an Outdated Concept', The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97, No. 4, pp.782-802

Krasner, S 2001, 'Sovereignty', Foreign Policy, No. 122, pp. 20-22, 24, 26, 28-29

Miller, R 1992, 'The implosion of a superpower', retrieved 5 April 2006 from http://history.eserver.org/ussr-in-1991.txt [Last Updated: 17 February 2002]

Pike, J 2005, 'Ethiopia / Eritrea War', GlobalSecurity.org, retrieved 25 March 2006 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/eritrea.htm [Last Updated: 27 January 2006]

Political and Regional Organizations 1964, 'Central American Program of Economic Integration', International Organization, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 873-875

Van Evera, S 1994, 'Hypotheses on Nationalism and War', International Security, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 5-39

Wadsworth n.d., 'Student Resource Glossary - Chapter 1', retrieved 3 April 2006 from http://www.wadsworth.com/cgi-wadsworth/course_products_wp.pl?fid=M35&product_isbn_issn=0155059181&chapter_number=1&resource_id=10&altname=Glossary