After watching the lecture for this module, one question posed by Professor Jackson stuck with me: can international law be strengthened without doing away with state sovereignty? My answer to this question is a realist response, that state sovereignty cannot exist with the expansion of international law. The mere state of being a member of an international organization with a judicial branch implies that the state is no longer sovereign, no longer having unconditional authority over it's actions.
The reason for
this is fairly simple, by allocating more authority to a body that dictates international law, the state loses a portion of its authority, and a state cannot be autonomous without the monopoly on authority. An important point to note here, is that sovereign states can enforce international law.
However, once this is done, autonomy is eradicated. According to Professor Jackson, the superior legal
authority within international law, means that states in the international
system are no longer fully autonomous. By giving authority to an international
body which governs international law, the state is no longer sovereign, and no
longer has full autonomy.
To aid in comprehending this idea, let's look at a body that governs international law, the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ, was created as a means to solve legal disputes between member states. By submitting to the Court's jurisdiction, states relinquish a piece of their sovereignty. The state would no longer be autonomous, no longer having all authority to govern itself. The reason for this being that if the state was brought before the Court in a dispute, the state must then adhere to the ruling of the Court, losing authority over that specific matter. Therefore, if a state wishes to remain sovereign, it should abstain from the realm of global governance.
Some people may argue against this idea, claiming that in reality there is a grey area where states can retain sovereignty while international law is strengthened. However, this issue is black and white, either states are sovereign, or they are not. There is simply no middle ground on which to hide from the reality of the international system.
https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/06/international-law-and-collapse-of.html
I disagree with the notion that this is a black and white issue, particularly with regards to the ICJ. The ICJ only has jurisdiction over a case when each state involved has given explicit consent to it's jurisdiction and will adhere to the rulings of the court. Even still, there have been situations where states which did provide explicit consent to the ICJ on specific cases and then refuse to adhere to the final ruling. Ultimately the ICJ does not supplant state sovereignty at all and has no method of enforcing its rulings outside of consent from states.
ReplyDelete