Sovereign state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Sovereign country)
Jump to: navigation, search

In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood that a state is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.[2]

The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[3] While according to the declarative theory of statehood a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

Emergence of states[edit]

States came into existence as people "gradually transferred their allegiance from an individual sovereign (king, duke, prince) to an intangible but territorial political entity, of the state".[4] States are but one of several political orders that emerged from feudal Europe (others being city states, leagues, and empires with universalist claims to authority.[5]

Westphalian sovereignty[edit]


Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused.[6][7] Up until the 19th century, the radicalized concept of a "standard of civilization" was routinely deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world were "uncivilized", and lacking organized societies. That position was reflected and constituted in the notion that their "sovereignty" was either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of "civilized" people."[8] Lassa Oppenheim said "There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon."[9] In the opinion of H. V. Evatt of the High Court of Australia "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all."[10]





In casual usage, the terms "country", "nation", and "state" are often used as if they were synonymous; but in stricter usage they can be distinguished:[citation needed]

  • Country denotes a region of land defined by geographical features or political boundaries.


State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign state.[18] Recognition can be either express or implied and is usually retroactive in its effects. It does not necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.



Constitutive theory[edit]



In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:


Declarative theory[edit]


Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent of recognition by other states. And the state is not prohibited from defending itself.[26] In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood.


State practice[edit]


Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international community of Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this. In the former case, recognition was widely withheld when the white minority seized power and attempted to form a state along the lines of Apartheid South Africa, a move that the United Nations Security Council described as the creation of an "illegal racist minority régime".[29] In the latter case, recognition was widely withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus on land illegally invaded by Turkey in 1974.[30]

De facto and de jure states[edit]

Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e., they exist both in law and in reality). However, a state may be recognised only as a de jure state, in that it is recognised as being the legitimate government of a territory over which it has no actual control. For example, during the Second World War, governments-in-exile of a number of continental European states continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation. The PLO and Palestinian Authority claim that the State of Palestine is a sovereign state, a claim which has been recognised by most states, though the territory it claims is under the de facto control of Israel.[31][45] Other entities may have de facto control over a territory but lack international recognition; these may be considered by the international community to be only de facto states. They are considered de jure states only according to their own law and by states that recognise them. For example, Somaliland is commonly considered to be such a state.[46][47][48][49] For a list of entities that wish to be universally recognised as sovereign states, but do not have complete worldwide diplomatic recognition, see the list of states with limited recognition.

Relationship between state and government[edit]

Although the terms "state" and "government" are often used interchangeably,[50] international law distinguishes between a non-physical state and its government; and in fact, the concept of "government-in-exile" is predicated upon that distinction.[51] States are non-physical juridical entities, and not organisations of any kind.[52] However, ordinarily, only the government of a state can obligate or bind the state, for example by treaty.[51]

State extinction[edit]

Generally speaking, states are durable entities, though it is possible for them to be become extinguished, either through voluntary means or outside forces, such as military conquest. Because states are non-physical juridical entities, their extinction cannot be due to physical force alone.[53] Instead, the physical actions of the military must be associated with the correct social or judiciary actions in order to abolish a state.

Ontological status of the state[edit]

The ontological status of the state has been the subject of debate,[54] specially, whether or not the state, being an object that no one can see, taste, touch, or otherwise detect,[55] actually exists. It has been argued that one potential reason as to why the existence of states has been controversial is because states do not have a place in the traditional Platonist duality of the concrete and the abstract.[56] Characteristically, concrete objects are those that have position in time and space, which states do not have (though their territories have spatial position, but states are distinct from their territories), and abstract objects have position in neither time nor space, which does not fit the supposed characteristics of states either, since states do have temporal position (they can be created at certain times and then become extinct at a future time). Also, abstract objects are characteristically completely non-causal, which is also not a characteristics of states, since states can act in the world and can cause certain events (though only by actions taken on their behalf through a representative).[57] Therefore, it has been argued that states belong to a third category, the quasi-abstract, that has recently begun to garner philosophical attention, specially in the area of documentality, an ontological theory that seeks to understand the role of documents in understanding all of social reality. Quasi-abstract objects, such as states, can be brought into being through document acts, and can also be used to manipulate them, such as by binding them by treaty or surrendering them as the result of a war.[56] Scholars in international relations can be broken up into two different practices, realists and pluralists, of what they believe the ontological state of the state is. Realists believe that the world is one of only states and interstate relations and the identity of the state is defined before any international relations with other states. On the other hand, pluralists believe that the state is not the only actor in international relations and interactions between states and the state is competing against many other actors.[17]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ See the following:
  2. ^ See the following:
    • "sovereign", The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) (Houghton Mifflin Company), 2004, retrieved 21 February 2010, adj. 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state. 
  3. ^ Lalonde, Suzanne (2002). "Notes to pages". Determining boundaries in a conflicted world: the role of uti possidetis. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 181. ISBN 978-0-7735-2424-8. 
  4. ^ Glassner, Martin Ira; Fahrer, Chuck (2004). Political Geography (3rd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley. p. 14. ISBN 0-471-35266-7. 
  5. ^ Spruyt, H. (1994). The Sovereign State and its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03356-0. 
  6. ^ Krasner, Stephen D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00711-X. 
  10. ^ Akweenda, S. (1997). "Sovereignty in cases of Mandated Territories". International law and the protection of Namibia's territorial integrity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 40. ISBN 90-411-0412-7. 
  17. ^ a b c Turner, Bryan (July 2007). "Islam, Religious Revival and the Sovereign State". Muslim World 97 (3): 405–418.  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "MariahSutt" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "MariahSutt" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  22. ^ a b Hillier, Tim (1998). Sourcebook on Public International Law. Routledge. pp. 201–2. ISBN 1-85941-050-2. 
  24. ^ Lassa Oppenheim, Ronald Roxburgh (2005). International Law: A Treatise. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. p. 135. ISBN 1-58477-609-9. 
  26. ^
  27. ^ Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International law (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 369. ISBN 0-521-53183-7. 
  29. ^ United Nations Security Council Resolution 216
  30. ^ United Nations Security Council Resolution 541
  31. ^ a b Staff writers (20 February 2008). "Palestinians 'may declare state'". BBC News (British Broadcasting Corporation). Retrieved 2011-01-22. :"Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. "Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence".
  33. ^ Map of Gaza fishing limits, "security zones"
  45. ^ Israel allows the PNA to execute some functions in the Palestinian territories, depending on special area classification. Israel maintains minimal interference (retaining control of borders: air,[32] sea beyond internal waters,[32][33] land[34]) in the Gaza strip and maximum in "Area C".[35][36][37][38][39] See also Israeli-occupied territories.
  46. ^ Arieff, Alexis (2008). "De facto Statehood? The Strange Case of Somaliland" (PDF). Yale Journal of International Affairs 3: 60–79. Retrieved 2010-01-04. 
  50. ^ Robinson, E. H. (2013). "The Distinction Between State and Government" (PDF). The Geography Compass 7 (8): 556–566. 
  52. ^ Robinson, Edward Heath (2010). "An Ontological Analysis of States: Organizations vs. Legal Persons" (PDF). Applied Ontology 5: 109–125. 
  54. ^ Ringmar, Erik (1996). "On the ontological status of the state". European Journal of International Relations 2 (4). doi:10.1177/1354066196002004002. 
  56. ^ a b Robinson, Edward H. (2014). "A documentary theory of states and their existence as quasi-abstract entities" (PDF). Geopolitics 19 (3): 1–29. doi:10.1080/14650045.2014.913027. Retrieved 16 September 2014. 
  57. ^ Robinson, Edward H. (2011). "A theory of social agentivity and its integration into the descriptive ontology for linguistic and cognitive engineering" (PDF). International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 7 (4): 62–86. doi:10.4018/jswis.2011100103. Retrieved 16 September 2014. 

Further reading[edit]


External links[edit]