P a g e 1 Multinational Conflict Management: Does the Concept Conflict with Sovereignty? Sovereignty is a multi-use concept with a seemingly unending supply of definitions. It is also in an apparent logical conflict with the idea of interstate cooperation. Yet, for centuries states have sought to collaborate across a number of fields, though perhaps none more so than that of security. In an apparent anarchic international system, states enter into multinational agreements to manage conflict. The multinational conflict management organization wrests sovereignty from the state only when the state surrenders its sovereignty and only to the degree that the state allows. Simply put, sovereignty is what states make it. The Idea of Sovereignty The term sovereignty is used in one of four different senses; international legal sovereignty, Westphalian sovereignty, domestic sovereignty, or interdependence sovereignty. International legal sovereignty refers to what most of us think of when discussing sovereignty; the act of mutual recognition by independent territorial bodies. Westphalian sovereignty refers to domestic political structures free from external actors and territoriality. Domestic sovereignty is the measure of the strength of domestic authority within a state and the state s ability to exercise that authority. Finally, interdependence sovereignty looks at a state s ability to regulate the movement of
P a g e 2 information, ideas, goods, people, pollutants, and/or capital across its borders (Krasner 3-4). Sovereignty is also a key element in defining the state. Max s Weber s 1946 definition of the state was that "a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory (Weber 26). This definition implies the conditions of sovereignty as a legitimizing principle thus giving the state the authority to exist. John Agnew views the relationship of state and sovereignty as essentially being about power. He explains that in conventional political discourse, sovereignty is about central state control and authority From this viewpoint, state sovereignty may be understood as the absolute territorial organization of political authority (Agnew 99-100). The concept of sovereignty is often jealously guarded by states and is therefore resistant to environmental change. In one way or another nearly every occurrence in the international system represents a challenge to sovereignty. Today, the international system and indeed the world, is undergoing a steady march toward globalization. Globalization is the process of increasing interconnectedness between societies such that events in one part of the world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far away (Baylis 8). This serves to increase the bearing of a state s actions on other states. Baylis goes on to paint a picture of the attributes of a globalized world, stating that, A globalized world is one in which political, economic, cultural and social events become more and more interconnected (9). So given the staunch, protected nature of the sovereignty concept, it is natural to assume that globalization, especially of politics represents a direct threat.
P a g e 3 Globalization [presents] an ideology of what we might call "transnational civil society." It is transnational because the global flows of ideas and money in an increasingly liberal international order take place outside or beyond the immediate purview of states. It is a domain of civil society because it depends not on organized politics but on the interests of citizens in their private capacities: making money and converts, spreading ideas and technologies, and running businesses and charities There are two persistent fantasies about the relationship between domestic politics and the foundations of global order. The first imagines the universalization of the state, the construction of a world-spanning Leviathan. The second supposes that we can do without the politics of the state system altogether by relying on transnational networks of private agents. (Grewal 39) The globalization process has spread at least in principle to the field of international relations and conflict management. This spread comes in the form of multilateral or multinational action. Multinational Conflict Management Multinational conflict management is simply the management of conflict by a cooperative alliance of states, just as the name suggests. The interesting aspect of multinational conflict management is that its prerequisite is cooperation among sovereign states. It is not uncommon for states to seek out cooperative security approaches and conflict management options. There are five essential types of collaborative approaches sought by states, power restraining power, great power concert, collective security,
P a g e 4 pluralistic security community, and integration as rungs on an imaginary ladder of increasing levels of cooperation (Lake 170). The most popular form of multinational conflict management is the idea of the collective defense agreement. These agreements generally come in the form of treaties and are formed and reformed as the security environment shifts and cultural and attitudinal similarities between states ebb and flow. These collective defense agreements are rarely permanent or binding (170). The case for multinational cooperation as a threat to state sovereignty is centered on a supposed migration of authority from the state to the collective. By collaborating with its neighbors in the security arena, a state becomes an organ of a supranational authority. The fear of the state is that this supranational authority may not have the best interests of the state at heart, as state interests often vary and conflict in this variance. One such supranational authority is the European Union (EU): The first and most frequently noted is the emergence of the [EU], which has gone from six member states in 1957 to twenty-seven states that currently belong. This represents from one point of view a major pooling of sovereignty for a wide range of issues, though some still remain largely in the hands of the members states. There is a sense in which the EU has begun to develop common norms that imply, in an institutional context at least, that there may be an emerging European political space. (Agnew 122) When viewed through the realist lens, this collaborative action is corrosive to state sovereignty.
P a g e 5 Sovereignty is What States Make It The devil of a multinational approach to conflict resolution lies in the details. Essentially, multilateral security options only erode state sovereignty if states perceive it to do so. The traditional approach to understanding sovereignty is the actor-oriented approach. The actor oriented approach makes key assumptions about the preferences of actors, in this case states. We assume that the raison d état is centered on survival and security and that in order to guarantee itself survival and security, a state must maintain the status quo. However purely as an intellectual exercise, what if the raison d état was to guarantee a higher quality of life for its inhabitants, even if the pursuance of such goals would lead to the dissolution of the state in its current form? Given this supposition, if the route that best guaranteed the safety and security of the individual citizen was to surrender state sovereignty and authority by submitting to a supranational authority, then the logical endgame would be multinational cooperation. While this has been an amusing series of mental calisthenics, I do not believe that we will see a new, collaborative utopia in which the state no longer exists and global peace prevails. I do see that as long as a state is willing to give up some small measure of its sovereignty in order to gain access to the security option afforded to it through agreements with other states, and that a state can see the benefit of such a condition, that the present system of temporary alliance and convenient cooperation will continue. Works Cited Agnew, John. Globalization and Sovereignty. New York: Rowman & Littlefield
P a g e 6 Publishers, 2009. Print. Baylis, John, Steve Smith, Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics, 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. Grewal, David Singh. "The Return of the State: Recovering State Efficacy for Global Solutions" Harvard International Review. Winter 2010, Vol. 31 Issue 4, 01 January 2010. Web, 14 June 2011. Krasner, Stephen. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Print. Lake, David A. and Patrick M. Morgan. Regional Orders: Building Security in a New World. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997. Print. Weber, Max. "Politics as a Vocation." In Essays in Sociology, edited by H.H. Garth and C. Wright Mills, 26-45. New York: Macmillan, 1946. Web, 14 June 2011.