The Meaning of Sovereignty, and Its Extent in Contemporary Essay

The Meaning of Sovereignty, and Its Extent in Contemporary Nation-States. Sovereignty in the Asia-Pacific Region - Essay Example The 21st century saw some 200 independent states in the international community, the largest number of free states in history (Tsoundarou, 2002). The key factor for a state to be adjudged independent is its ability to effectively exercise its sovereignty unimpeded by external or internal forces. The concept of sovereignty is generally known by all as the ultimate power for self-determination in a free state. It is oftentimes equated with liberty or freedom. There is general agreement as to its description: sovereignty is absolute, limitless, indefeasible, inalienable, and indivisible (Underhill, 1808); it is qualitative or categorical, not quantitative and therefore not capable of description in percentage terms (Weber, 2011). Ideally, sovereignty resides in the people, although the government exercises the sovereign act in their name. Recently, however, developments in international relations have made it necessary to alter our concept of sovereignty, in order to create workable str uctures among nations that better address the imperatives of globalization and international cooperation. This essay posits the argument that the largely inwardly-looking concept of sovereignty being pursued by states in the Asia-Pacific region has acted as a constraint on the development of a strong regional union that would better serve their interests in a globalizing world. The predominant Westphalian sovereignty to which the Asia-Pacific nations cling is largely antithetical to the â€Å"pooling† of sovereignty that is a requisite to regional unification. In this regard, the Asia-Pacific region is not prepared to meet the imperatives of globalisation. The Meaning of Sovereignty The word â€Å"sovereignty† has been used in so many ways that a degree of ambiguity surrounds the determination of its meaning. In fact, there have been some authors who categorically state that sovereignty is impossible to define (Uruena, 2006). To illustrate the complexity of sovereignty as a concept, a taxonomy by Stephen Krasner (1999, in Weber, 2011, p. 3; Cohan, 1995, pp.912-916; and Jackson, 2006, pp. 63-64) identified four different usages: (1) Domestic sovereignty, that pertains to the power structure of state political authority, as well as the degree to which control is effected and imposed by this authority; (2) Interdependent sovereignty, pertaining to the degree by which the political authority is able to effect the entry and egress through its borders; (3) International legal sovereignty, that pertains to the recognition accorded to other states and which other states accord it; and (4) Westphalian sovereignty, that traditional form of sovereignty which excludes all foreign elements from its political processes. The general perception of â€Å"sovereignty† is that central power reserved by common consensus of nation states for the political head of that state. This began with the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, otherwise known as the â€Å"Peace Treaty between the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of France and their respective Allies.† Composed of 128 clauses, the document was originally meant to contain the minute details marking the conclusion of the Thirty Years War. It includes the return of landholdings to the different feudal lords, with the promise not to interfere in the regime being implemented in territories other than their own. In effect, the power of the emperor founded on the â€Å"claim of holy predominance was passed on to the kings and lords who exercise their own local predominance† (Jackson, 2006, p. 62). This notion of the absolute right of the sovereign was eventually taken to be the â€Å"