Sovereignty in an International World

[bury the year]

[i]sovereignty: supreme power especially over a body politic[/i]

The principle of sovereignty boils down to the fact that a state has absolute authority within and only within its deemed territory; e.g. if you're on US soil, you answer to American laws and not Canadian ones. However, in an increasingly globalized world, claims of sovereignty by a country often stifle measures that would collectively advance the humanitarian condition and defuse many tense situations. This is also a major reason in that while the UN has great authority, it has little actual power. There is the other side of the argument, though, that globalization often has negative effects (capitalist markets steamrolling smaller and less-developed states out of self interest) and can easily destroy a country's unique culture and background.

So, YCMers, my question is this. [b]Should sovereignty of states be such a great component of international politics as it is today?[/b] I believe that sovereignty is a poor excuse on the global stage and is a catch-all for states objecting against what they don't like without thinking of consequences.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

[quote name='Rinne' timestamp='1348078320' post='6028075']
[i]sovereignty: supreme power especially over a body politic[/i]

The principle of sovereignty boils down to the fact that a state has absolute authority within and only within its deemed territory; e.g. if you're on US soil, you answer to American laws and not Canadian ones. However, in an increasingly globalized world, claims of sovereignty by a country often stifle measures that would collectively advance the humanitarian condition and defuse many tense situations. This is also a major reason in that while the UN has great authority, it has little actual power. There is the other side of the argument, though, that globalization often has negative effects (capitalist markets steamrolling smaller and less-developed states out of self interest) and can easily destroy a country's unique culture and background.

So, YCMers, my question is this. [b]Should sovereignty of states be such a great component of international politics as it is today?[/b] I believe that sovereignty is a poor excuse on the global stage and is a catch-all for states objecting against what they don't like without thinking of consequences.
[/quote]
Sovereignty in it's entirety is a foolish cause by countries who want nothing more than to feel individual or "Special" than the rest. This is an extreme case in America where Paulites rally behind their National Sovereignty and vouch for buying a time machine and going back to 1803. I am sure they would love it there. All this "Sovereignty does is divide borders even more and strain peace unions among countries.

Countries as a whole have used National Sovereignty as an excuse to rally behind themselves in a sacred cry of nationalistic hatred and bigotry, it solves nothing only to further cause strains and disrupt peace. It should not even be used let alone be a component.

[Why Not Zoidberg]

As quoted from Oppenheim: "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.". Thus giving such a simplistic definition to work with excludes quite a few possible answers to the topic. Perhaps we should broaden the debate.

[bury the year]

@Zoidberg: First off, seeing as that was your first post on YCM, welcome. How do you suggest we broaden the definition of sovereignty, then?