Dear Nodirbek,

You will find many arguments regarding the limits of national sovereignty emphasizing 2 different sets of arguments: Legal arguments (i.e., Counter-restrictionist) and Moral arguments. While "counter-restrictionists” case for a legal right of individual and collective humanitarian intervention rests evaluations of the UN Charter (which they argue commits states to protecting fundamental human rights) and customary international law, moral arguments can be traced back to Locke (e.g., Second Treatise of Government) and others. 

It might be of interest to view the studies focused on the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P). In particular, I would suggest reading the ICISS report (2001) titled The Responsibility to Protect". Kofi Annan was a key catalyst and supporter of the concepts underlying R2P. Many of the ICISS’s key recommendations were picked up by Annan’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (2004) and his subsequent “In Larger Freedom” report (2005). The underlying concepts of R2P were endorsed by the international community in the 2005 World Summit. In 2011 the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 cited R2P to justify a military intervention in Libya.

I would try to tie the issue to of access to water by analyzing articulating the underlying arguments regarding human security. There are several good studies available on the issue of water and human security which may help you bridge these themes and establish a conceptual and theoretical framework. 

I hope this helps.

Sovereignty is a bundle of competences accruing to a state by virtue of statehood. International law has imposed many restrictions on these competences. Each area of international law has these restrictions. Read John H Jackson who has many articles on the subject of the limitation of sovereignty. I produced an article on monetary sovereignty particularly considering the constraints on monetary sovereignty. I referred to a number of relevant articles. My title is: Juridical constraints on monetary sovereignty: implications for international economic law UNISA 2015.

International law has on a number of occasions limited the territorial sovereignty of states.  Settlements at the conclusion of hostilities more often than not have determined frontiers and this has frequently been ratified by international treaty.  At the end of WW2 the borders of the European states changed significantly as they had previously at the end of WW1.  The tradition goes back very much earlier and the ever changing face of Europe throughout the centuries testifies to the effects of many international treaties.

International law has of course been remarkably weak and vacillatiing when it comes to protecting territorial sovereignty.  The military expansion of the Nazi's prior to the outbreak of WW2 is a classic example.  Britain and France failed to support Czechoslovakia when Hitler annexed the Sudentenland in clear violation of international treaty.  Poland joined in the land grab seizing part of the state it considered Polish territory.

International law has largely failed in its assertions of territorial rights and state integrity.  Much of the current carnage in the Middle East is a result of the Sykes-Picot agreement that left the region with arbitrary boundaries reflecting none of the aspirations of the people who lived there.   

It is recognized in sociology of law using the Weberian definition that there is no law if there is no law enforcement, coercion, effective sanctions, and a specialized group tasked to implement it. There is a debate in sociology of law if international law is really law because of the problem of law enforcement.  Which can country will enforce it?  The world needs a superpower which will act as the enforcer of international law? Multilateral organizations such as the UN has no army or police  to  enforce  international law, it is dependent on other countries' law enforcers.

Can international law limit the territorial sovereignty of state?

Well, it depends on what countries supporting or enforcing it. Take the case of the Philippines. It won a case in the Hague arbitral ruling against  China applying the international law. The UN ruling said that China violated the territorial sovereignty of the Philippines by controlling and building artificial islands in the Spratlys  within its economic zone. Okay on paper the Philippines won. But who will enforce it? What country can force China to obey the ruling? The US which is an old ally of the Philippines is ambivalent whether to support the Philippines or not in case the former goes to war against China to enforce the ruling. 

Ultimately, the answer of the questions depends on what country/countries is behind it. If it a superpower or a group of powerful countries, international law can limit it. Otherwise, it cannot be done. Take the case of Philippines against China to show the limits of international law. Thanks and cheers!

See these

https://mwi.usma.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/The-Futility-of-Buffer-Zones-in-International.pdf

http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/U.S.%20Options%20For%20A%20Syria%20No%20Fly%20Zone_0.pdf

Dear Nodirbek,

International law was really made by states and you're completely right their domestic interests were secured. I think one of evidences could be find in project of articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts designed by the International Law Commission in 2001.

Let's take a look for example on art. 25. It allows the possibility of exceptional cases in which the only means by which the state can preserve its vital interests threatened by the inevitable danger is failing to perform other international obligations or to lesser importance or urgency. Under the conditions strictly defined in Art. 25 it is possible to exclude the unlawfulness of the act.

One of the most characteristic contemporary example of acts which unlawfulness is excluded on this basis is Japan's conduct in the Okinotorishima case, which consist clear violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Best regards.

If I.L. is taken seriously, and it should all the time, even territorial sovereignty is capable of being limited. The answers you have already received  give you enough basis to elaborate. Just a comment on your last sentence: the fact that States are the masters of the law through treaties has not prevented that commitments to common public goods are growing regardless of the interest of single States and binding also beyond signatories. HR belong to the ' beyond the whim of single states' areas.     Especially explicit with the R2P -responsibility to protect- UN turn, sovereignty has become conceptually 'conditional', not unconditioned. Accordingly, territorial sovereignty follows. Good wishes.

Pardons & the rule of law:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_a_Presidential_pardon_be_squared_with_democracy_under_the_rule_of_law

Dear Nodirbek:

Here I discuss some aspects of the question:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282915334_The_S_Word_and_Security_Council_The_Role_and_Powers_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council_in_the_Creation_of_New_States

Or:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2550297

Article The "S Word" and Security Council: The Role and Powers of th...

 Through its sources, international law can limit territorial sovereignty of the State.

First, treaty may limit territorial sovereignty of the State. After being ratified and concurred by the State, the treaty is now part of the law of the land. So, if there is a peace treaty, Foreign Military Bases Agreement or any Status of Forces Agreement which makes the foreign military personnel immune from the territoriality principle of criminal law,  then a treaty can indeed limit territorial sovereignty.

Second, customs and traditions place a key role in the development of territorial sovereignty of State. Even without a treaty, the custom of sending foreign diplomats to the sending states (through out centuries States sent their diplomats to other States) will make the foreign diplomat exempted from territorial jurisdiction of the State by virtue of his diplomatic immunity. Criminal jurisdiction of the State within its territory can also be limited when making a treaty with other States which the subject of the treaty or agreement is against the customary law of jus cogens. Such treaty is now nullified.  The State under the generally-accepted principles of international law adheres to the non-codification of slavery,terrorism,piracy and other humanely non-conformant subjects into legislation.

Lastly, the general principle of law can also limit territorial jurisdiction. The principles of fairness and justice are often used by State in their Court decisions if there is no legal anchor for these cases. Judges are forced to decide a case under the Civil Laws even without any legal anchor..Obviously, they may use the principle of equity, justice or fairness or the principle of ex aqueo et bono. Of course, the principle of pacta sunt servanda via treaty can also limit the principle of territoriality of crimes within the State concerned.

The fundamental bases of International law is subject to limitation of the Sovereignity of the State that abide by certain principals that treaty and boundary are confronted on diplomacy relations that morally the laws are guided subject in adoptions of those relevant international ombligations that must adopted. Therefore, there are realistic behavior that must abide with observing the nature of justice and legal entity for non-discrimination and violence where equal opportunity are the core principal and priority fundamental rights of the state as more relevant to national supreme of power.

كنت اتمنى الإجابة