International law presumes the equality and sovereignty of all states, irrespective of land size, population, military might, economic strength, etc. Given this presumption, and coupled with the seemingly non-existence of an international police mandated to police the actions of states, is it possible to have effective compliance with international law?
in theory most likely, but however, as far as small states are concerned, their sovereignty depends on relations with the powerful states.
Does it then imply that the equality of states as espoused by political scientists, international law, and international relations are just theoretical?
It is not just theoretical per se. The reality is that some small states may not succeed by depending on their sovereignty, hence they need to depend on, or relate with some powerful states, just like Arifi has said. Remember, there is always an exception to every general rule. So, depending on or relating with some powerful states is an exception to the rule of sovereignty.
It would therefore not be entirely wrong for some to conclude that whereas the principle of equality of states is a facade, sovereignty is nothing but a myth. Will it?
Yes; especially on questions where norms have been developed over a period of years.
International Law is far too reliant on sanctions and punitive coercion to be effective. That panders to nationalism and undermines the very reason for aspiring to an international order.
Dear All,
Thanks a lot for your insightful comments.
I am however still hoping to get more responses since the question of sovereignty and compliance with international law is at the heart of the effective development of international law and international relations.
Your views on the subject are always welcome.
- Badges
- Science topic