Former gen. sec. UN, Butros Ghali, during his term in 1993, said: The state of absolute sovereignty of the state has long since passed. Such a theory never corresponded to reality.

I think, it is not a question, it is a statement. An opinion can be made and expressed relating particular issues of 'State Sovereignty' which are not outlined yet. Discussing a complicated and complex statement is just shooting in the dark.

Yes, but I agree with Mr. Boutros Gali's statement, so this statement also reflects my opinion.

Dear Prof. Harun Hadžić,

My post is unrelated to yours one. It is regarding the question of dear Prof. Boris Krivokapic.

I apologize, dear Mizrah.

We witness a time of "disputable" and "partial state sovereignty" today when we compare with the times of Westphalia. Some supportive arguments could be the replacement role of NGOs and globalization in modern states.

The evolution of the European Union, i.e., the Treaties, the policies, the institutions, the positions of third parties towards EU, the Brexit make it certainly an important case-study.

I think, since Kelsen, that sovereignty is a total concept, which does not embrace any restriction. Now, in the context of international law, the use of the floor is at least erroneous, since the United Nations Charter uses the term national jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, contrary to sovereignty implies power and competencies that must be exercised under international law, so, where international law regulates, national law is restricted. Now, if the discussion involves not International Law, but International Relations, well, we move from the field of the norm to the context of power, in which the concept of sovereignty is used, as a general rule, to justify state actions contrary to International Law; and were it not for the well-known institutional deficiencies of the latter, we would have adequate answers according to law, not bad politics.

The sovereign State in the 21st century, goes through thinking about new relations between the State and society; civil society, in this case, acquires some components that are not necessarily limited to the classical productive sector, because today they weigh heavily on this composition of civil society, formal and informal organizations, as well as the international context, whose important element it has to do with the migratory phenomena, in turn the conflicts that produce it, which also betray, socio-political and economic situations of the countries; the State, then, appears no longer impermeable and unrestricted, but permeable and constantly permeabilized, as happened in the context of the Cold War; the Sovereign State, then, leaves that place of centrality, and gives way to a State, although ubiquitous, giving the impression of being in all the social texture, so it also presents itself to us, at the same time, convoking the idea of ​​poroity, of instability, absence, among other characteristics.

Sovereignty as the highest, no limited government, can be expressed inwardly and outward.

If internal sovereignty means the highest authority to which all subjects in society must obey, then such absolute sovereignty does not exist, because we have complex and decentralized states.

On the other hand, external sovereignty also does not exist as an absolute category because every state that is a member of the EU or the UN or some other international or regional organization denies part of its sovereignty in favor of this organization.

And we will have such a state of affairs in the 21st century.

Sovereignty was weak

I think the answer to this question is not clear yet. For now, it is possible to say that states are still dominant/sovereign actors. However, this will change depending on their capacity to solve the problems they will encounter in the future and to maintain the current situation. Events such as the pandemic process or preceding the Occupy Wall Street and the yellow vests movement show that in the long run sovereign states will face greater challenges. Of course, it is necessary to take into account the challenges of multinational companies.

Thank you for your comments. In fact, if we speak about external state sovereignty (sovereignty of the state in international relations and international law) it was never absolute. It was always limited in many aspects. So, if we are witnessing today more and more limitations to the concept of sovereignty is it just quantitative or it is a qualitative phenomenon? Besides, if many states are really becoming weaker and weaker, one can say that the world leaders are becoming stronger and stronger, in many aspects.

Boris Krivokapic This is what happens when imperfect man/men attempt to perform an impossible task of acting as (absolute) sovereign--the world is given in the rules of jungle ...

Sovereignty is the main characteristic of any state that is a subject of international law and international relations. The so-called the external sovereignty of the state, in the modern world, has been somewhat curtailed. This diminution of sovereignty is a consequence of the state's membership in international organizations. However, this diminution of sovereignty does not diminish the capacity of the modern state, because respecting international law, each state has voluntarily accepted this diminution. So the rules of the game must be respected in international relations and it is a useful thing that contributes to peace and stability in international relations, and does not interfere with the functioning of the state. Of course, it is not allowed for one state to illegally challenge and endanger the sovereignty of another state. That would be a flagrant violation e.g. UN Charter.

Harun Hadžić Good to see you again, alhamdooLillah. We all know how well the relations between the people and government/politicians/political party, relations among the states, and UN Charter is functioning, You also know it, I believe. Let us not fool ourselves any more. Secular democracy (whether bipartisan/multi-partisan or not) i.e. secularism is a total failure/disaster. Even (theist) moral democracy (, see the attachment again for my model,) will struggle for a longtime to overcome paramount human problems (created by secularism).

Dear Akramul Kabir Khan,

First of all, I believe that secularism should not be equated with atheism. These are two different things. Because atheism is a negation of God and secularism is just the absence of religion from state institutions. We in our country have a practical problem that reads - how to organize a stable and functional state in a multiethnic, multi-religious and multicultural community? In order for a state to survive, it must have a homogeneous nation, which is the basic substance of a sovereign and unified state. The question arises - what is the formula for the survival of such a state if it were not a civil, secular and democratic state. So we are not against religion, but in our case religion must remain a private matter of each individual. Religion should not be expressed in state institutions. Religion has ample space to function outside common state institutions - within mosques, churches, religious communities and cultural organizations.

Salam.

Harun Hadžić You are repeating these contentions which I have already refuted to you before, please read the Overall Impressions/Vision section at the end of my (latest version)'The Republic Re-engineered" that I have sent to you one day before--nothing from the previous versions (that sent to you before) has been discarded.

Regards and wa alaikum salam.

In my recent research article, I tried to answer the question of the state of sovereignty in the modern world. It seems to me that it is becoming a politicized attribute of the state, which leads to an increase in the autonomy and autarkism of the state. Article Sovereigntism as a vocation and profession: imperial roots, ...

Ruslan Zaporozhchenko, Thank you very much for sharing with us your interesting article, which I recommend others to read it.