Sovereignty in the 21st century-My personal view

This year is election year for the European Parliament, and around this event, many arguments are occurring regarding the nature and extension of power in the EU and the relationship between the EU and the member states. These discussions range from arguments advocating both the total termination of the EU projects or the reform of the EU in its current form. I believe and defend the argument advocating for the reform of the EU in its current form. Within these arguments, one of the concepts that keep coming up is queries regarding sovereignty. The use of different concepts of sovereignty is being used to hijack the discussion and used to feed nationalistic movements. It appears that a serious discussion about the modern meaning of sovereignty in the Europe of the 21^st century is not only important, it appears essential to shore any discussions about the future of the EU.
 To understand sovereignty, we firstly need to define its meaning and then place it in an historical context. Sovereignty can be defined as the supreme authority within a given territory. This supreme authority is the modern notion of political authority and generally embodied in the form of the Modern State. This notion of Sovereignty and modern state is a concept going back to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia which establishes the right to power within the borders of the nation by the domestic authority. The fact stands that the Westphalia notion of sovereignty is no longer applicable to modern day’s politics, this concept has been basically dismantled since the end of the Second World War by the creation and development of international organizations, the most important of all is the United Nations, but many more exist, like the EU, were the member of such treaty or international body can be made accountable for all actions within the context of such treaty or membership.

Populist nationalism is based in this outdated concept of sovereignty that has no longer a practical application in today’s diplomacy. These outdated views of sovereignty are an obstacle to the development of fruitful relationships and cooperation between states. We live in a world that is more and more connected and where the notions of borders have been losing its meaning. Many different aspects and accepted facts of modern life are contributing to this event, events like the rising of Globalization, the growing influence of multinational corporations and organizations, the rise of the internet, the speed of modern transport and communications have all contributed to the increasing   interdependence of nation states and therefore reduced their sovereignty according to the accepted Westphalia definition. 

We must not confuse sovereignty with national identity, they are very different concepts and the later is a different issue which is very important to most people and should be protected as an integral part of that particular society. Adapting the concept of sovereignty to the modern age is a very important issue and a government or movement that cannot accept the limitations to their power imposed by external factors will prevent the ability by the state to guarantee the best interest of its own citizens and therefore, by not being able to guarantee their citizens interest they no longer are deserving of government.

Ultimately we must accept that the very the old nationalistic slogan “proudly we stand alone” and variations, not only is dangerous but ultimately undermines the potential to pursuit the interest of the nation and their citizens. In a global world, states and citizens should collaborate and pursuit the best possible solutions to their problems. Unfortunately many people see nationalism as a synonym of patriotism, and it is not, we need to make this clear. In the 21^st century world, with globalization and international trade, we need to accept that sovereignty as it was defined by the peace of Westphalia, no longer exist. Holding to these outdated definitions will only bring to the nations and their citizens, what it always brought: war and tragedy.  This doesn't mean that the abolition of the nation-state should be considered, but instead it should be made clear to all the increasing limitations on its freedom of action.  The ability to decide both internationally and nationally on a whole range of matters, from war and aid, to issues such as taxation, social security, health care systems and education, immigration and drugs policy, are no longer the sole decision of the state but bonded by a set of international agreements and conditions imposed by external factors to the state, there is nothing wrong with that, it is just simply evolution, the sooner we accepted it, the better we will respond to it and adapt to respond to the challenges of the future. 

European Republic

Joao Da Costa

@costajoaoda