State Sovereignty and International Law: A Modern Legal Dilemma in Global Governance

Ho Yin Lam

doi:10.54097/w3dzg273

Authors

Ho Yin Lam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/w3dzg273

Keywords:

Global governance, international law, state sovereignty, human rights, consent.

Abstract

This paper explores the tension between international law and the principle of state sovereignty in the social context of 21st-century global governance. In an increasingly interconnected world, the demand for global governance mechanisms has never been greater, as challenges such as climate change, human rights, and transnational security require cooperative, cross-border solutions. However, international law, which operates largely on state consent, often clashes with the principle of sovereignty—specifically, the Westphalian notion that states maintain exclusive authority over their internal affairs. This tension raises critical questions about the limitations of sovereignty in a globalised era. Through an analysis of legal theories and key case studies, this paper argues that while international law imposes constraints on state sovereignty, it remains essential for addressing collective global issues. Ultimately, the paper calls for a reinterpretation of sovereignty that aligns with modern legal frameworks, thus facilitating cooperation without entirely compromising national autonomy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] International Law. Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute.

[2] Statute of the International Court of Justice. International Court of Justice, 1945.

[3] Westphalian state system. Oxford Reference.

[4] Samuel M. Makinda. Sovereignty and International Security: Challenges for the United Nations. Global Governance, 1996, 2(2): 149-168.

[5] Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice. San Francisco, 1945.

[6] Laurie Anderson, Nathan Rowley. Global Climate Solutions Require Global Cooperation. Ohio Wesleyan University.

[7] Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. 1948.

[8] Michael Chertoff. The Responsibility to Contain: Protecting Sovereignty Under International Law. Council on Foreign Relations, 2009, 88(1): 130-147.

[9] United Nations Treaty Collection. United Nations.

[10] James W. Garner. Limitations on National Sovereignty in International Relations. The American Political Science Review, 1925, 19(1): 1-24.

[11] opinio juris (international law). Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

[12] Thomas Larsson. Customary International Law: Developments towards a non-consensual source of international law? Uppsala Universitet, Department of Law, 2014.

[13] Shelly Aviv Yeini. The Persistent Objector Doctrine: Identifying Contradictions. Chicago Journal of International Law, 2021, 22(2).

[14] Cassese, Antonio. International Law. Oxford University Press, Second edition, 2005.

[15] Shirley V. Scott. International Law in World Politics. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004.

[16] Michael W. Reisman. Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law. The American Journal of International Law, 1990, 84(4).

[17] Intervention in Haiti, 1994-1995. Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute, United States Department of State.

[18] Henry F. Carey. The UN Humanitarian Intervention in Haiti and the Development of a Human Rights Enforcement Regime. Journal of Haitian Studies, 3.4, 1997.

[19] Stop Child Executions! Ending the death penalty for child offenders. Amnesty International, 2004.

[20] Exclusion of Child Offenders From the Death Penalty Under General International Law. NCJRS Virtual Library, US Department of Justice, 2003.