Justice and the Sovereign State

While it is certainly possible and advisable for sovereign states to reach global agreements that benefit all parties involved, progression toward a concurrence can only be made with compromise that does not threaten the sovereign state’s power and exercise of power. A sovereign state, in a democratic sense, must both represent and protect its people and make decisions with other countries on mutual interests. Yet, in order to be sovereign, a state must be known and recognized as sovereign by the other member states of the global society, and therefore, must also act with authority and power over its “possessions” in order to maintain its position. As a result, even and balanced agreements between sovereign states might be scarce since they are complex to negotiate as each nation competes with another for resources, economic development, market share, and wealth. However, global agreements, in the true meaning of the term, are of utmost importance and made regularly, either bilateral (between two countries, such as the USA and Mexico) or multilateral (between several countries, such as the European Union). Even though there is no higher law that safeguards the justice of decisions being made, agreements between countries can still be attained on the premise of extreme need and desperation, or political and economical advancement. For example, Great Britain could increase its financial aid to Ethiopia, but is it going to stretch its resources beyond the range of comfort just to be generous? Great Britain would lend a “reasonable” amount, as expected from a wealthy nation, in a form and against financial terms that would be, of course, acceptable by Ethiopia, and that would be seen as politically correct and considerate. An agreement and compromise is made, in technical terms, yet the element of justice is drastically absent.

Because sovereign states determine their own law and execute legislation in their territories, they will interact and negotiate with other sovereign states on a basis of power, producing agreements that directly correspond in balance to the power and sovereignty of that particular state, resulting in the best deal they can negotiate for themselves. For example, most western European countries and the USA have trade tariffs in place that protect and subsidize their own agricultural industries, guaranteeing them access to the global market and thus securing a profit. However, these trade barriers make it extremely difficult for poorer, third world nations to compete in the global market place and get a fair price for their agricultural products, which make up a large part of their economy, thus choking their development. Agreements they are, yet fair? In many ways they are not. Legally, “there is no law without sovereignty,” but globally and politically speaking, in sovereignty there is no law.