Do international treaties; such as NATO and the UN Charter agreements eliminate state sovereignty? Do they lead to weakened states and/or the potential for global governance? What does the future hold?
Sovereignty is defined as “the legal principle that no authority is above the state to establish or enforce rules about foreign or domestic conduct.” Basically, sovereignty is the right of a state to manage its own affairs and make its own decisions – ‘states make the call.’
Understanding the premise of sovereignty allows us to explore its nuances and parts. The above question is best answered in parts. To start, I will address the question; ‘Do international treaties; such as NATO and the UN Charter agreements eliminate state sovereignty?’
Easy answer – no. The UN agreements and NATO agreements, as well as similar agreements do not infringe upon or eliminate state sovereignty. These types of agreements are entered into voluntarily. States willingly sign up and make a choice to enter into treaties and agreements. The states make the call. States use their sovereign right to say yes or no. Upon saying yes, even if the agreements restrict states, sovereignty still holds true, as the states have willingly accepted a new notion of what their sovereignty includes. They have passed on responsibilities to another entity making the highest legal call at the individual state level.
Now, do these agreements weaken the state? This will depend on the agreement, but it is relatively safe to assume that states are not likely to willingly enter agreements that weaken them unless all other states are weakened in the same relative accord. It could be argued that states compared to past versions of themselves may be weakened depending on the details of specific agreement, yet this would be a case by case and not a universal assertion. However, states are again not likely to enter into such agreements if they see no relative gain or at the very least an ability to sustain a status quo.
Will such agreements lead to global governance? Arguably the theoretical possibility is there – but only in a theoretical sense. To say such a thing is practical or plausible would be a big stretch. Globalization, internationalism, diplomatic and economic cooperation, and global communication are positive changes, they are not negative, and they are certainly a far stretch from global governance. I would argue that increased cooperation does not equate or even equal an increase in the possibility of global governance. There are far to many other differences in the world, it would not be easy to unite as one solid entity under one roof, not anytime soon or with relative projections of time as we know it. Social norms, cultures, religions, and the like all prevent simple economic and political unions from going as far as a single world state. Until such items are washed from society or become so insignificant, global governance as it is defined is not practical nor is it probable in our society.
12seconds.tv is meshing YouTube, Video Blogging and the original idea of the Facebook status update (adopted as a single element by Twitter) into a new tool, a ‘video status’. Quite interesting in concept for sure… however, I question how often I would randomly video myself or my surroundings and upload them to the site in 12 second intervals. I suppose I would have to have something really good to show the world for me to truly utilize the system often.