States are again fighting for their sovereignty… but against international institutions. Yet, will disregard of the changing international system lead to boom or bust for many nations?
With the resignation of Brexit Secretary David Davis and the looming resignations of other Brexiteers from the Government, many are asking whether the Prime Minister’s deal to leave the European Union is too soft and is instead a backflip on previous positions. Whilst the government’s final position was always going to be divisive, the cautiousness of the PM and of her plan outlined at Chequers highlights the realistic nature of sovereignty in the twenty-first century. Whilst legal and political authority within borders remain the legitimate domain of the state, it, along with economic sovereignty, is further pressured by international institutions which would not have seemed imaginable a century ago. So, can the traditional notions of Westphalian state sovereignty continue to prevail or must they play second fiddle to a labyrinth of global governance?
Defining State Sovereignty
The foundations of modern state sovereignty arose at the end of the Thirty Years’ War with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. States acknowledged the absolute political and legal authority of each other within the borders of their respective territories, free from external intervention and influence. However, due to recent globalisation, many scholars propose that the world has shifted to a system of post-sovereign governance: an inability to exert complete control over all domestic affairs due to the influence of international institutions and the interconnectedness of modern economies.
Institutions of Global Governance
When Westphalian sovereignty arose 370 years ago, institutions such as the United Nations (UN), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank would have seemed abstract and inconceivable. But since the end of the Second World War, the influx of non-state and intergovernmental actors have challenged the absolute authority of states within their own borders. The EU is second to none in terms of the authority and jurisdiction of a supranational body. While power to make laws comes from members, EU bodies make rules and regulations in fields like agriculture, the environment, and foreign & security policy. In conjunction with laws being interpreted by the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg, this means member states do not have the absolute power to create and interpret laws within their borders.
This degree of control makes withdrawal even more problematic and the meeting at Chequers crucial. How would the UK continue to cooperate and maintain relations with a more embittered EU? Can it truly be free from the decisions of Brussels after such a close-knit relationship?
Needless to say, the UK Foreign Office has recognised the importance of cooperating with the EU after its intricate divorce. A recent Politico article has described the UK’s future footprint in Brussels as the “crown jewel” of it diplomatic network. This also includes the creation of 50 new diplomatic posts across Europe at a cost of £4.1 million.
On a macro level, the recognition of the high-level importance of UK-EU relations reiterates the necessity for cooperation. The UK might be withdrawing from the EU, but as the meeting at Chequers reminded all, the EU will always be part of British history and will continue to affects its sovereign power. State sovereignty can be fully enforced, but there will be extrinsic forces which still effect how a state operates, and supranational bodies such as the EU have only made those influences more potent.
Economic Globalisation
The agreement reached at Chequers also raises issues in the debate whether states can retain complete economic sovereignty in a period of globalisation. This is due to the endorsement of a “UK-EU Customs Area.” It has become apparent that both Brexiteers and Remainers have acknowledged the reliance of intertwined markets and the risk of economic doom if they try to disregard the new system. It was hyperglobalist Kenichi Ohmae who claimed economic activity should now occur in a “borderless world” as capital needs to flow across borders with minimal barriers, tariffs and restrictions. As such, the deal at Chequers and the endorsement of customs area highlights the need for the UK to protect its economy by encouraging trade via open markets, a notion hard-Brexiteers are up-in-arms over, namely former Brexit Secretary David Davis and reportedly Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.
By leaving the Single Market, the UK will be more insulated from the economic earthquakes caused by matters such as those of the Eurozone. Yet, this does not mean the UK is in complete control of its economy. While Westminster will recover complete law-making abilities, it will likely have to bow to economic pressures from the EU-27 and other trade partners. This is the nature of modern economies: trade warps the powers and ability of governments. If a government dares to isolate itself or challenge the status quo, it will face dire repercussions which may lead to economic devastation. So Brexiteers, be cautious, as complete economic sovereignty is only attainable through one means – increased protectionism.
Other Comparisons
Whilst the events at Chequers articulated the limits of UK sovereignty after March 29th, it is unfair to claim that the UK is the sole example of a state which has had the bounds of its sovereignty tested. In order to move westward and expand markets, China and other Asian countries have reformed their economies. China joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001, signing up to the trade rules of the intergovernmental organisation in order to further integrate itself into the world economy and improve foreign trade and investment. Even North Korea is realising the necessity of being more open, with its closed borders leading it to be isolated by the wider international community for nearly seven decades. They too are learning that in a more interconnected international system defined largely by globalisation, Westphalian sovereignty in its complete form is not practical. As previously established, this is not practical to potential growth.
Further Global Governance
This article is not challenging the merits or the demerits of Brexit. The purpose is instead to outline the limits of state sovereignty in the twenty-first century. States remain the legitimate source of legal and political power. It is no use denying this notion, nor will anyone dare to challenge the authority of the state within its own borders. This will remain as long as we live in an an anarchic international system. Regardless, Westphalian sovereignty is being tested and states are now having to succumb to global pressures and more robust international institutions in order to manage strong and effective economies and maintain crucial foreign ties. Reading between the lines, the deal outlined at Chequers highlights this sentiment. As much as Brexiteers would like to hear “Brexit means Brexit,” it does not mean an easy cut from, nor the end of relations with, the EU.
