What146;s sovereignty?

That is perhaps why, after the destruction caused by the two world wars, the leading nations of the world got together to form the United Nations, which could, at least in theory, set out the international rules and restraints, for the game of war. That is the reason why the countries of Western Europe, which had destroyed each other in the first half of the twentieth century, spent the next half of the century establishing an ever closer economic and political union in Europe, ceding and then pooling a lot of sovereign space. That is also the reason why George W. Bush8217;s United States is much criticised for exercising its sovereign, unilateral right to go to war in Iraq.

That is precisely why there is a strong argument to rehabilitate the UN. The case for all countries, and this includes the US, to pool their sovereignty and collectively solve and indeed prevent conflicts in a legitimate and legal fashion remains as strong as it did in 1945. It is for similar reasons that the world needs to establish an effective International Criminal Court where those who break international law or massacre their own people in genocide can be brought to a fair trial. The US is opposed to such a court, because it wants to retain its sovereignty in all matters judicial. But does the US, or any other country exercising its unilateral sovereignty contrary to global opinion, make for a better world?

The necessity to give up some sovereignty is not limited to issues of war and genocide. It extends into the sphere of economics. We need multilateral institutions like the World Trade Organisation which lay out the rules of international trade, so that powerful countries cannot exercise undue influence over the rest of the world. Just imagine if the US, the EU and Japan invoked their sovereign right to raise trade barriers? The rest of the world including India and China would be sent spiralling into recession. It also makes sense that all nations are accorded the same concessions by each member country, which is the guiding principle of the Most-Favoured Nation and National Treatment principles of the WTO.

It would be fair to say that we need international definitions of labour standards and environmental standards though these should be in no way linked with trade. At any rate it is difficult to argue that any nation should be allowed to exercise its sovereign right and make its workers work in sub-human conditions for minimalist wages, just because that gives it a competitive advantage. The International Labour Organisation does, therefore, lay out some basic guidelines for its members. The issue of climate change is more vexed. Here again the powerful countries like the US do not want to cede any autonomy and submit to international rules. But climate change is a global problem and there is a need for a global solution, which will inevitably mean that countries will have to cede their policy autonomy to pollute at will to an international agreement. Of course, we can all choose not to, until climate change destroys the environment, and then what use will sovereignty be?

There may also be bilateral 8216;pooling of sovereignty8217; solutions to solve bilateral disputes. The joint sovereignty exercised by France and Spain over Andorra is an example. I suspect that if ever a final solution is to be reached on the Kashmir issue it will have to be on the lines of pooling sovereignty rather than a hard-headed insistence on absolute sovereignty, by all the sides concerned. The 8216;pooling of sovereignty8217; approach need not preclude the possibility of countries voluntarily ceding policy autonomy in certain areas. After all, many countries signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in spite of the discrimination implicit in the agreements. But it is perhaps desirable for countries not to want nuclear weapons, no matter what others do.

In the sphere of economics, the neo-classical school of economists believes that unilateral secession of tariff autonomy and the concomitant autonomy to raise trade barriers is best for a country no matter what other countries do. Again, nobody would object if a country decided to set strict standards against pollution unilaterally. It would be a sensible thing to do. Unilateral secession of sovereignty is very much a real policy option, and often a desirable one, even if it is more difficult for countries to pursue when compared with the middle-of-the-road 8216;pooling of sovereignty8217; option.

It would also be evident from the arguments and examples presented above that sovereignty in its absolute form favours big and powerful nations 8212; mostly the US in today8217;s world, but perhaps also China and India 8212; and powerful people in those nations, the ruling class.

The writer is a research scholar in development economics at Trinity College, Cambridge