In principle all states are sovereign whether developed or under developed. Since the seventeenth century, through the teachings of de Vittoria and Grotius, states have recognized each other’s right to sovereignty [1]. In the recent years, violating state sovereignty of developing state for various reasons have become headlines. Obviously, the concept of sovereignty is not new, but it is not protected and respected equally among all state. The sovereignty of developing states has been seen violated from time to time by superpowers. In turn the superpower states sovereignty has been respected as sovereignty is practically related to power. Power is achieved through economic development, political strength and modernization which could not be achieved at one night for developing states. So In this Article I will attempt to indicate the sovereignty regime of Developing States; its challenges and whether developing states have real sovereignty or not, the failures of their sovereignty and the causes of its failure.

What is State Sovereignty

There is no clear cut and single definition of sovereignty. Different scholars suggest different meanings [2]. Webster dictionary [3] defines that, supreme excellence or an example of it, supreme power especially over a body politic, freedom from external control; autonomy. However, most theorists would agree that the phrase state sovereignty includes references to supreme power and authority relating to a body politic that is territorially determined or determinable and  was generally accepted that sovereignty is an essential element of state power and that it signifies supremacy of the state in its internal and independence in its external relations. Commonly, to attain sovereignty a state must demonstrate internal supremacy and external independence [4]. That is a sovereign state must be able to show politicalsupremacy in its own territory over all other political authorities and demonstrate actual independence of outside authority, not the supremacy of one state over others but theindependence of one state from its peers.  Sovereignty, therefore, is the assumption that a government of a state is both supreme and independent.

Sovereignty is deeply embedded in world affairs as it provides an arrangement that is conductive to upholding certain values that are considered to be of fundamentalimportance. These include international order among states, membership and participation in the society of states, co-existence of political systems, and legal equality ofstates, political freedom of states, and pluralism or respect for the diversity of ways of life of different groups of people around the world.

The Notion of Developing State Sovereignty Regime

The doctrine of sovereignty which prevailed in the nineteenth and part of the twentieth century was based on the idea that states are only bound by those rules of law to which they agree, either by the conclusion of treaties or Customarily. But in today’s world, there are few reasons as to when it is acceptable to violate a state’s sovereignty [5]. However, its practical application is the revers in that the western super power sovereignty was only respected in which the sovereignty of developing state disregarded. It has been observed where sovereignty of developing states has been violated repeatedly by super powers under pretext of humanitarian intervention, economic aid ,Investment, Trade co-operation, Trans-national companies using various western NGO’s.  In this subsequent sub topics, I will try to analyze whether practically developing states have sovereignty or not and the related challenges.

Do Developing Countries have Sovereignty

From the international law perspective all states are sovereign and enjoy the same juridical capacities and functions [6]. In principle each state can participate within international relations as equal partner, it can conclude treaties based on its free will, it can exclude any other state from interfering in its internal affairs, and it can govern the territory and control the boundaries.  In fact, if we study carefully the international relations as a whole we will notice that not all states display the same degree of sovereignty. Highly developed states with robust institutions having a dominant position within the international plane are the ones enjoying the absolute behavioral sovereignty, not only state but even the United Nations.

When we analyze the United Nations Charter, it authorizes the Security Council to determine the sorts of action that must be taken, i.e  the states that may be involved in the decision making and the states that may carry out authorized action in case of breach of peace or acts of aggression. This by itself is exposed for abuse. There is no clear cut criterion which amounts to breach of peace or act of aggression. Even Security Council by itself is standing to protect the western interest rather than all sovereignty states including the developing states. Cassese [7] shares this idea and he argues that the United Nations is not based on the full equality of its members, because Art 27(3) of the Charter grants the right of veto to the permanent members of the Security Council only. In the subsequent sub-topics we will see the main challenges to the sovereignty of developing states. Inter alia the shifting paradigm of the notion of sovereignty from rights to responsibility, Intervention by the name of Humanitarian purpose, prevention of Terrorism as state policy and the notion of self-defense.

Responsibility as Pre-Condition for Sovereignty

The notion of Responsibility to Protect as pre-condition to sovereignty is emerged and being touted as a new approach to protecting populations from mass atrocities by violation of sovereignty. This developing doctrine [8], dictates that when a state is unwilling or unable to protect its citizens from actual or apprehended large scale loss of life, the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states yields to the international responsibility to protect. In such instances their Responsibility to Protect (R2P) may set guidelines in which it is acceptable to breach the sovereignty of a state [9].  The R2P may commit the states to take action to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing or Atrocity Crimes when they know or should know that populations are at grave risk. 

In weak, failing and failed states internal sovereignty can be reduced or extinguished when states fail to meet their responsibilities to their citizens while notionally the state’s de jure external sovereignty is unaffected. However, de facto a state’s juridical external sovereignty may be undermined by the actions of external actors; including, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or international institutions.

Violation of Sovereignty for Humanitarian Purpose

Humanitarian intervention, actions undertaken by an organizations; usually a state or a coalition of states that are intended to alleviate extensive human suffering within the borders of a sovereign state. Such suffering tends to be the result of a government instigating, facilitating, or ignoring the abuse of groups falling within its jurisdiction. This abuse often takes the form of deliberate and systematic violations of human rights, including forced expulsions, ethnic cleansing, and, in the most extreme cases, genocide. 

There is a developing consensus, at least amongst developed states, on the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention in some circumstances, even in the absence of Security Council authorization [10]. The consensus is motivated – justifiable or not – by the need to stop serious human rights violations. However, it is exclusively intended to intervening in the developing state internal affairs which highly jeopardizes their sovereignty. Even, such interventions by itself have led to numerous human rights violations and have not produced lasting solutions for the underlying problems.  For instance,the Military interventions such as those by Turkey in Cyprus in 1974, by the NATO in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 and by the Russian Federation in Georgia in 2008, NATO in Libya in 2011 have had a further direct impact on weak or developing states that are considered a potential risk and caused for immense human right violation and exaggerating the circumstances instead of keeping peace which out layer of their primary purpose. Humanitarian intervention has of paramount importance if and only if it has guided solid rules and principle. However, when we see practically, Humanitarian intervention has no consistency. It has been acted carelessly. It is also considered as merely the imposition of imperialism perception. Let us see in the next sub-topics.

No Consistency

Humanitarian intervention is reckless and offers absolutely no guidance to the manner in which the intervention itself should be conducted. If there is to be humanitarian intervention, there should be a coherent humanitarian justification coupled with a proper procedural and substantive legal regime to underwrite it.

By the end of the nineteenth century the majority of scholars had accepted the existence of a right of humanitarian intervention. However, argued that such doctrine was inherently vague and open to abuse by powerful states. Chesterman is among those who argue that a lack of consistency undermines the United Nations as a whole and is to be avoided. This manifests that the decision to intervene is left for western superpowers in which the sovereignty of powerless developing States is highly violated. 

Perceptions of Imperialism

Humanitarian intervention always has the ‘potential of becoming a tool for the interference by the strong in the affairs of the weak, with humanitarian considerations providing a veneer to justify such intervention. The legitimization of the use of unauthorized force on humanitarian grounds by way of camouflaging the interventionist policies of the West is a well-acknowledged concern of the South [11]. Further, humanitarian intervention presupposes that some societies know better than others and advocate that there is universal cultural legitimacy for a certain interpretation of human rights. Also it is applied only on developing states which is highly jeopardizing the sovereignty of the weak, poor and the under developed nations. For instance the interventions in East Pakistan in 1971, Uganda in the 1970s, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia in the late 1970s, the British intervention in Sierra Leone in 2000 can reveal that the intervention by superpower is directed against developing States.

The Prevention of Terrorism as State Policy

Terrorism has been used as a matter of State policy, after the liberation of several countries from colonial rule. Countries unwilling to abandon their path of independent political and economic development were primary targets of terrorism, used as an alternative means of warfare. The western superpowers most of the time call themselves as the primary fighters of terrorism, and by the name of terrorism they interferes in the jurisdiction of developing states – in a way that is highly violating their sovereignty. For instance a survey conducted by different NGO’s [12] indicate that, since Jan. 1, 2015, the U.S. has dropped Many  bombs on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, all countries that are majority of Muslim [13]. This manifests that, by the name of terrorism the sovereignty of developing States are violated from time to time by western superpower which highly indicate the diminishing of developing state sovereignty.

The Idea of Self-defense as Inherent Right

In accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, There is a clause of self-defense. Self-defense by itself is not sin. But the problem is that, the developed states are broadly defining the phrase “self-defense” and used to jeopardizing the interest of the weak states. Most of the time, Superpower states have invoked self-defense for violation of sovereignty. The inclusion of this article to the UN charter paves the way to the continuous violation of the sovereignty of developing States. For instance On October 7, 2001, the U.S. began its bombing campaign in Afghanistan and violating its sovereignty by the name of self- defense. The same thing is also true for Syria and Iraq where USA interfere to their sovereignty, even without legal bases to do so and bombing populations. 

The Failure of Developing States Sovereignty

In principles, all states are sovereign that is accompanied bythe idea of autonomy [14].  However the practical sovereignty has always been limited by the realities of power and that states have never enjoyed entire independence from each other, especially for developing countries where entire economic, political and social activities depend on the western donation and trans-national co-operation, talking about sovereignty is seems to be dreaming. Their sovereignty is practically shows failure. So in the subsequent sub-topics, I will try to indicate the causes of failure of sovereignty in developing States. Inter alia, Economic weakness, weakness of political power and the hidden agenda of superpower states will be analyzed.

Due to Economic Weakness

The Developing states even sought to extend sovereign rights into areas of international relations beyond the scope of territorial integrity and non-intervention. However, due to their economic weakness, and the penetration of their economies by trading networks; notably transnational corporations dominated by the developed capitalist states, especially westerners, the most important of these was understandably economic management which leads to violation of developing state sovereignty. The Charter [15] advocates conception of the global economic order in which `private' actors, and notably corporations, could operate in a relatively unconstrained manner across state frontiers. Developing states are unable to assert sovereign rights over information and economic management which shows the powerlessness of developing state as against developed industrial states. Economically, they even on occasion depended on external aid for famine, disease, environmental protection, and not only for the capital investment needed to raise them from their current poverty, but for the wherewithal to pay their own bureaucracies. As conditions of public order deteriorated, Scholars argued that, states such as Afghanistan, Burma or Cambodia in Asia, or Angola, Chad or Ethiopia in Africa, were quite unable to exercise even minimal control over much of their ostensible national territory. This economic weakness is pave ways to the violation of their sovereignty.

Due to Weakness of Political Power

It is undeniable that, what matters about sovereignty is not mere formal recognition of independent statehood, but rather the power which it confers on the rulers of states, through its denial of the right of other states and external agencies to `interfere' in their own exercise of domestic power [16]. However, Superpower status nonetheless carried with it implicit rights of intervention in the affairs of other states, and the ideologies through which the USA and USSR sought to legitimate their global role override the claims of independent statehood which the superpowers regarded as vital to their own hegemony. For instance, the intervention of Haiti in1994 and in Sierra Leone in 1997 reveals the weakness of political power in which it is done to restore the enthroned government. Militarily, they were often incapable of defending themselves against any serious assault.

The Hidden Agenda of Superpowers

However, some states exploit this for their own political gain. States may intervene under the pretense of lending a helping hand, with alternative motives, to either change the government to one better suited to them or to exploit the natural resources of the state, amongst other reasons. For instance, in 17th December 1984 - Resolution on the policy of State terrorism and any actions by States aimed at undermining the socio-political system in other sovereign States, deals with several states taking military action against others for personal gain in this case to install a more favorable government which stand for their interest. Also in Libya case, they dethroned Muammar Qadhafi in 2011, the decision to stay USA soldiers in Afghanistan up to 2017 are criticized as for Tapi natural gas pipeline contain trillion of dollar worthy.

Sovereignty is deeply embedded in world affairs upholding certain values that are considered to be of fundamental importance which include international order among states, membership and participation in the society of states, co-existence of political systems, legal equality of states, political freedom of states, and pluralism or respect for the diversity of ways of life of different groups of people around the world. However it is not respected equally among different states [17]. The sovereignty of western superpower states are respected while under developed states sovereignty has been violating for the fake reason of humanitarian intervention, terrorism, self-defense, failures of responsibility to protect. The notion of Sovereignty is not considered as rights or privileges, rather it is as power. But power needs to economic development, political strength, internal stability and peace which cannot be achieved over nights. So as far as no state power, that guarantees full authority on the territory, enjoys relative economic growth that reduce dependency on external assistance there is no sovereignty in the true sense. That being the case, it is very rights to conclude that developing states have failed to enjoy sovereignty over their territories.

1. Ushakov, N.A. Sovereignty in contemporary international law. Moscow, 1963.

2. Winston, P., et al. “Sovereignty in theory and practice.” San Diego International Law Journal, vol. 13, 2011–2012, pp. 432.

3. “Dictionary definition of sovereignty.” Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bodypolitic. Accessed 4 May 2016.
   “English language learner definition of sovereignty.” Learner’s Dictionary, www.learnerdictionary.com/sear ch/sovereignty. Accessed 4 May 2016.

4. Volsky, Alexander. “Reconciling human rights and state sovereignty: Justice and the law in humanitarian intervention.” International Public Policy Law Review, vol. 3, 2007.

5. Chimni, B.S. “Third world approaches to international law: A manifesto.” International Community Law Review, vol. 8, 2006, pp. 3–27. Koninklijke Brill NV, Netherlands.

6. Goodman, Louis W. “Democracy, sovereignty, and intervention.” American University International Law Review, vol. 9, 1993, pp. 27–32.

7. Cassese, Antonio. International law in a divided world. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.

8. Ki-moon, Ban. “Responsible sovereignty: International cooperation for a changed world.” Address, Berlin, 15 July 2008. See also United Nations World Summit Outcome Document, 2005.

9. Jentleson, Bruce W. “Humanitarian intervention and sovereignty delegation: Why? When? Who decides? How much?” Duke University, 2006.

10. Araujo, Robert. “Sovereignty, human rights and self-determination: The meaning of international law.” Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 24, no. 5, 2000.

11. Clapham, Christopher. “Sovereignty and the third world states.” Political Studies Review, 1999, pp. 522–537.

12. Johnson, Adam. “U.S. dropped 23,144 bombs on Muslim-majority countries in 2015.” AlterNet, 9 January 2016.

13. “The bombing of states by the name of terrorism.” AlterNet, www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/us-dropped-23144-bombs-muslim-majority-countries-2015. Accessed 4 May 2016.

14. Jackson, Robert. “Introduction: Sovereignty at the millennium.” Political Studies Review, 1999, pp. 423–430.

15. The Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States (CERDS). Adopted by the UN General Assembly, December 1974.

16. Tunkin, G.I. Basics of contemporary international law. Moscow, 1956.

17. Bishop, Mattew Louis, et al. “Caribbean regional governance and sovereignty/statehood problem.” Caribbean Journal of International Relations, vol. 8, 2010.