NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY IS IN PRACTICE RELATIVE NOT ABSOLUTE

National sovereignty, sometimes used to mean national independence, has to be viewed against the background of the interdependence of modern states.

The role of national parliaments is an issue. The advocates of an absolute definition of parliamentary sovereignty argue that the acid test is whether the national parliament of any EU member state remains free to change or reverse decisions that the government of any EU member state has approved in the EU Council or even Treaties that a national parliament has itself ratified. Many treaties contain an abrogation clause, with a period of notice. In such cases there is no problem. In the case of the EU, where the treaties are intended to be permanent, the situation is less simple. The parliament of any EU member state  could certainly legislate to overthrow an EU measure, but the European Court would rule this action illegal. If an EU government , supported by its national parliament, refused to comply, there would be a major crisis and, failing a compromise, the EU member state in question would find itself on a path which would lead to withdrawal.

There are other uses of the word sovereignty. Nation states are said to give up part of their sovereignty, for example by signing a Treaty or by agreeing to an EU Directive which removes the right of decision from the national government or parliament in particular field. Or they are said to share or pool sovereignty by agreeing to common action through EU institutions, thus participating in decisions taken by the EU in accordance with its procedures, and no longer retaining the right to act unilaterally. In this use of sovereignty it virtually means the same as freedom to decide unilaterally.

All countries, both inside and outside the EU, have given up or pooled some sovereignty. Examples are NATO, the UN or the WTO.  Nations come together to protect the environment, resist threats to international peace and security, promote free trade and investment and defend human rights, to name but a few. Each time a country joins an international organization or signs a Treaty, it restricts its freedom of action and thus gives up a part of its sovereignty or independence, even if only a small part. Countries are prepared to pool sovereignty in particular areas because they recognize the practical benefits of doing so. Approaching common problems by participating in collective decision making with appropriate partners in reality gives countries more effective control over global events and problems than they could possibly hope to wield were they to continue to act alone.

There are those who argue that globalization, multinational corporations and organizations, the internet, the speed of modern transport and communications etc. mean that the concept of the sovereign state does not have a future. But the abolition of the nation state does not figure on any serious agenda. Ask any European politician whether his or her country is a sovereign nation state and you will receive an emphatic 'yes' answer, even if further probing would reveal consciousness of the limitations on its freedom of action. The ability to decide nationally on a whole range of matters, such as taxation, social security, health and education, are still important to most people.

The reality is that both in the EU and elsewhere, pooling of sovereignty to achieve shared objectives will certainly need to continue. Drugs, international crime, money laundering, trade, the environment and action against terrorism are only some of the things that require common action. The judgement as to whether to act in common or not in each case will continue to be made on the basis of practical arguments about efficacy. IT IS THE ROLE OF THE HEADS OF GOVERNMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE DEMOCRATICALLY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBER STATES REMAIN THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND EU ACTION. But many things do not require any pooling of sovereignty. Indeed there is a growing consensus in the EU that some things are better dealt with nationally. Former President Delors once said to the French Senate that 'areas like education, health, employment, and social security, in short everything which creates social cohesion, must remain national competencies'.

To conclude, sovereignty is a dynamic concept. It is in practice relative, not absolute. Much sovereignty has been shared already, but nothing essential to the well-being and sense of identity of the people of the member states has been lost. The sovereign nation state will be with us for the foreseeable future, even if its influence over some areas of policy will be much less than in the past. Meanwhile countries will best protect and further their interests by not hesitating to exercise some of their sovereignty collectively to achieve their aims.

 

 

 

 

Add new comment