Year of Development in Government’s Rule

From the beginning up to now, International law has always been evolving: it does not mean that the law is evolving, but power relations are, and consequently international law is changed. Sovereignty is the most complex concept in international law. Sovereignty is a credential and a prestigious concept that retains a sacred aura around the concept of government. It is the government whose condition is evolving in terms of internal and external aspects and its reform causes a change in sovereignty. Governments have already had determined borders and perform inside these borders, but now the borders are continuously changing not in terms of geographical boundaries, but in political and legal ones.

If we focus on state sovereignty, we see that due to the events that occurred in the world, a government based on its Westphalian definition does not enjoy external support anymore, as it did in the past. Namely, the borders have lost their former function in domestic and foreign affairs. This issue can be analyzed in the events in Arab and Middle Eastern countries such as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya during the last few months. During recent events in these countries, it can be seen that other countries internationally supported the people who organized protests and took subversive measures against the national governments. The people’s protests against domestic governments were internationally supported, and it was interesting that this support was promised officially.

This shows that the concept of sovereignty, meaning that boundaries are impenetrable and other countries and public opinion do not have any influence on a nation’s outer borders, has changed. The situation has made changes in that present regimes’ positions cannot be determined, as sovereignty had previously a foreign aspect and was interpreted as independence, i.e. before other sovereignties, it had had an authority and there was no other prominent sovereignty that could interfere in the internal affairs of this sovereignty.

In the current situation, the foreign aspect of sovereignty mentioned as independence in the colonial period is weakened and limited. In fact, we do not know how it is practiced and recognized, what the limits and standards to be respected are, and to what extent the sovereignty is vulnerable against external actions and public opinion. There are these questions and ambiguities about sovereignty, and no answer can be given at this time.

It seems that everything is being re-made. The importance of the current event is illustrated when it is interwoven with the concepts such as bankrupt governments, previously cited in the literature of political science, and under international law, failed states. Namely the sovereignty issue is interwoven with human security within national borders. Although it is not new and has always been around, in the last year it was highlighted by the changes created.

These developments stimulated new discussions in the field of state sovereignty and created a new trend, although the developments became a process and now is seen as a trend. It cannot be predicted how the developments will ultimately affect the concept of sovereignty. What we do know is that the developments in the last year weakened the concept of sovereignty, but the range and scope are unknown.

One of the most important incidents that occurred last year as the symbol of evolution, was the concept of national sovereignty in the Ivory Coast: an election was held and the president, Laurent Gbagbo, claimed victory. However, the international community, rejecting the claim of Gbagbo, changed the result in favor of his rival, Hassan Otara, and announced that the election result is recognized as such. Therefore, the validity of the election was accepted through the international community’s accepted norms and the UN Secretary-General announced that President Laurent Gbagbo is not recognized as the president. Therefore, his representative in the United Nations does not have credibility, and his ambassadors in countries that do not recognize him as the winner of the election and the legitimate president of the country are not accepted.

The incident in the Ivory Coast shows how strange developments have occurred in international law. Based on the traditional concept of state sovereignty, all the necessary factors such as population, territory, and state authority exist within its boundaries. But another change is created in the concept of sovereignty which is the ability to communicate with other sovereignties. Namely, in addition to population, territory and military and security power, a government should have a connection with other sovereignties with which it is to be recognized. The concept of sovereignty is defined among sovereignties, and when a president cannot communicate with other sovereignties, they do not respect his credibility.

Libya is another example of evolution in the concept of state sovereignty that was formulated in the last year. In the UN Security Council resolution 1970, adopted on Saturday, February 27, 2011, the UNSC urged the International Criminal Court to investigate the charges of human rights violations and systematic crimes against humanity by the Libyan authorities, and to initiate their judicial prosecution.

The warnings cited in the resolution on the wanton murdering of people, and some recommendations about the observation of human and humanitarian rights were the other symptoms of the developments. The last Security Council resolution on Libya, resolution 1973, approved on Thursday, 17 March, is another example of the evolution of sovereignty in the international community. In this resolution, all UN members are given license to take all possible measures to protect civilians against the military attacks of Gaddafi. In addition to the Security Council, other sovereignties worldwide reject the legitimacy of the Qaddafi’s regime in Libya.

Therefore, the ability to communicate with other sovereignties is meaningful in the framework of sovereignty, and the issue is somewhat affected by the power relations of the government with its own nationals in its territory. That is to say that the international community does not recognize the rule of Muammar Qaddafi due to the fact that his relationship with the people is not such that the world considers it acceptable and credible. From the viewpoint of the sovereignties who do not recognize Gaddafi, instead of serving his citizens, Gaddafi is against the people.

This is a new development in sovereignty. However, such a debate was raised in previous years and also was seen in Kosovo, but in this year, it was highlighted. This means that the discussion is not instantaneously raised in international law, but due to relations, it was much heeded.

So, the incidents occurring are caused by the relations that developed earlier among sovereignties that were eliminated, and other types of relations are emerging. For example, Western countries, especially France, developed some relations with Tunisia, Morocco and other Arab countries based on two basic elements. First, the behavior of governments regarding Israel’s security was approved. Second, those governments introduced themselves at the forefront of the fight against fundamentalism, and Western countries who considered them as a barrier to fundamentalism gave them credit. Now both of these discussions are rendered false.

In the discussion on Israel’s security, the issue was raised that dictators like Hosni Mubarak cannot necessarily support Israel’s security and on the other hand, the West came to the conclusion that by this factor, it cannot establish serious relations with dictators and ignore their actions in the domestic arena. This development is of great importance in the evolution of sovereignty’s viewpoint on the Arab sovereignties in the region, and seriously affects ​​future developments.