Suchergebnisse

Critics of sovereignty have argued that it produces outcomes that violate universal moral principles. This article offers a qualified defence of external sovereignty by returning to some of the arguments first deployed to support claims to it. The article argues that if claims to external sovereignty are understood in part as a critique of the ambitions of powerful states, then the presumption of it in international politics, not as an absolute value but a crucial consequential consideration, could act as a restraint on the power of the world's strongest states by making justifications for war somewhat more difficult.

'EXTERNAL SOVEREIGNTY' IS THE CONCERN OF THIS PAPER, AND THE extent to which it has been eroded, in substance if not in form, by the pressures of the modern world. The formal distinction between external sovereignty and internal sovereignty needs to be emphasized at the outset. Externally, sovereignty connotes equality of status between the states – the distinct and separate entities – which make up our international society. Internally, it connotes the exercise of supreme authority by those states within their individual territorial boundaries. From Bodin who, in De La République (1577), saw souveraineté as the exclusive right 'to give lawes unto all and everie one of its . . . subjects and to receive none from them' to the Permanent Court of International Justice which, in the Wimbledon Case (1922), held that the sovereign state 'is subject to no other state and has full and exclusive powers within its jurisdiction without prejudice to the limits set by applicable law', the concept of the sovereign state has implied both supremacy within and equality of status without.

The article studies internal and external sovereignty of unrecognized or partially recognized post-Soviet states through the use of empirical analysis of quantitative data and critical analysis of subjective factors. It analyzes statistical and other information that reflects the demographic and socio-economic situation, foreign economic relations of such entities, and their impact on neighboring countries and regions. This is combined with the critical study of public opinions and popular identities based on surveys and 13 focus groups conducted in the fall of 2020 in Transnistria and Abkhazia. In all post-Soviet de facto states, the population has noticeably decreased (except for Nagorno-Karabakh before the 2020 war). The reason for the outflow of residents was the inability of such entities to provide citizens with decent incomes and their poor performance in economic competition with neighboring countries and regions, reflected in the dynamics of the key indicators per capita in terms of purchasing power parity. However, the economic and demographic situation cannot explain the sustainability of such entities. Strong political identity of citizens and their loyalty to the ruling regimes serve as the main basis for, and essential elements of, internal sovereignty. Participants of surveys highly value independence. They believe that it presumes economic independence, improved well-being, and the development of full-fledged international relations that helps to strengthen external sovereignty. Some respondents expressed disappointment with the fact that these goals have not been achieved in the course of 30 years. The geopolitical vision of the world by residents of post-Soviet de facto states is "Russia-centric", although Russia is far from being idealized. In conclusion, the risks that Russia faces in connection with post-Soviet de facto states and with Moscow's involvement in the respective conflicts are assessed.

This analysis suggests the idea that shared sovereignty and neotrusteeships are the result of the paradoxes entailed by the promotion of democracy by external intervention. The goal of democratization and the democratic attitude of recent international interventions lead to some contradictory principles, particularly between the respect of selfdetermination and external control and between temporary engagement and protracted international interference. These contradictions affect the international administrators' activities in the target-country. While they tend to concede powers to local political leaders in the light of the self-determination principle, they hold some essential power in order to foster the transition to democracy. While they are inclined to give back full independence, their prolonged presence is required to guarantee the process of democratization. The result is a balance between international and local power prerogatives which ends up in a de facto shared-sovereignty.