Caught in the Middle

As much as I enjoyed this week’s debate on whether or not the international environment can change, I can’t say I was ever able to take a firm stance on either side of the issue. I was part of the CON group and felt we put together a really strong argument but I also agreed with a lot of the statements made by the opposing group. Thus, I find myself stuck in the middle on the issue.

Many of our arguments on the CON side boiled down to state sovereignty so I’ll use that to elaborate on my “middle of the road” point of view. As our group argued, I do firmly believe all states will always want to hold on to as much of their sovereignty as possible. But with that said, there are certainly instances where states have been willing to give up bits and pieces of what makes them a sovereign state. Both the PRO and CON side used the EU to highlight their points but I personally think EU membership does require states to give up some level of economic sovereignty (and that is coming from someone on the CON side). However, as we in the CON side pointed out there are certainly many aspects of state sovereignty that states are not willing to sacrifice for the EU.

NATO is another useful example to look at. Member states agree an attack on one member is an attack against all which signals sacrificing some level of sovereignty in terms of when/if a country actually wants to go to battle. But all NATO members certainly want to keep their own militaries and follow their own military doctrines. A long list could be made of elements which states want to keep out of NATO control.

The few thoughts I’ve laid out above put me in a position where I feel like certain elements of the international environment have changed and will continue to change. Additionally, certain elements haven’t changed and won’t do so. I feel state sovereignty will always be important to states, but the degree of sovereignty will change over time. New technologies or future events may change the way in which states value their sovereignty. For instance, a worsening global environmental crisis could lead states to sacrifice a degree of sovereignty and agree to certain international restrictions designed to improve the environmental situation.

My bottom line is there will always be sovereign states but some aspects of a state’s sovereignty may be able to be sacrificed. Some could argue that statement puts me squarely on the PRO side of the “change in the international environment” debate, but I still contend I’m taking the middle ground. To me, a concession of a degree of sovereignty here and there does not signal a big enough fundamental change in the international environment. There are still aspects which will never change.