The case for multinational cooperation as a threat to state sovereignty is centered on a supposed migration of authority from the state to the collective. By collaborating with its neighbors in the security arena, a state becomes an organ of a supranational authority. The fear of the state is that this supranational authority may not have the best interests of the state at heart, as state interests often vary and conflict in this variance.
In an apparent anarchic international system, states enter into multinational agreements to manage conflict. The multinational conflict management organization wrests sovereignty from the state only when the state surrenders its sovereignty and only to the degree that the state allows. Simply put, sovereignty is what states make it.
Dave Roddenberry is a civilian US Army Special Operations trainer with multiple deployments to Iraq. He holds an MA in International Conflict Management from Norwich University.
- 1
March 17, 2012
Johannes Steger, Universitą di Bologna, Bronze Contributor (18)
you argue that the erosion of sovereignty by multinational cooperation is only a matter of perception. What does "perception" mean? Does it mean that states are not able to get right on their "real" interests, and so they risk to follow old-style realpolitik? Well, realpolitik teaches that states are keen on defending their own interests (perceived or misperceived), but they are much less willing to defend other states interests.
Furthermore, you argue against sovereignty as an ideology, purporting national independence against the well-being of citizens. That may well be often the case. However, as above, states cannot be sure that their partners will help them in case of necessity. Moreover, which weight on decisions will states have in that supranational authority? Will it be according their power? Could you imagine the USA submitting to a supranational authority, or do you think more at states submitting to US-authority?
Let's look at the European division over US-intervention in Iraq: have some of the Europeans misperceived their “real” interests? Does misperception mean: “not following US-interests”?