The Costs of Respecting Sovereignty by Jakub Grygiel Jakub Grygiel is the George H.W. Bush Associate Professor at The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (The Johns Hopkins University). He was awarded the 2005 Rear Admiral Ernest M. Eller Prize in Naval History.
Abstract: Respect for sovereignty can be an effective tool to manage relations between states, drawing boundaries of acceptable behavior. But there are also clear costs of respecting sovereignty. A foreign policy based on a principled defense of sovereignty can be, in fact, morally wrong, politically illegitimate, and strategically dangerous. This does not mean that sovereignty should be broken wantonly, but only that prudential judgment must be exercised to weigh the costs and benefits of respecting the sovereignty of a state. In the end, our security and our values, not the principle of sovereignty, should be the metric by which we should judge the necessity and legitimacy of U.S. actions.
T
he war in Iraq has drawn criticism on many levels and from many sides. One criticism is that this war has violated the sovereignty of a state, Iraq, in an illegitimate way, thereby weakening not only U.S. authority but also the principle of sovereignty, seen as a cornerstone of international stability. As a preventive war, and consequently as a war of choice rather than necessity, U.S. intervention in Iraq failed to meet the strict standards of a war waged in self-defense. The threat from Iraq, the argument goes, was doubtful and not imminent, and did not justify the clear violation of sovereignty perpetuated by the U.S. and its coalition. Furthermore, the absence of wide international support for the Iraq invasion (combined with the vocal opposition of some key powers) has augmented the perception of the illegitimacy of the 2003 U.S. attack. Such criticism, voiced by some current administration officials, is leading to a renewed appreciation for the principle of state sovereignty. Restoring respect for state sovereignty is seen again as the cornerstone of international stability, as well as U.S. foreign policy. In a July 2009 speech in Moscow, President Barack Obama argued this case, saying that State sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders that are # 2010 Published by Elsevier Limited on behalf of Foreign Policy Research Institute.
Spring 2010
|
268