The sovereignty of a country, in general terms, concerns its autonomy, political and decision-making power. within their respective national territory, especially with regard to the defense of interests nationals. In this sense, it is up to the national state (the government itself) the right to self-determination in the name of a nation, a people. On the other hand, the concept of world order refers to the idea of an organization or hierarchy given by the power relations between international actors, that is, the countries or States themselves.
So, what is the relationship between the concepts of sovereignty and world order? These are complementary concepts in politics and international relations. Any less attentive reading of such categories can lead to the impression of an apparent contradiction between them, a since the idea of the “anarchy” of sovereignties could presuppose the absence of order (a World Order properly said). According to Giovanni Arrighi, systemic chaos (between sovereignties) demands order, and this situation favors the emergence of hegemony. The hegemonic power is given, in a way, by the consent and cohesion between countries and, in this way, who (among the countries) meet the demand created by the referred systemic chaos will be considered hegemonic.
The process of hegemony formation has been transformed over the centuries. With the development of capitalist practices, we have an organization of the world's geopolitics that leaves the legitimacy religious, dynastic and political (predominant in the past) to another, given by the technical, military and financial capacity. With the complexization of the means of production and the resurgence of capitalism, there is a new structuring of space, which guided the behavior of sovereignties across the globe, between strong and weak, or center and periphery, a direct consequence of the international division of labor and production.
Thus, what legitimizes the dialogue between sovereignties (within an order) is the search for mechanisms that reduce the “costs” of mutual coexistence, with the discourse (ideological to a certain extent) of the promoting peace and development, whether for the rich or for the poor, a fact that justifies the existence of discussions in international forums on economics, social promotion and the order itself worldwide.
The powers that stand out have a legitimizing discourse for their undertaking: they are guarantors, give credibility and demand respect. Roughly speaking, the World Order can be considered relevant to the “usual” behavior of countries. This habit is delineated by its direct and indirect actions as sovereignty and, obviously, it is linked in a way intrinsic to its main economic, political, physical (geographical), ideological and religious. In other words, countries occupy positions in the international system according to their more general characteristics that make it more or less prominent. Obviously, not all countries consider the power of some hegemonies as legitimate, manifesting themselves against this power. An example of this would be the hostility relationship to the United States by some countries like Iran and Venezuela.
Throughout the 20th century, what is witnessed is the strengthening of North American hegemony, especially at the end of the Cold War. At the beginning of the 21st century, in terms of the international system, some transformations are very significant, since, on the one hand, the United States still has the status of greatest power world, despite internal problems in its economy, on the other hand it already shares space in the international economic scenario with the European Union and with the so-called BRIC's (Brazil, Russia, India and China). In other words, there are indications that the international system is becoming increasingly complex, a fact that suggests a rearrangement of international relations.
Do not stop now... There's more after the advertising ;)
Clearly, world hegemonies and powers have diplomatic strategies not necessarily to regulate the “good functioning" of the international system, but to serve its interests in the first instance, mainly from the point of economic view. The protectionist measures adopted at the time of the economic crisis (as well as government subsidies for some sectors) are representative of this, as they ensure greater competitive advantages for the national production of their countries in the market International.
As we have seen, although the huge economic crisis that set in the world economy in mid-2008 originated in the large financial centers of the main powers in the world, countries considered to be developing were also called to discuss alternatives to achieve a exit. In other words, in terms of international relations, the economic chaos caused by a few had to faced by all, given the direct or indirect consequences on economies across the world.
Furthermore, the rhetoric of the discourses of these powers often does not coincide with political practices. There is a consensus regarding sustainable development, but attitudes in practice are different. The issues pertaining to global warming, so in vogue on the agenda, seem to meet an agenda assumed to be international, but which in practice is aligned with the interests of the strongest (politically and economically) and shares responsibilities (largely "yours", considering the pollution/industrial development relationship) with all.
Thus, when reflecting on international relations and on the concepts of sovereignty and hegemony, some questions are possible: to what extent in fact, sovereignties are respected in the current situation, since in the name of “democracy”, the fight against terrorism and Western values of “freedom”, countries like the United States and other powers of the European Union unite to command attacks, invasions and wars against others nations? Wouldn't the liberal economic model spread around the world increase the gap in economic inequalities between countries? How would the national sovereignty of an economically dependent country be ensured in a context of economic globalization when the interests of the strongest prevail?
Paulo Silvino Ribeiro
Brazil School Collaborator
Bachelor in Social Sciences from UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
Master in Sociology from UNESP - São Paulo State University "Júlio de Mesquita Filho"
Doctoral Student in Sociology at UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
Sociology - Brazil School
