Struggling with the dreaded 's'
word By Mark Baker
A new
disagreement appears to be taking shape in Iraq - this
time over the meaning of the word "sovereignty".
The United States has set June 30 as the date it
says it will transfer sovereignty to a new Iraqi
government. The original implication was that the Iraqis
would get "full" sovereignty - or full control - over
their country. But recently US officials have appeared
to backtrack, now saying that Iraq initially will get
only "limited" sovereignty. This change in wording - and
apparent shift in policy - has angered many Iraqis and
some members of the international community. They
suspect the US of possibly reneging on its promise of
transferring real authority in Iraq.
But what
actually is sovereignty, and do concepts such as full or
limited sovereignty have any real meaning?
Robert Keohane, a political science professor at
Duke University, has written extensively on sovereignty.
He told RFE/RL that the classic definition of
sovereignty - and the popular conception of the term -
dates from the Thirty Years War in Europe in the first
half of the 17th century. "A traditionally sovereign
government is supreme over any authority within its own
territory and takes orders from no one outside," he
said. "That is the traditional notion of sovereignty
dating from the 17th century."
Keohane said this
older concept of sovereignty is no longer relevant. He
said sovereignty in the modern world is not considered
to be unitary - in other words, it's not something
governments either have or do not have. "[The older
concept] is not meaningful," he said. "The point is, you
have to get away from the notion that sovereignty is
unitary - you have it or you don't. It's not like you
are pregnant or you are not pregnant. There are degrees
of sovereignty. What the United States and its partners
are handing over to Iraq is partial sovereignty."
International law scholars now recognize three
types of sovereignty. "International legal sovereignty"
is when a government is recognized by other countries
and international organizations. "Decision-making
sovereignty" is when a government is fully free to make
its own decisions. The third, "domestic sovereignty", is
when a government has effective control over its
territory. Possession of all three approximates "full
sovereignty".
"What's going to happen [on June
30 is] that Iraq will have 'international legal
sovereignty'. It will be represented at the United
Nations. Its government will be recognized by other
governments. The US will have an ambassador there -
instead of the head of the Coalition [Provisional]
Authority. But [the new Iraqi government] will not have
'decision-making sovereignty' because it will have to
defer to the judgments of the US military with respect
to fundamental security issues within its territory. And
it won't have 'domestic sovereignty' because it will not
have effective control over its own territory," Keohane
said.
Such legal distinctions are not likely to
be easily understood by Iraqi citizens, who are
impatient to run their own country - or even at the
United Nations, where a new battle over the issue of
sovereignty appears to be shaping up.
The US is
seeking a Security Council resolution to show
international support for the new Iraqi government. But
opponents of the Iraq war, like France, can be expected
to reject any wording that implies anything less than
full sovereignty for Iraq. French President Jacques
Chirac, speaking last week in Paris, said: "There is no
possible way toward the reconstruction of Iraq without a
real transfer of sovereignty under the effective control
of the United Nations."
The US and its main ally
on the council, Great Britain, are counting on special
UN Iraq envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to help smooth over
differences. Speaking earlier this month, Brahimi seemed
to recognize that Iraq will get only limited sovereignty
on June 30. "I think sovereignty means for me the end of
legal occupation," he said. "There will be a government
that will be sovereign, that will exercise this
sovereignty. Of course, realities will have to be
addressed. Sovereignty will be handed over, but the
150,000 soldiers that are here are not going to
disappear on July 1."
Keohane said, in fact,
that there are many examples of countries and hotspots
around the world where limited sovereignty exists and
works relatively well in practice. He cited Bosnia and
Taiwan as two. "Bosnia has 'international legal
sovereignty' but does not have 'decision-making
sovereignty' and it doesn't have 'domestic sovereignty'.
Taiwan has 'decision-making sovereignty' and 'domestic
sovereignty' but does not have 'international legal
sovereignty' - it's not at the UN."
Keohane said
no country is really fully sovereign. Member states of
the European Union are subject to a higher authority in
Brussels.
Even the US - the closest example of a
fully sovereign country - is not truly sovereign. Its
laws, for example, can be overruled by the arbitration
body of the World Trade Organization.
Copyright (c) 2004, RFE/RL Inc. Reprinted
with the permission of Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut
Ave NW, Washington DC 20036
