Recalibrating Sovereignty-Related Norms: Europe, Asia and Non-Traditional Security Challenges

RECALIBRATING NORMS: EUROPE, ASIA AND NON-TRADITIONAL

SECURITY CHALLENGES

Katja Weber Sam Nunn School of International Affairs

Georgia Institute of Technology

Prepared for the Center for Non-Traditional Security Studies, Rajaratnam School of International Studies,

Nanyang Technological University, 29 November 2010

Puzzle:

How to address non-traditional security (NTS) threats where the principal concern isn’t to safeguard territorial sovereignty per se, but individuals?

European Union (EU) countries, conceptualizing sovereignty in terms of “constitutional independence”, have made some progress addressing NTS challenges.

Some progress in Asia-Pacific, but non-intervention norm still gets in the way of multilateral, multi-level, multi-faceted efforts to improve human security in the region.

Argument:

Since states not only have rights but also obligations, there is a need for a careful recalibration of sovereignty-related norms that stand in the way of improved human rights.

Drawing on previous work on institution-building & states’ voluntary curtailment of freedom of action, I seek to ascertain how to empower various actors who interpret non-intervention norm less stringently & equip them with necessary tools to address domestic roots of regional problems that threaten human security.

Many Different Usages of Sovereignty (see Krasner 1999)

Sovereignty = Constitutional Independence

“A state is in ultimate overall control of its own affairs”(James 1986: 30)

=== criterion for admission to inter-state affairs is solely legal(not population size, GDP, etc.)

=== sovereignty is absolute (James 1986: 48)

=== sovereignty is qualitative (James 1986: 55)

=== by signing a treaty a state does not diminish its sovereignty

Sovereignty NOT to be Confused With:

Formal Power Legal Freedom Political Independence Freedom of Action

For the most part, these are quantitative measures, whereas sovereignty is qualitative.

EU’s Approach to Tackling NTS Challenges:

No reason to insist on political independence & non-interference, as long as constitutional independence not threatened

State may elect to curtail freedom of action, if benefits In 1990s, EU began to conceptualize ESDP to engage in crisis

management, rescue & humanitarian missions (Howorth 2007) Since 1999, EU involved in more than 23 missions in over a

dozen countries on 3 continents (Grevi et. al. 2009) Provided police training, judges, disaster relief, development

workers, etc. Bosnia, Macedonia, Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Dafur…

EU’s Institutional Structures & Elaborate Decision-Making Processes Are Well Documented (McCormick 2008)

Although decision-making w/ respect to many issue areas is subject to unanimity, EU seeks to avoid deadlock:

-”constructive abstention” (opt-out)

-”structured cooperation” (those willing & able to become involved in particular operations do so for entire EU)

=== to avoid impasse, incrementally modified decision-making rules allow for greater choice (took decades to get there)

Asia-Pacific Countries’ Approach to Tackling NTS Challenges:

Much like Europeans, had to reassess existing security provisions in post-Cold War era & determine how to address new threats

To stabilize the region, ASEAN countries created ARF

Heavy reliance on “ASEAN way” (Leifer 1996; Acharya 2003):

Consultation, consensus, non-interference, non-use of force

“three-stage evolutionary approach” to peace & security:

Move from confidence building to preventive diplomacy to conflict resolution

Some Efforts Have Been Made to Modify the Non-Interference Norm & Put Tools in Place to Tackle NTS Challenges

1997 Anwar Ibrahim: “Constructive Intervention” 1998 Surin Pitsuan: “Flexible Engagement”

Since all but Thailand & Philippines opposed

=== July 1998: “Enhanced Interaction”

Similarly, Japan has argued that, as long as preventive diplomacy measures were to be authorized by states involved, their use wouldn’t violate principle of non-interference

Insistence on consensus further obstacle to cooperation:

Potential remedies might be “ASEAN Minus X” (“coalition of the willing”), but likely to be rejected by reluctant ARF members like China & most of ASEAN)

These recent developments not only underscore that norms are socially constructed, but that they change over time.

Bierstecker & Weber (1996) demonstrate how the meaning of sovereignty has undergone important transformation from it resting with God, to it resting with the monarch, and the people.

Acharya (2009: 149), similarly, emphasizes the non-static nature of sovereignty. He argues that the idea of non-interference wasn’t there at Bandung conference, but rather was created “in the wake of decolonization with the explicit purpose of preserving the nation-state.”

Both sovereign states and human beings are rights holders under international law:

Sovereign states have a right to non-interference & territorial integrity

Individuals have human rights (personal protection, legal rights, civil liberties, subsistence & basic economic rights--see Donnelly 1999)

An elaborate body of international law pertaining to these rights exists

=== need to scrutinize relationship b/w sovereign rights of states and human rights of individuals

In theory, state sovereignty and human rights are “distinct and separate” (Jackson 2007: 115).

In practice, however, they are connected:-STATE NOT ONLY HAS RIGHTS, BUT OBLIGATIONS (Cooley & Spruyt 2009)

=== State may elect to surrender some rights to institutions, if it perceives gain from doing so

Put differently, state conducts cost/benefit analysis to determine when to curtail its autonomy & cooperate

In an increasingly interdependent world, sovereign rights of states & human rights of individuals can be in conflict with each other.

Sovereignty & its principle of nonintervention not only protect less powerful states from more powerful ones, but also “shields states’ internal deficiencies and failings against external pressure and action” (Inayatullah 1996: 50).

=== hence, recently, some actors--particularly those who view human rights as universal, equal and inalienable (Donnelly in Bauer & Bell 1999: 61)--have called for balance b/w sovereign states’ rights & human rights & argued in favor of protecting individuals against grave human rights violations.

Normative Divide (at least in part tied to cultural traditions):

“Western-style” human rights: main focus on civil & political freedoms

“Asian Way”: main focus on group rights & economic, social & cultural rights (see Bauer & Bell 1999)

But, no agreement among Asians: more democratic nations (Japan, South Korea & the Philippines) were unwilling to sign on to “cultural relativism” proposed by Singapore.

In fact, “Asian Way” has been described by some Asian scholars as “a misguided & perverse concept” (Inoue in Bauer & Bell 1999).

Complicating Factors in the Normative Divide:

History: Colonial rule brought deep resentment against West.

Culture: Asian values advocates charge West w/ cultural imperialism & “arrogant intervention” (Onuma 1999: 106).

Economic Development: Rights violations as adverse consequences of global economic pressure; will take time; eventual improvement of rights situation

Since NTS challenges threaten human security, need for careful recalibration of sovereignty-related norms that stand in way of improved human rights.

Cost/benefit analysis to determine whether to curtail freedom of action

Exclusive autonomy possible, but not necessary in all instances—voluntarily delegate competence (Kompetenz-Kompetenz)

Prevent impasse (opt-outs, variable speeds)

Actively promote norm change such that regional/local actors view human security as global public good worth defending

Walzer (in Jackson 1990: 186): “Exceptional circumstances such as revolution, civil war, massacre, enslavement, or mass expulsion can perhaps justify intervention. ‘Ordinary’ oppression clearly cannot.”

Troszczynska-van Genderen (2010: 7): “According to the extra-territorial principle, int’l human rights treaties imply that states have an unequivocal obligation to engage in int’l crisis management operations.”

Jackson (2007: 130): “States are charged under int’l human rights law to protect citizens of foreign countries as well. …objective…protection of population, never overthrow of gov’t…or advancement of nat’l interest of intervening state.”

Progress w/ Responsibility to Protect (RtoP):(World Summit 2005)

-RtoP rests on 3 pillars-except for North Korea, Asia-Pacific countries endorsed RtoP & are

trying to identify ways to implement it (Pohlman 2009)

But, many still view RtoP as “thorny normative issue”, especially humanitarian intervention involving use of armed force (Jackson 2007: 128).

“Countries may offer amicable assistance in resolving foreign intrastate conflicts, …[but are not entitled] to impose a settlement on unwilling parties to the conflict” (Fabry 2010: 223).

To Make Further Progress In This Area It Is Essential That States Refrain From Using Sovereignty As A Semantic Weapon (James 1986: 186)

Or, put differently, playing the “sovereignty card” could be as damaging for regional cooperation as playing the “history card” has been for years.

In recalibrating sovereignty-related norms one needs to keep in mind that norms merely constrain states’ behavior, but by themselves do not fully determine it.

=== Other variables to be looked at that may determine states’ policy choices are security considerations, economic interests, etc.

Questions To Be Addressed:

1) Who is best situated to influence process of norm change & decision-making w/ respect to RtoP in Asia-Pacific & can aid in recalibration of sovereignty-related normative issues?-At int’l level? (Human Rights Watch; UN; EU; ICC)-At regional level? (ASEAN; ARF; AICHR, APSC, ACWC)-At domestic level? (individual states; govt’s of newly established democracies [Moravcsik 2000]; CSOs; media)

2) Which variables are most likely to impact recalibration process? (uncertainty; culture; historic background; heterogeneity)

3) How to empower these actors & equip them w/ tools to address domestic roots of regional problems that threaten human security?

4) What normative institutional/legal frameworks exist (domestically/regionally) w/ which to respond to NTS challenges? (ASEAN Charter; CRC; CEDAW…).5) How can these frameworks be modified to be more effective?6) What are the main impediments to implementing RtoP in Asia-Pacific?

Bibliography

Acharya, Amitav. 2003. Regionalism and Multilateralism. Essays on Cooperative Security in the Asia-Pacific. Singapore: Eastern University Press.

Acharya, Amitav. 2009. Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Bauer, Joanne and Daniel Bell. 1999. “Introduction.” In The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights, edited by Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell, 3-23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bierstecker, Thomas and Cynthia Weber. 1996. “The Social Construction of State Sovereignty.” In State Sovereignty and Social Construct, edited by Thomas Bierstecker and Cynthia Weber, 1-21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cooley, Alexander and Hendrik Spruyt. 2009. Contracting States: Sovereign Transfer in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Donnelly, Jack. 1999. “Human Rights and Asian Values: A Defense of ‘Western’ Universalism.” In The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights, edited by Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell, 60-87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fabry, Mikulas. 2010. Recognizing States: International Society and the Establishment of New States Since 1776. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grevi , Giovanni, Damien Helly, and Daniel Keohane, eds., 2009. “European Security and DefencePolicy: The First Ten Years (1999-2009).” Paris: Institute for Security Studies.

Howorth, Jolyon. 2007. Security and Defence Policy in the European Union. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Inayatullah, Naeem. 1996. “Beyond the Sovereignty Dilemma: Quasi-States as Social Construct.” In State Sovereignty and Social Construct, edited by Thomas Bierstecker and Cynthia Weber, 50-79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inoue, Tatsuo. 1999. “Liberal Democracy and Asian Orientalism.” In The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights, edited by Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell, 27-59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, Robert. 19990. Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, Robert. 2007. Sovereignty: Evolution of an Idea. Malden, MA: Polity Press. James, Alan. 1986. Sovereign Statehood: Basis of International Society. London: Allen & Unwin.Krasner, Stephen. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Leifer, Michael. 1996. “The ASEAN Regional Forum.” Adelphi Paper No.302. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.McCormick, John. 2008. Understanding the European Union: A Concise Introduction, 4th ed. New

York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Moravcsik, Andrew. 2000. “The Origins of the Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe.” International Organization 54, no. 2 (Spring): 217-252.

Onuma, Yasuaki. 1999. “Toward an Intercivilizational Approach to Human Rights.” In The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights, edited by Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell, 103-123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pohlman, Annie. 2009. “Third Annual Convention of the Consortium of Non-Traditional Security Studies in Asia (NTS Asia). Rajaratnam School of International Studies. November 3-4.

Troszczynska-van Genderen, Wanda. 2010. “Human rights Challenges in EU Civilian Crisis Management: The Cases of EUPOL and EUJUST LEX.” European Institute for Security Studies. Occasional Paper 84.