Liudmyla Chekalenko
Merited Worker of Science and Technology of Ukraine, Doctor of Political Science, Full Professor, Department of History of World Ukrainians, Faculty of History, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
ORCID 0000-0002-2819-9424
DOI 10.37837/2707-7683-2020-34
Abstract. The article examines the current condition of the status of state sovereignty, which is being gradually replaced by such social and political phenomenon as sovereignism. The author is convinced that the reason of its current rise is the weakening of sovereignty, the artificially made, legally enshrined, and not always successful mechanism of the state’s existence. Sovereignism became widely spread in the aftermath of World War II. The erstwhile world order in international relations rested upon state sovereignty, where the strong provided assistance to the weak in return for certain privileges, and the weak sought to find a protector of their sovereignty among the world’s leaders and international organisations.
The author states any social phenomenon has to develop and evolve. This is also the case with sovereignty, an obsolete form of the state’s existence, which is searching for new variants of development on the global scale. Sovereignism may be regarded as a new pattern in the development of sovereignty and a means of weakening it. At the same time, it may be viewed as an impetus to strengthening sovereignty. Sovereignism has led to deadly wars and the influx of migrants all around the world; it is a hazardous challenge of the present. This fever of forgone political ambitions transcending state borders and spreading all over the globe is destructing established norms, traditions, and stability. Sovereignism is creating a new social identity in regions at war, which is a dangerous challenge for national security. Thus, sovereignism brings instability, chaos, clashes, and human toll.
The author draws a conclusion that given current developments the protection of a weak state is possible only through integration with advanced economies and international agencies able to take responsibility for their partners and, most importantly, through building one’s own national defence forces.
Keywords: nationalism, sovereignty, human rights, dignity, war.
References
1. Ustav Organizatsii Obedinennykh Natsiy (2005). [online]. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_010 [in Russian]
2. Chekalenko, L. (2005). Zovnishnia polityka i bezpeka Ukrainy [Foreign Policy and Security of Ukraine]. Kyiv: SAD of Ukraine, CNSD of Ukraine. [in Ukrainian];
3. Thompson, D. (2019). ‘Sovereignty: What it means and what it doesn’t’, ShareAmerica, 23 September [online]. Available at: https://share.america.gov/sovereignty-what-it-means-and-what-it-doesnt [in English]
4. Chekalenko, L. (2009). Stanovlennia systemy bezpeky yevropeiskoi intehratsii [Formation of the Security System of European Integration]. Diplomatic Ukraine, vol. 10. Kyiv: Directorate-General for Rendering Services to Diplomatic Missions, pp. 647-670. [in Ukrainian]
5. Agustin, Ó.G. (2020). ‘Sovereignism and Transnationalism’, in Left-Wing Populism: The Politics of the People. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 99-114. [in English] DOI 10.1108/978-1-83909-203-920201008
6. Bellucci, S. (2019). ‘Sovereignism’, Universiteit Leiden, 2 April [online]. Available at: https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/internationalstudies/blog/blog-post/sovereignism?fbclid=IwAR208NYrHq0lqeRiA6t3Rew2jzt18CV7sJTz¬TUxk-1OMJKryiExsZkf-tKA [in English]
7. Souverainisme, L’Opinion [online]. Available at: https://www.lopinion.fr/mots-cles/souverainisme?fbclid=IwAR1P7n5F9TQFaX3x3bjlLQ7uPLOXgQ5rEpndiLxAGpG0UFaAsCvDd22PT2E [in French]
8. Chekalenko, L. (2015). Natsionalna bezpeka Frantsii: kontseptualna skladova. International Relations. Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Institute of International Relations [online]. Available at: http://journals.iir.kiev.ua/index.php/pol_n/article/view/2530
9. Chekalenko, L. (2010). Zovnishnopolitychni mekhanizmy zabezpechennia natsionalnoi bezpeky Ukrainy [Foreign Policy Mechanisms for Ensuring the National Security of Ukraine]. Doctoral thesis. Kyiv: ISEMV NAN Ukrainy. [in Ukrainian]
10. Zadorozhnii, O. (2014). Ukrainska revolutsiia hidnosti, ahresiia RF i mizhnarodne pravo [Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity, Aggression of the Russian Federation, and International Law]. Kyiv: K.I.S. [in Ukrainian]
11. Syroid, T. (2002). Mizhnarodne publichne pravo [Public International Law]. Odesa: Feniks. [in Ukrainian]; Kozak, L. (2002). Neuriadovi orhanizatsii Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu: porivnialnyi analiz hromadskykh orhanizatsii Ukrainy [Non-governmental Organisations of the European Union: Comparative Analysis of Public Organisations of Ukraine]. Kyiv. [in Ukrainian];
12. Juano, D. Svitova orhanizatsiia torhivli [World Trade Organization]. Kyiv: K.I.S. [in French]; Lubell, N. (2011). Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors, Oxford University Press, 18 August [online]. Available at: https://global.oup.com/academic/content/series/o/oxford-monographs-in-international-law-omil/?cc=ua&lang=en& [in English]; Milanovic, M. (2013). Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties. Paperback. 28 March.
13. Morgentau, H. (1960). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 3rd ed. New York: Knopf. [in English]
14. The Fund for Peace. The Failed States Index 2011 [online]. Available at: https://www.pucsp.br/ecopolitica/downloads/failed_states_index_2011.pdf; The Fund for Peace. Fragile States Index Annual Report 2019 [online]. Available at: https://fundforpeace.org/2019/04/10/fragile-states-index-2019/
15. Vasylieva, M. (2011). Zarubizhna dopomoha v systemi priorytetiv zovnishnoi polityky SShA [Foreign Aid in the System of Priorities of the US Foreign Policy]. Kyiv: Phoenix, 183 p. [in Ukrainian]
16. Le Noan, E. (2020). ‘“Politique industrielle: le souverainisme fait fausse route”. La chronique d’Erwan Le Noan’, L’Opinion, 21 June [online]. Available at: https://www.lopinion.fr/edition/economie/politique-industrielle-discours-souverainiste-qui-fait-fausse-route-218949?fbclid=IwAR0f-6s1H2skeKsvTJ1A-jJmpbtNYAnse2EIwhmaT0KlwpqFlc0AnZDG7BQ
17. Babinet, G. (2018). ‘The End of Nation States? Part 1: Technology-Induced Sovereignty Transfers’, Institut Montaigne, 27 November [online]. Available at: https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/blog/end-nation-states-part-1-technology-induced-sovereignty-transfers [in English]
18. Koskenniemi, M. (2011). ‘What Use for Sovereignty Today?’ Asian Journal of International Law. Cambridge University Press, 1(1), pp. 61–70. DOI 10.1017/S2044251310000044
19. Chekalenko, L. (2019). Istoriia pamiati abo pamiat istorii: metodolohiia doslidzhennia [The History of Memory or Memory of History: The Question of Research Methodology]. Evropsky Politicky a Pravni Diskurz, vol. 5(6), pp. 182-186. [in Ukrainian]
20. Willkie, W. (1944). Our Sovereignty: Shall We Use It?, Globalization 101, April [online].
21. Williams, T.D. (2019). ‘Pope Francis Calls for ‘Antidote’ to Populism’, Breitbart, 20 August [online]. Available at: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/20/pope-francis-calls-antidote-populism/