Reconciling authority and sovereignty in international law : a case for autonomy and compliance

Abstract

This dissertation explores the problem of incompatibility between the authority of international law and State sovereignty. The traditional view in the academic literature suggests that the expansion of international law leads to a decrease in State sovereignty, and vice-versa. This relationship presents a conceptual conflict between the idea of law as a binding instrument and sovereignty as the independence of States. While the conflict has been discussed in a number of academic accounts, the proposed solutions do not fully address the problem. Expanding on the works of selected scholars, this dissertation explores alternative ways of looking at the relationship between the authority of international law and State sovereignty. In particular, this dissertation explores an alternative interpretation of the concept of legal authority.

Following the works of Joseph Raz and Immanuel Kant, this dissertation argues that international law can have authority over States if it delimits the boundaries of State autonomy in a legitimate manner. The dissertation argues that the protection of autonomy is the primary basis of legal authority. In the absence of law, freedoms of different subjects are bound to collide, and law mitigates these clashes by outlining the boundaries of autonomy for its subjects. Moreover, law can outline the boundaries of autonomy in a legitimate manner by adhering to objective reasons that justify the imposition of specific rights and duties. The dissertation suggests that such reasons include no harm, coordination, and equality. Accordingly, if legal directives reflect the reasons that outline the legitimate boundaries of autonomy, they have authority over their subjects.

Applying the above argument to international law, the dissertation argues that autonomy is embodied in the concept of State sovereignty. The dissertation suggests that States, as proxies of political communities, are entitled to autonomy in order to exercise internal and external self-determination. Following this interpretation, the better international law outlines the extent of sovereign autonomy of States, the more legitimate authority over States it can claim. In this light, the authority of law is not in conflict with State sovereignty. On the contrary, international norms delimit the boundaries of sovereign autonomy and allow States to have collectively recognized and sustained rights and obligations. The dissertation further argues that when States violate international norms, they can lose their sovereignty-related entitlements. Following this, the dissertation provides a compelling way of looking at the interaction between the authority of international law and State sovereignty.