Brief introduction and detailed information of national sovereignty

Brief introduction of rights National sovereignty, also known as sovereignty, refers to the supreme power of a country to independently handle its own internal and external affairs and manage its own country. Sovereignty is a special attribute that distinguishes a country from other social groups and is an inherent right of the country. All citizens and their living areas together constitute a country, and the essence of national sovereignty lies in all citizens. Therefore, the purpose of national sovereignty is to protect the integrity of the country and protect the interests of all citizens. No group or individual may exercise the power directly granted by non-nationals, let alone use state sovereignty to conduct transactions for other purposes.

Jurisdiction means that a country has the right to exercise jurisdiction over all people and things within its territory (except those enjoying diplomatic immunity) and its own people abroad, and has the right to decide its own political system and socio-economic system according to its own situation;

The right of national sovereignty independence refers to the state's completely independent exercise of power, excluding any foreign interference;

The right of self-defense is a country's right to resist foreign aggression and threats in order to safeguard its political independence and territorial integrity. Sovereignty is a necessary condition for a country to become a subject of international law, and mutual respect for national sovereignty is a recognized basic principle of modern international law. If we lose our sovereignty, we will become colonies and vassals of other countries. There is a close relationship between sovereignty and territory. A country exercises jurisdiction over all the territories belonging to it according to its sovereignty, and conversely, sovereignty must also exist and be exercised.

Equal Rights Sovereign countries, big or small, strong or weak, and regardless of differences in politics, economy, ideology and social system, have equal status in international law.

Economic globalization has challenged national sovereignty to varying degrees, and the sovereignty of developing countries is weak in the process of economic globalization. The reasons are explained from three aspects: international system structure, international system process and internal system of developing countries. Facing the challenge of economic globalization to national sovereignty, the wisest choice for developing China countries with weak sovereignty should be to actively participate in the process of globalization, and strive to change the power distribution of the international system structure to a certain extent, so that the structure is no longer completely manipulated by big countries, thus eliminating the pressure of structure and process on national sovereignty and better safeguarding and realizing sovereignty.

The great changes of globalization in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union marked the end of the Cold War and major changes in the international situation. As the cornerstone of international law, the principle of national sovereignty has also been greatly impacted, and the controversy surrounding national sovereignty has resurfaced, and many new trends of thought have emerged that challenge national sovereignty, such as the theory of sovereign evolution, the theory of sovereignty separability, the theory of moral interdependence, the theory of sovereignty weakening, the theory of sovereignty alienation, and the theory that human rights are above sovereignty. The emergence of these new ideas is closely related to the international situation and globalization background.

National sovereignty is undeniable, and globalization is the main feature of our times. Globalization has had a great impact on traditional sovereign countries or national sovereignty. 1. The so-called "borderless economy", the flow of capital ignores the barriers of borders, thus diluting the traditional territorial sovereignty, and it is increasingly difficult to maintain unilateral economic interests with territorial sovereignty as a barrier;

2. The development of the Internet limits a country's ability to exercise sovereignty, and the country can no longer control the dissemination of information and interfere with international exchanges with absolute authority;

3. Due to increasing interdependence, the handling of many issues, such as environment, diseases, terrorist activities, etc., is no longer within the scope of a country's sovereignty and cannot be undertaken by a country alone, and international authority needs to be increased;

Turbulence in a country's territory will often spread to neighboring countries, so whether a country can maintain public order or not can no longer be regarded as a country's internal affairs, and no other country can interfere.

In our time, the barrier of sovereignty can neither hinder the flow or transmission of capital, labor, information and ideas, nor effectively resist the damage and destruction of the outside world.

The emergence of a new sovereignty theory in the United Nations requires a new definition of sovereignty. 199265438+1October 3 1, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros? At the first summit meeting of the Security Council, Boutros Boutros-Ghali made a report entitled "An Agenda for Peace", calling on Member States, especially the five permanent members, to redefine sovereignty in order to strengthen the capabilities of the United Nations in preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peacekeeping and post-conflict peace-building. The core view is: "The era of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed, and its theory has never been in line with the actual situation." Later, the new Secretary-General Kofi Annan also said: "National sovereignty, in its fundamental sense, is being redefined, especially by the forces of globalization and international cooperation. The country is now generally regarded as a tool to serve its own people, not the other way around. "

Professor Keith and Professor Sheldon believe that the traditional theory of international law, which came into being in the17th century, is quite outdated in the face of the great changes in today's world. The core concept of this theory is the sovereign state, that is, the state is independent, and the state sovereignty is not restricted or bound by itself; And this kind of self-restraint can only be realized by fulfilling international treaties and customary international law in accordance with the principle of "paotasuntservanda". Traditional international law is based on a single country. Because the current international problems are beyond the jurisdiction of a single country, it is impossible to solve them at this level. ..... Proceed from reality, regard the whole international community as the foundation of the international legal system, and put the common interests of mankind above the interests of a single country. An inevitable result of understanding international law from this new perspective is to re-understand national sovereignty, that is, to examine a country within the system, its licensing right should depend on its functions.

Professor Han Jin, former president of the American Society of International Law, believes that sovereignty is a "bad word" because at the domestic level, sovereignty is used as a "national myth", while at the international level, sovereignty is a "slogan", a "slogan with different thinking and clear definition". In short, he believes that sovereignty is an outdated concept and should be abandoned.

After seven years of negotiations, the Uruguay Round negotiations between WTO and the United States came to an end with 1994. According to American law, the final approval of Congress is a necessary procedure for the entry into force of the treaty. When the Uruguay Round package was submitted to Congress for approval, the United States held a wide-ranging debate on whether the approval of the Uruguay Round package and accession to the WTO would damage US sovereignty. Professor John H. Jackson, a famous GATT/WTO expert, analyzed the opposition's proposition in the article 1994 Sovereignty Debate. He believes that in the practice of GATT, the decision-making procedure and dispute settlement procedure of one country, one vote have been formed. ..... The Uruguay Round package agreement established two very important institutional structures:

(a) The new WTO as a full-fledged international organization;

(2) The new DSU regulates and controls DSP in detail. Sovereign countries can no longer obstruct the adoption of the dispute report, which will obviously lead to sovereignty disputes.

However, the debate on sovereignty has never ended. In the years after the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement, the debate about the influence of WTO on American sovereignty continued. Critics believe that the decision-making process of majority voting in the WTO, the trade policy review body and the new dispute settlement mechanism will pose a threat to US sovereignty and national security. The Uruguay Round Agreement enables American states to maintain their different measures, regulations and laws, and DSB will also limit the ability of the United States to use unilateral trade sanctions (such as Article 30 1 of the US Trade Law) to achieve its specific policy objectives. Under the new dispute settlement mechanism of WTO, the losing party has no veto power, which will weaken the sovereignty of the United States. 1999 after the failure of the third ministerial conference of the WTO in Seattle, the remarks that the WTO will weaken national sovereignty have increased. In April, 2000, * * * and party member /RonPaul thought that "WTO is the thing that deviates from free trade most.

Faced with the above concerns and doubts, former US Trade Representative barshefsky made a report entitled "America's Interests and Experiences in the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism" to the Trade Department of the Senate Finance Committee in June 2000. Regarding whether the WTO dispute settlement mechanism respects the sovereignty of the United States, she believes that "first of all, the dispute settlement mechanism fully respects the sovereignty of the United States. The expert group has no power to order the United States or other countries to change laws, nor does it have the power to retaliate against WTO members. If the expert group finds that a country has not fulfilled its obligations, all it can do is to suggest that the country start fulfilling its obligations. At that time, it was up to the countries in dispute to decide how to resolve their differences. The defendant country can choose to change its policy; Provide trade "compensation", such as low tariffs; Or not to change its measures, in which case the complainant may retaliate by suspending the trade concessions equivalent to the lost trade benefits. "

Among the concerns that the WTO will damage the national sovereignty of the United States, the most obvious ones are the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO and the issue of national sovereignty. The dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO is established from the bottom up, not from the top down. In the Uruguay Round negotiations, Europe and the United States have differences on what kind of dispute settlement mechanism to establish. In order to improve the dispute settlement procedure, the United States advocates the establishment of a rule-oriented dispute settlement mechanism, while Europe insists on retaining GATT's diplomatic-oriented dispute settlement mechanism. However, at the end of 1980s, Europe made a 180-degree turn, in favor of establishing a stronger dispute settlement mechanism and imposing trade sanctions under appropriate circumstances.

If the implementation of the final report of the expert group or protest organization is interpreted as dispensable, its harm is self-evident. If it is considered that the implementers have three choices: fulfilling their obligations, making compensation or accepting sanctions according to the final recommendations of the report, then because the strength of big trading countries and small trading countries is not equal, the selectivity of big trading countries is obviously superior to that of small and weak countries, and the weak country of one party to the dispute is obviously at a disadvantage, which will not only weaken the credibility of the dispute settlement procedure, but also shake the principle of predictability and certainty of rules advocated by the WTO. However, the interpretation of the final report is dispensable, which is most suitable for a big trading country like the United States. On the one hand, when faced with an unfavorable ruling, it can selectively safeguard its own interests, on the other hand, it can reduce the binding force of the treaty on itself, so as to achieve the purpose of safeguarding its sovereignty. It can be seen that the United States, as the leading force to promote globalization, has not weakened its sovereignty, but is cautious about any possibility of damaging its sovereignty, which obviously runs counter to the rhetoric of weakening national sovereignty.

On the surface, the United States is a democratic society with free speech. However, after careful consideration, it is found that as the only superpower in the post-cold war era, it cherishes its own sovereignty while shouting alienation, defining sovereignty or simply giving up sovereignty, and does not hesitate to misinterpret the dispute settlement mechanism as a means to avoid being bound by the treaties it joined. As a diplomat from a European country said: "When a big country shouts the transfer of sovereignty, it is nothing more than transferring sovereignty from one hand to the other; If small and medium-sized countries give up sovereignty, it means empty hands! " .

Military Globalization In the process of economic globalization, the same problems faced by all countries in the world are becoming increasingly acute. Energy, environment, resource shortage, food, debt, trade protectionism, polar deep sea and space development, population, refugees, drugs, nuclear proliferation, international terrorism and so on. It has spread to all parts of the country and is getting worse, which has become a major problem affecting global development. In short, global problems are a series of problems that have negative effects and results with global universality and endanger the future development of world civilization itself.

The reason why these problems become global problems is mainly reflected in two aspects: the global scope of the problems and the global efforts to solve them. Their solution is beyond the capacity of one country or several countries, and can only be solved through the joint efforts, mutual cooperation and full cooperation of all countries in the world. For example, a country has natural sovereignty over nature and its resources within its territory, and environmental protection and resource utilization are completely within the scope of sovereignty. However, the diffusion and cross-border nature of environmental pollution have eroded the environment of other countries; Another example is that some developed countries, while protecting the natural environment and resources of developing countries, make use of their capital advantages and abuse the resources of developing countries; Another example is that the developed countries transfer polluting industries to developing countries, or transfer pollutants (industrial waste and nuclear waste) to developing countries for burial, which will damage the environment of these countries. These global problems have broken through the boundaries of sovereign States and blurred the boundaries between internal affairs and diplomacy.

From the point of view of the state exercising management power, this will inevitably threaten the original ruling ability of sovereign States. For example, in order to protect the earth's ecological environment and deal with international pollution and greenhouse effect, the state not only takes some important self-restraint actions (such as limiting the emission of automobile exhaust, limiting the development of industries that save time and effort but consume energy and raw materials, and are seriously polluted, etc. ), but also makes some international resources centralized control, limiting the country's resource sovereignty. More importantly, in the process of solving global problems, some western developed countries may control the development of China countries in the name of solving problems, forcing developing countries to accept unacceptable solutions, even interfering in the internal affairs of developing countries and improperly interfering in their social and economic planning, which is of course an infringement on the sovereignty of developing countries.

At the same time, countries have set up international organizations or established some international mechanisms to seek cooperation to solve some global problems. The establishment of these international organizations or international mechanisms is the result of the transfer of part of national sovereignty by sovereign States. On the one hand, they provide methods, means and organizational guarantee for cooperation and problem solving between countries, on the other hand, they also create conditions and provide possibilities for these organizations to engage in activities beyond national interests and national boundaries. In addition, they may be used by some international forces to violate the sovereignty of the countries concerned. The emergence of global problems has also prompted people to understand the contemporary world in a brand-new way of thinking, forming a global consciousness that transcends the boundaries of nation-state and ideology and focuses on the common interests of all mankind. This global consciousness will also have an impact on the traditional national consciousness and sovereignty consciousness. As Aref Dilik said, "... the process of globalization has torn the borders of nation-states and weakened their economic sovereignty."

Theoretical origin is the basic theory to study the nature, characteristics, functions and relations of sovereign States.

This theory originated from the sovereignty theory founded by the French thinker J. Baudin in the16th century. He believes that sovereignty is the highest power enjoyed by a country, which is unified and indivisible and above the law. The Dutch jurist H. Grotius further pointed out that sovereignty means that the exercise of power is not restricted by another kind of power. When a country handles its internal affairs without the control of any other country, it shows sovereignty. The concept of sovereignty has laid a theoretical foundation for international relations and international law. The principle of sovereignty has become the basic norm of international relations.

Key points ① Sovereignty is the inherent attribute of a country, which has the sacred status of non-transferability, indivisibility and inviolability, and is exclusive; (2) Sovereignty is the supreme power for a country to independently handle internal and external affairs; (3) Sovereignty has duality: it has the highest internal sovereignty at home and independent external sovereignty internationally, which are unified and inseparable; The content of sovereignty includes territorial integrity, political independence, economic autonomy and sovereign equality with other countries; ⑤ A sovereign state is the subject of international law and the only actor in international relations. According to this theory, a country with sovereignty in the international community should have the right to independently handle its domestic and foreign affairs, decide its domestic and foreign policies, and take measures it deems appropriate and necessary to protect its own interests and achieve its set goals.

A sovereign state in the modern sense only appeared after the formation of a centralized bourgeois nation-state. At the end of World War I, there were only over 50 sovereign countries in the world. Great progress was made after the Second World War, reaching over 170 in the early 1990s. After the war, western academic circles have different opinions on the status and role of sovereign States. One view, such as H.J. morgenthau of the United States and R. Aron of France, holds that sovereignty is the basis of national politics and international relations, and sovereign States are the only subject of the international community. Because different countries pursue different interests and goals, which leads to international conflicts, the negative effects of sovereignty outweigh the positive effects. Another view, such as A.O. wolfers and S. Hoffman, holds that the sovereign state is no longer the only subject of the international community, but one of the basic subjects. Individuals, interest groups, transnational corporations and international organizations are playing an increasingly important role, while the role of sovereign States is limited. The third opinion, such as American scholars K. Waltz and I. Claude, emphasizes that due to the development of nuclear weapons, scientific and technological revolution and interdependence in the 1970s, the sovereign state system that has dominated the international arena for more than 300 years since the Treaty of Westphalia is facing new challenges, and national sovereignty will be greatly weakened and gradually transformed into the "world".

From the early postwar period to the 1960s, the first viewpoint occupied a dominant position. After 1970s, the influence of the second opinion increased. The third opinion is obviously idealistic and has few supporters. In addition, due to the emergence and development of international organizations such as Europe, more and more western scholars believe that the traditional characteristics of national sovereignty are gradually changing.

At present, although a large number of actors such as international organizations and transnational corporations are playing an increasingly important role, they have subtly changed the sovereignty of traditional countries. However, in addition to the subjective erosion of national sovereignty by non-state actors, sovereign countries have also been eroded in the practice of world economy and politics in the era of economic globalization. If subjective erosion challenges the value of national sovereignty, then the erosion of world economic and political practice is the most direct and significant. In reality, the most serious erosion of national sovereignty is not the transnational activities brought about by objective requirements, but the artificial influence of globalization on national sovereignty. Specifically, in the era of economic globalization, national sovereignty is eroded by the following factors in political and economic practice:

Capacity erosion is the erosion of a country's ability to safeguard its sovereignty. This shows that in the process of participating in international affairs, except for a few big countries, the ability of most sovereign countries to safeguard sovereignty has been weakened, and it is difficult to have enough ability to safeguard their rights and interests anywhere. Even within its own market, with the unprecedented deepening of interdependence among countries, it is impossible for a country to absolutely guarantee its absolute independence in natural resources and economic policies. As for human rights and other fields, it is inevitable for us to be accused and interfered by other countries, and at best, we can only minimize the impact of such accusations and interference. Moreover, due to the subtle changes in the attitude of the United Nations on sovereignty issues, it will be more difficult for small and weak countries to effectively safeguard their sovereignty.

Will erosion In practice, economic globalization not only erodes national sovereignty in terms of capacity, but also gradually weakens the will of the country to safeguard sovereignty. For example, many countries will consider their fundamental interests before their sovereignty. As far as external factors are concerned, a powerful country will impose its will on other sovereign countries, or use its ability to erode the will of people in other countries to safeguard sovereignty. Therefore, although all countries are insisting on their basic independent status at present, fewer and fewer countries still openly insist on their traditional absolute sovereignty in economy and culture. ②

Structural erosion The so-called structural erosion refers to the expansionary foreign policy of a powerful country because it occupies a favorable position in the political and economic structure of the international system and its national interests are expansionary. For weak countries, they face the challenge of the powerful countries to their sovereignty by using the power of the system internationally, which makes them at a disadvantage in the political and economic structure of the international system. Since the end of the Cold War, the international pattern has shown a unipolar pattern dominated by the United States. Because of its obvious economic, political and military strength, the United States has an obvious upper hand in the international power structure, forming a pyramid-like structural state of "one super and many strong". Due to the lack of strong checks and balances, the United States at the top of the pyramid can arbitrarily violate the sovereignty of other countries. Most western powers at the second level of the pyramid have their own traditions of violating the sovereignty of weak countries. Not only can they not constitute structural constraints on the United States, but they are often integrated with the United States, making it difficult for most developing countries at the lower level of the pyramid structure to effectively resist the erosion and interference of their sovereignty.

Process erodes the so-called system process, which is mainly reflected in the interaction between countries in the international system. Progressive erosion is mainly manifested in the erosion of national sovereignty by the international system in the process of globalization. The process of economic globalization is largely driven by developed countries led by the United States. It is mainly developed countries that make the "rules of the game" of globalization. This makes the persistence of inequality and hierarchy in the power structure difficult to overcome, and also provides a foundation for the emergence of new inequality and hierarchy (developed countries have the first-Mover advantage in the global system, which is accumulated for a long time). It is particularly noteworthy that the first-Mover advantage of developed countries is not only reflected in their material strength, but also in their leading role in emerging global rules.

Rules and Systems The existing major international rules and systems, especially economic global organizations, are basically formed under the leadership of western countries, which implies that they are inclined to western countries in content and operation, and many institutional arrangements do not take developing countries into account. For example, according to the principle that the World Trade Organization prohibits export subsidies, agricultural subsidies remain an exception. This is mainly because developed countries such as the United States and Europe are big exporters of agricultural products. Under the principle of eliminating quantitative restrictions, developed countries have long imposed quota restrictions on textile imports, because developing countries are the main exporters of textiles. It can be seen that the dominant power in the process of economic globalization is in the hands of developed countries, while the vast number of developed China countries are excluded from the world decision-making mechanism. Developed countries always try their best to safeguard their sovereign interests when formulating international rules, which puts developing countries at a disadvantage in safeguarding sovereignty.

The sovereignty of China is 1. Diaoyu Island, also known as Diaoyutai, Diaoyu Island and Diaoshan, is the main island of Diaoyu Island in the East China Sea of China, and has been the inherent territory of China since ancient times. It is located at 25 44.6' north latitude and123 28.4' east longitude, about 358km away from Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 385km away from Fuzhou, Fujian, 0/90km away from Keelung, Taiwan Province, and the surrounding sea area is about174,000 square kilometers. It is about 364 1 m in length, 0/.905 m in width, 3.9 1 km2 in area, and the highest elevation is about 362 meters. The terrain in the north is relatively flat, the rocks in the southeast are steep, the rocks in the east are like spires, and the mountains in the middle cross the east and west. Diaoyu Island is rich in precious Chinese herbal medicines such as camellia, palm, cactus and hibiscus, and is home to a large number of seabirds. It has the reputation of "Flower and Bird Island". 2. Huangyan Island (formerly known as Democratic Reef) is the only island reef in the zhongsha islands under the jurisdiction of Sansha City, China, located at 15 07' north latitude and 1 17 566 east longitude. Huangyan Island is an inherent territory of China, which was originally under the administrative jurisdiction of zhongsha islands Office in the southwest of Hainan Province. 20 12 Sansha City was under the jurisdiction of Sansha City after its establishment. China has sufficient legal basis for the territorial sovereignty of Huangyan Island: China first discovered and named Huangyan Island, and incorporated it into China's territory to implement sovereign jurisdiction; China has been developing and utilizing Huangyan Island for a long time. To the east of Huangyan Island is the Deep Manila Trench, which is the natural geographical boundary between China zhongsha islands and Philippine Islands.

At present, Huangyan Island is actually controlled by People's Republic of China (PRC). 2013,65438+/kloc-0,21,the Philippine foreign minister said that China ships will stay in Huangyan Island forever, and China has no intention of withdrawing ships from the waters around Huangyan Island, and admitted that Huangyan Island is under the effective control of China, so Philippine ships can no longer be stationed.