ABSTRACT
“In the 21st century, the challenge is not just to promote global governance, but to ensure that it works for everyone, everywhere.”
-Kofi Annan, Former UN Secretary General.
The article is an interrogative doubt in the language of present-day jurisprudence, on the timeless confrontation between the sovereignty of states and claims put forward by global government. Sovereignty still plays a central role in the international legal order, but only to the extent that it must be re-balanced for the age of globalization (including climate change, enforcement of human rights and transnational commerce) towards the power of mutuality over absolute autonomy. A guiding question of this research is: what do institutional and jurisprudential practices have to offer by way of satisfying the normative demand for collective action in a globalised order while allowing room for state independence? The study uses a doctrinal approach that is based on the primary legal sources of law, treaties and case-law and is enhanced by comparative legal analysis research between positivist and naturalist viewpoints, respectively.
Case studies on the Paris Agreement, international mechanisms for human rights enforcement, and global trade regime show that the lend to a qualitative focus on practitioners of international law to reveal both systemic pathologies as well as serious normative deficits. The results provided of evidence that sovereignty is not a constant, but an evolving and structural phenomenon which follows the up and downs of the modern system of rule. The legal theory, institutional practice and moral imperative are united to constitute the shared sovereignty as a module position to ensure that the state can uphold its sovereignty and, in this way, allow the international institutions in expressing themselves freely for putting on stage the interest of the entire world. As a result, it helps in contributing to the broader discourse on international law which offers a jurisprudential framework that reconciles the concept of sovereignty with the principles of global governance and sustainability.
INTRODUCTIONThe Focus of modern international law and jurisprudence is the conflict between state sovereignty and global governance.
Traditional definitions of sovereignty include a state’s supreme Authority and the focus of contemporary international law and jurisprudence. Sovereignty, traditionally defined as a state’s “supreme authority within a territory,” assures states of the right of self-rule and legal sovereignty. On the other hand, Global governance, by contrast, is the emergent international system of rules, institutions, and norms and regulations to promote and to foster cooperation on transnational problems. This dichotomy has grown ever more acute as cross-border problems (from climate change to human rights crises) cause multilateral action that exceeds the ability of any one state. Understanding this dichotomy is imperative because modern international legal order must harmonise states’ sovereignty with interests of justice and common good globally. This article critiques the foundations of sovereignty and international governance, which analyses competing theories of jurisprudence, and summarising institutions’ roles internationally, and evaluates case studies (climate, human rights, trade) to analyse how ethical and legal frameworks balance state rights and collective justice.