Earned Sovereignty The intensity and severity of sovereignty-based conflicts, their relationship to increasing levels of terrorism, and the lack of effective legal norms and principles have given rise to the need for a new approach to resolving sovereignty-based conflicts. This need is increasingly being met by the emerging conflict resolution approach of earned sovereignty. In seven recent peace agreements concerning sovereignty-based conflicts, the parties have relied upon the approach of earned sovereignty. In two of the major outstanding conflicts, earned sovereignty forms the basis of the proposed agreement. Despite the increasing ad hoc reliance on the approach of earned sovereignty by mediators and parties to conflict, there is scant scholarly commentary as to the precise nature of the approach, the political debate surrounding its use, and its utility for resolving sovereignty-based conflicts. To initiate the debate, the Public International Law & Policy Group has published a series of articles with the Stanford Journal of International Law, and the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, which focuse on the emerging trend of earned sovereignty and its potential utility for resolving ongoing sovereignty-based conflicts. The series of articles extend the debate by parsing out and clearly defining the various elements of the earned sovereignty approach as they have been developed and employed in previous peace agreements. Earned sovereignty, as developed in recent state practice, entails the conditional and progressive devolution of sovereign powers and authority from a state to a substate entity under international supervision. Earned sovereignty most naturally develops within a peace process as a multi-stage approach to address the issue of the final political status of the substate entity. As an emerging conflict resolution approach, earned sovereignty is defined by three core elements: (1) Shared Sovereignty, where the state, or an international organization, and the substate entity may both exercise some sovereign authority and functions over a defined territory for a specified period of time; (2) Institution Building, where prior to the determination of final status, the substate entity, frequently with the assistance of the international community, undertakes to construct new institutions for self-government, or modify those already in existence; and (3) A Determination of Final Status, where the relationship between the state and the substate entity is determined with the consent of the international community. To increase the flexibility necessary to deal with the political fragilities of peace processes, and with the historical diversity of different conflicts, earned sovereignty may also encompass three additional elements: (1) Phased Sovereignty, where the sub-state entity acquires increasing sovereign authority and functions over a specified period of time prior to the determination of final status; (2) Conditional Sovereignty, where the sub-state entity is required to meet certain benchmarks such as human rights enforcement before it may acquire increased sovereignty; and (3) Constrained Sovereignty, which involves continued limitations on the sovereign authority and functions of the new state, such as continued international administrative and/or military presence, and limits on the right of the state to undertake territorial association with other states. The emergence of earned sovereignty has occurred within the larger political debate concerning the most appropriate means for resolving sovereignty-based conflicts. On both sides of the debate are states, substates, diplomats, and policy analysts who prefer either sovereignty or self-determination as the guiding principle for resolving sovereignty-based conflicts. Those who prefer an approach based on the priority of sovereignty are likely to perceive earned sovereignty as potentially destabilizing to the current international order by promoting the separation of substate entities from their parent states. Those who prefer an approach based on the primacy of the right of self-determination are likely to perceive earned sovereignty as a means for raising the bar for independence. In fact, earned sovereignty seeks to bridge these two approaches by providing a mechanism whereby some substate entities may be guided through a process of transition to statehood or heightened autonomy in such a way so as not to undermine the legitimate interests of parent states and of the international community. Given that the use of the earned sovereignty approach generally requires the consent of the state and substate entity that are parties to a conflict, the precise dimensions of the approach as applied to a particular conflict are shaped by the political concerns of each party involved. For instance, concerns may relate to the protection of majority group members who might become a minority within the former substate entity. They may also relate to the impact that heightened autonomy or independence for the substate entity may have on the democratic and economic reform process in the parent state. These concerns may affect the conditions employed during the process, as well as the length of the process. Earned Sovereignty Publications
|
| Copyright 2005 | |
| www.publicinternationallaw.org |