Might is right: the idea that a country is sovereign within its borders has taken a battering frequently over the years. (National).

As far back as you want to go in history people have violated each other's sovereignty.

About 35,000 years ago, Neanderthal humans were living in Europe when Cro-Magnon humans migrated into the area from the Middle East. The two groups co-existed for several thousand years but, by 30,000 years ago, the Neanderthals had disappeared. Whether they were conquered or absorbed is not known. However, a people that once enjoyed sovereignty over the land in which they lived vanished. It's possible this is the first case of the sovereignty of one group being violated by another.

Until the 17th century, there was pretty much a free-for-all on this sort of thing. In 1648, an important treaty was signed in Westphalia in what today is called Germany. The Treaty of Westphalia Brought to a close the Thirty Years' War. This was a conflict that involved most of the countries of western Europe. It started over religious hatred between Catholics and Protestants, grew to include competition over inheritances among powerful princes, and then involved a power struggle among nations.

The Treaty of Westphalia recognized that each nation held supreme power over the territory it controlled. It was an attempt at bringing an end to religious conflicts and at regulating relations among states. This didn't mean there were no more wars, but it did mark the beginning of the idea that each nation is sovereign within its own borders.

The powerful still preyed upon the weak; might meant right, and few understood that better than Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821). He stirred everything up in Europe. In the early part of the 19th century, his French army conquered most of the continent. But, the cost of Napoleon's two decades of rampaging started people to thinking that there might be a few flaws in the might-means-right concept.

In November 1815, Britain, Austria, Russia, and Prussia (Germany) signed The Quadruple Alliance. This agreement called for periodic meetings of the signatories to consult on common interests, ensure the "repose and prosperity of the Nations," and maintain the peace of Europe. That meant no more hopping over national borders to whack your neighbour and steal whatever you could get away with.

This pact became known as The Concert of Europe, and it called on its members to cooperate and to settle disputes through discussion. Nations were prepared to give up a little of their national sovereignty--their previously unrestricted right to wage war--in exchange for not becoming a victim of someone else's aggression.

In 1899, and again in 1907, The Hague Conferences were held to write some rules governing war. They set up a Permanent Court of Arbitration, which was supposed to settle disagreements between nations. But, the major powers refused to accept the idea that the Court's decisions were binding; to do so, they said, would weaken their national sovereignty. Anyway, most of what was agreed to at The Hague Conferences was ripped to shreds by World War I (1914-1918).

After that terrible conflict, The League of Nations was created to try to keep the peace among countries and preserve national sovereignty. Then, in 1928, the Briand-Kellogg Pact condemned the use of war for the solution of international disputes and its use as an instrument of national policy. World War II (1939-45) destroyed these agreements.

The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States sets out the main elements of state sovereignty, they include: a permanent population, a defined territory, and a functioning government. Another important component of sovereignty has always been an adequate display of the authority of states to act over their territory to the exclusion of other states.

In 1945, the United Nations was born. First and foremost, the UN Charter recognizes the sovereignty of each nation. Every sovereign state is equal to other states; it can govern its own territory as it sees fit. But, when it comes to relations with other countries there are restrictions on national sovereignty.

Article 2 of the UN Charter calls on member states to "settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered." In addition, all members "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force ..."

In other treaties and agreements, states have accepted a considerable body of law limiting their sovereign right to act as they please. However, new rules cannot be imposed upon a state, without its consent, by the will of other states. In this way, a balance has been achieved between the needs of the international society and the desire of states to protect their sovereignty to the maximum possible extent.

The restriction on the absolute right of states to do anything they want still only works on a voluntary basis. If a powerful nation wants to bully a weaker one it can and often does. It's not difficult to find examples.

For much of its history, Tibet was a sovereign nation despite China's claims that it is part of its territory. In 1950, China invaded Tibet and seized control of the country. Since then, China has been guilty of many human rights abuses against Tibetans. It has also moved huge numbers of Chinese people into the country; Chinese is now the main language of business and government in Lhasa, the capital.

There is a strong Tibetan freedom movement, but not inside the country. Protests come mostly only from refugees, many thousands of them now living in Canada, who still carry on the campaign for Tibet to be ruled by Tibetans. Within Tibet, nearly all opposition to Chinese occupation and rule has been stamped out. There are only about 2.5 million Tibetans while China has a population of almost 1.3 billion.

The issue of Tibet's sovereignty is rarely raised among world leaders; might has proven to be right.

Russia is another strong state that gets away with throwing its weight about. It dominated the Soviet Union, which for half a century occupied most of the sovereign nations of Central and Eastern Europe. As World War II came to an end, the Soviet Union had advanced on Germany from the east while the Western Allies advanced from the west.

When the dust settled, the Soviet Union decided to keep its forces in the countries it had "liberated." Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and the eastern part of Germany came under the control of Moscow. Puppet governments were put in place. Secret police and armed forces made sure nobody stepped out of line. There were uprisings against the Soviet Union's use of absolute power, but they were crushed. Nobody from outside Central and Eastern Europe was prepared to use more than words to challenge the Soviet Union's right to do as it pleased. Once again, might proved to be right.

The United States is a giant that walks over the sovereignty of other countries when something happens that it doesn't like.

In 1951, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman became President of Guatemala. The government of the United States didn't like him because his policies threatened the control American business had on Guatemala's affairs. In particular, President Arbenz planned to buy unused land owned by the United Fruit Company, and give it to landless peasants.

In Washington, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) got busy. Along with the U.S. Marine Corp., it began arming and training some Guatemalan exiles. In June 1954, these exiles invaded and overthrew the government of President Arbenz. For the next 30 years, the military governed Guatemala with strong U.S. backing.

The U.S. government didn't like Salvador Allende either. He was elected President of Chile in 1970 on promises to do more to redistribute the country's wealth more evenly. U.S. President Richard Nixon slipped $10 million to the Central Intelligence Agency to finance secret operations against President Allende. The CIA told its agents in Chile that it was "firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup." In September 1973, this is exactly what was done with Mr. Allende dying of bullet wounds. The official version was that Salvador Allende took his own life, but it's unusual to find a suicide victim who has managed to shoot themselves several times.

So, despite many treaties, conventions, and agreements respect for national sovereignty still relies, to a large extent, on the voluntary goodwill of out neighbours.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. Within the Charter of the United Nations, there is an explicit prohibition on the world organisation from interfering in the domestic affairs of member states. Article 2 (7), provides that "nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter." However, according to Chapter VII of the Charter, sovereignty is not a barrier to action taken by the Security Council as part of measures in response to "a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression." Use these extracts of the UN Charter as the basis for a discussion on American actions towards Iraq during 2002 and 2003.

2. Most law school students are asked to decide where they stand on what is called "The Ticking Time Bomb" hypothetical question. It is a problem that goes to the heart of respect for sovereignty. Assume that police capture a terrorist whom they know has planted a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in a major city. The device is due to explode very shortly, so there is not enough time to evacuate the city. The terrorist refuses to talk. The question is: Should police torture the terrorist to get information?

FACT FILE

The campaign for laws governing the conduct of war began with the publication Un Souvenir de Solferino, 18623; translated 1911) by Swiss philanthropist jean Henri Dunant, describing the suffering of wounded soldiers at the northern Italian battlefield of Solferino in June 1859.

FACT FILE

Suzerainty is a condition in which one nation has control over the foreign relations of another sovereign state.

Websites

Chile Declassification Project--http://foia.state.gov/SearchColls/CIA.asp

Free Tibet Now!--http://tibet.org.actadivina.com/

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty--http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/menu-en.asp

RELATED ARTICLE: Canadian accomplices.

The International Red Cross was behind the writing of the four Geneva Conventions. These are agreements designed to protect the rights of wounded fighters, prisoners, and civilians in war. The Third Convention (1929) states that prisoners of war (PoWs) are not criminals and should be treated humanely and released at the end of hostilities.

Early in the war in Afghanistan, which began in late 2001, several hundred people were taken into custody by the United States. Some of these prisoners have been taken to a U.S. military compound on Cuba, Camp X-Ray, and held there. The conditions of their imprisonment are not good. The United States claims the people it has in custody are "unlawful combatants" not PoWs and are, therefore, not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Many experts in international law disagree with the U.S. stand.

Human rights activists are even more worried about the U.S. plan to set up military courts. Such courts could convene in the United States or overseas, or even on ships at sea, and it would be within the power of the president to determine who should be tried. The trials could be held in secret, would not need to involve juries, and could give sentences up to and including the death penalty.

In January 2002, Canadian commandos operating in Afghanistan captured some men. Almost immediately, the captives were handed over to the Americans, making Canada's armed forces accomplices to the U.S. actions. However, while international lawyers and human rights activists wring their hands over what might be going on at Camp X-Ray, U.S. authorities might not be far out of step with public opinion. An October 2002 poll in the U.S. found that 45% of Americans think it's all right to torture the captives in Cuba to get information. And, before we go patting ourselves on the back for a being kinder, gentler people, a recent poll of Canadians found that 31% of us are quite happy to support the assassination of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

RELATED ARTICLE: Threats to peace.

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter says that state sovereignty is not a barrier to action taken by the Security Council as part of measures in response to "a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression." This provision has been used to whittle away at the power of governments to do whatever they please within their own borders. This process began when the Security Council approved economic sanctions and arms and oil embargoes against Southern Rhodesia and South Africa in the 1970s. In both cases, the Security Council decided that internal policies that gave white people greater social, economic, and legal status than black people were "threats to international peace and security."

The evolution of the definition of a threat to international peace and security accelerated in the 1990s. The Security Council has repeatedly condemned attacks on civilians and authorized interventions, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Sierra Leone, and in Kosovo, saying they constitute grave violations of international law. The UN did not act in Rwanda, however, where even worse abuses of human rights took place in 1994.

In general though, the international community agrees that atrocities committed against human beings by their own governments--including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide--trump claims of sovereignty.