Session 23: Sovereignty vs Security.

The reading spoke of sovereignty, an inherent right of each state that protects it from foreign interference in domestic matters, as the primary principle in international relations and the study of war and conflict. The chapter studied for our previous discussion, when discussing collective security, mentioned the perceived role of the international community to step in when a state is seen to have ‘failed’ and is considered a threat through becoming a haven for illegal activities.

I often write about dilemmas. In this scenario, we face another case of conflicting priorities, each of whom potentially compromises the other. In certain scenarios, to ensure the collective security of the international system, to avoid an armed conflict (war) or to attempt to secure closure of a previously contested war, state sovereignty must be violated. An example of this was the American operation in Abbotabad in May 2011.

In the scope of international relations, the superbly high stakes in scenarios of international conflict (whether they are armed, economic or a war of ideas) mean that decision makers bear immense responsibilities on their shoulders. Decisions made impact the course of history and millions of lives. And in that endeavor, there are dilemmas. There are conflicting options and choices to be made between multiple positive objectives, with some needing to be compromised for the sake of others. There are priorities that must be set. One such example is the trade-off between sovereignty and collective security, a prime example of which, as mentioned above, was the elimination of Osama Bin Laden.