Duane
Hilaire
Paper
Proposal
State
and Sovereignty
10/30/13
As
we have learnt this semester, defining what constitutes a state’s boarders has
caused issues in the past however; many political scientists believe that the
principle duty of a state is the monopoly on violence. If this idea holds true
why is that countries that lack internal sovereignty/stability because of major
political/social issues are still command external sovereignty whereas countries
that contain internal sovereignty lack external sovereignty. This concept is
what I intend to focus on using the cases of Egypt, Tunisia and Palestine. I
also intend to use examples from the current Syrian crisis to answer my
question. If a state loses control of its boarders and are now unable to not
only control the monopoly of violence within its borders but provide stable
living standards for its people why are they still allowed external sovereignty?
Is it because of bias towards allies or because of the comparative advantages
certain countries possess?
Using
the events of the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, I hope to show the loss of
the monopoly of violence within their borders, which in turn should show the
loss of legitimacy. With many Middle Easter countries struggling to protect
their rule and territory they eventually lose all control resulting in what we
know as the “Jasmine Revolution” or “Arab Spring”.
Some of the sources I intend to use are
as follows:
Masoud, Tarek. Arabs Want
Redistribution, So Why Don’t They Vote Left? Theory and Evidence from Egypt.
No. rwp13-007. 2013.
Goldstone, Jack A. 2011. “Understanding
the Revolutions of 2011.” Foreign Affairs. May/Jun2011, Vol. 90 Issue 3, p8-16.
8p.
English.ahram.org.eg.
"SCAF: A brief history of injustice - Politics - Egypt - Ahram Online."
n.d..http://eglish.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/26220/Egypt/Politics-/SCAF-A-brief-history-of-injustice.aspx.
Ziv, Guy.
2013. "Simple vs. Complex Learning Revisited: Israeli Prime Ministers and
the Question of a Palestinian State". Foreign Policy Analysis. 9 (2):
203-222.
Grant, Thomas D. "An Institution Restored? Recognition of
Governments: Legal Doctrine and State Practice, 1815-1995. By MJ Peterson. New
York, New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc.; London: Macmillan Press
Ltd.(1997).." Va. J. Int'l L. 39, (1998): 191--1221.
I agree that sovereignty relies on the ability to exercise authority over ones country and in order to do this you must have a monopoly on violence within the state. In the Middle East as soon as leaders lost legitimacy in the eyes of the people, they took to the streets in protest. You could look at Morocco and compare the circumstances that allowed the King there the ability to weather the Arab Spring while other leaders were unable to do so.
ReplyDeleteViewing issues of internal and external sovereignty is very interesting, and using examples of Egypt and Tunisia is a very good way to go. Your argument is clear, and also including Palestine is very important to be able to explain a possible state that still does not have external sovereignty, and it can be shown through your argument. because of allies and support for more powerful governments. sources are very good.
ReplyDeleteI think you chose a very interesting topic, but I while I read this I was unsure what was the core of your argument. By the questions you raise, this paper could go in many directions. What I mainly gathered is that you are trying to disprove legitimacy within state boundaries that lack adequate systems of governance. I think in order to do this, more attention should be given to the systems or the political thought that arose from these revolutions because they could be legitimate forms internally, but their ideology could clash with the external communities, than to the systems that failed. I hope you find this helpful. Best of luck!
ReplyDelete