International Law, Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: An Overview

Abstract

This paper is an attempt at analysing the intricacies between international law, the concept of Responsibility to Protect and its implications for the sovereignty of modern states. The paper examines how the concept of responsibility to protect (as stipulated by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)) impacts on the sovereignty of states. It adopts the essay style of writing and reviews a number of documents on the subject of international law, sovereignty and the responsibility to protect.The paper consequently argues that though the ICISS claims that its "purpose is not to license aggression with fine words, or to provide strong states with new rationales for doubtful strategic designs" (ICISS, 2001, p. 35), the Commission's very attempt to exempt the permanent five and other so-called major powers from intervention does just that whether intentionally or unintentionally. It consequently recommends that much effort should be made to address the inequalities within the international system through the formulation of appropriate policies and international regulations that address the sovereign equality of states in the international system, especially on the question of intervention.

Sovereignty and Jurisdiction Conflicts from High-altitude Balloons under International Law

“…Thomas Prehi Botchway introduced the complexities involved in exercising self-defense rights. 62 The concept of self-defense is deeply rooted in the principles of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, the advent of high-altitude balloons as tools for surveillance, data collection, and potential military applications poses new challenges to this well-established legal norm.…”

From the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to the African Union (AU) — The Dynamics of the Transformation of a Regional Integration

“…(Kimenyi, 2015). Thus, hiding behind the principles of "non-interference" and "non-alignment" did more harm than good to the member states and prevented the OAU from playing an objective role in internal conflicts, with the institution frequently appearing as a shield to the ruling party rather than balancing international obligations with domestic responsibility -the member states failed to be good neighbors under the guise of non-interference (Botchway & Hlovor, 2022;Botchway, 2019;2018a). More cogently, contrary to the provisions of Article 2 (1) (a) and (b) of the Charter that focus on unity and solidarity of African states, and the coordination and intensification of collaboration and "efforts to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa", available evidence suggests that the organization achieved little in this regard.…”

State Responsibility and the Question of Expropriation: A Preliminary to the “Land Expropriation without Compensation” Policy in South Africa

“…Thus, the conflict between the application of municipal and international law always raises its head in issues pertaining to expropriation. To resolve this conflict while at the same time ensuring that sovereignty of States are not unduly undermined requires that due process of the law must be internationalized and that international tribunals must necessarily draw on the "mores of the average and not of the crudest municipal practice" (Botchway, 2018;Borchard, 1940, p. 447). There is also the need to adopt more flexible yet formidable approaches such as the Corporate Social Responsibility Approach to Building International Law (CRASBIL) as well as economic diplomacy in order to reduce frequent tensions and high financial costs associated with expropriations (Botchway & Kwarteng, 2018).…”