John Rookard
This journal
post will be a response to the CNN article above. The article is addressing the fact that more
and more countries have joined forces with the United States to fight the
terrorist group Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The airstrikes taking place in Syria can be
connected to the idea of sovereignty.
Sovereignty is political rule that is final and absolute authority. Many countries including the United Kingdom, Belgium,
Denmark, and the U.A.E are members of this anti-ISIS coalition. In today’s world, especially when it comes to
states in anarchy the idea of sovereignty does not exist and that is the way it
should be.
Sovereignty
means that there is no other final and absolute authority that exists and an
understanding that a state will not be interfered with. However, in times of crisis a state with the absence
of government should be interfered with especially when the threat is a very
wealthy and large terrorist organization such as ISIS. It is important to note that this situation
in the Middle East has both internal and external sovereignty. Internal sovereignty is being the ruler, but
outsiders do not recognize this. Abu
Bakr al-Baghdadi is the self-proclaimed leader of ISIS and some argue could be
on his way to proclaiming himself leader of Syria and Iraq. While that argument may be a stretch, it is
still important to use as an example of internal sovereignty. External sovereignty is the act of others
recognizing you are the ruler of a state.
With that said, all of the western forces fighting ISIS recognize Bashar
al-Assad as the leader of Syria.
States in
anarchy should be given assistance with a major issue even if they believe they
can resolve the issue themselves.
Especially in the case of Syria, where the government has no real power
over what ISIS is doing, it would only make sense for sovereignty to be broken
and the anti-ISIS coalition to grow. States should help other states when there is
an absence of government. However, like this
article suggests, this is not a process that will take a short amount of time.
Great post John! I agree with what you had to say about Sovereignty and how it applies to the situation with ISIS. Have you considered that realism and constructivism could also apply? In terms of realism, the article mentioned that Prime Minister Cameron thought that ISIS posed a threat to Turkey. Because Turkey is a member of NATO, that means that NATO is also threatened. As NATO does not know the intentions of ISIS, and vice versa, there could be a power struggle between the two organizations. (None of the organizations are states but they are both competing for survival in an anarchic system). Constructivism could apply because the two different organizations have two different identities that define their roles in the conflict. NATO would be the "self" and ISIS would be the "other" or vice versa (depending on which side you are looking at). Anyways, I liked your topic and your post, these were just some things to consider. - H. "Ryan" Block
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that you commented on an issue that is very relevant right now. I have some questions, why do you think states an anarchy do not think they need assistance from other states? Why is it important that states intervene when there is an absence of government? Is it because helping other is inherently good or is there always a benefit for providing aid? Just some things I was wondering, good post though!
-Tyler
John,
ReplyDeleteI liked your write up. After going back and reading through it a few times I think I actually have a better grip on sovereignty now than before. How would you argue that sovereignty no longer exists? Is it because legitimacy requires that other nations approve a ruler?
Thanks,
Matthew Smith
I like your distinguishing between internal and external sovereignty and how you weave those distinctions into your post. Your examples of the two “competing” leaders for who can empirically claim to control most of the land area that belonged to the country known as Syria are intriguing.
ReplyDeleteWhich IR theory do you think justifies or helps explain your position that “States should help other states when there is an absence of government”? I would think that it could arguably fall under realism, constructivism, and feminism. However, realism seems kind of a weak designation because a state in anarchy generally means that it is less of a security threat. ISIS poses more of a security threat to the West than self-contained anarchy, of course, but not enough to merit this definition. I can’t logic why constructivism isn’t as useful in this case, but it just FEELS wrong, maaaaaaan. For me, feminism seems best, since intervention would dramatically increase human security in the anarchical state.