Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Sovereign state

A sovereign state is a political entity that exercises supreme, independent authority over a defined territory and its permanent population through an effective government, possessing the capacity to conduct relations with other states.^[1] These criteria, established by the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States in 1933, form the basis for statehood under the declarative theory, which asserts that factual fulfillment of these elements confers legal personality in international law without requiring external validation.^[1] Sovereignty manifests internally as the exclusive right to govern, enforce laws, and maintain order within borders, and externally as freedom from subordination to other powers, enabling participation in treaties, alliances, and global institutions.^[2]^[1] While the declarative approach prioritizes objective control and capability, practical sovereignty often hinges on recognition by established states and organizations such as the United Nations, which currently recognizes 193 member states, though disputes over entities like Taiwan or Kosovo highlight tensions between legal criteria and political realities.^[1] The concept underscores the foundational principle of the Westphalian system, originating from the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which curtailed imperial and religious interference to promote territorial autonomy amid Europe's religious wars.^[2]

Definition and Core Attributes

Essential Criteria for Sovereignty

![World map of de facto territory control][float-right] The essential criteria for a sovereign state, as established in international legal doctrine, comprise four factual elements: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.^[3] These criteria, outlined in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States adopted on December 26, 1933, reflect a declaratory understanding of statehood where sovereignty arises from objective conditions rather than external validation.^[4] The convention emphasizes that the political existence of a state is independent of recognition by others, underscoring de facto control as the foundation of sovereignty.^[3] A permanent population requires a stable community of inhabitants tied to the territory, distinguishing states from transient entities like ships or expeditions; no minimum population threshold is specified, as evidenced by microstates such as Vatican City with approximately 800 residents exercising sovereignty since 1929.^[1] This criterion ensures the entity governs actual human societies subject to its authority, enabling the exercise of internal jurisdiction.^[1] A defined territory demands control over a specific geographic area, though precise borders need not be fully settled—disputes, as in the case of Israel's 1948 establishment amid armistice lines, do not preclude statehood if effective dominion is maintained.^[1] Sovereignty here implies exclusive jurisdiction, subject only to international obligations, with de facto administration over the land serving as the causal basis for legitimacy rather than mere claims.^[5] An effective government entails a centralized authority capable of enforcing laws, maintaining order, and exercising monopoly on legitimate violence within the territory, free from subordination to external powers; this excludes puppet regimes or entities lacking internal control, such as failed states where warlords dominate regions.^[1] Historical examples include the Confederate States of America (1861–1865), which met territorial and population criteria but failed due to insufficient independent governance amid civil war.^[1] The capacity to enter into relations with other states signifies external independence, demonstrated through diplomacy, treaty-making, or participation in international forums, implying autonomy from foreign dictation; this criterion links internal efficacy to global interaction, as isolated entities like the Order of Malta (recognized as sovereign despite lacking territory since 1798) illustrate adaptations but underscore the norm of combined internal-external sovereignty.^[1] Collectively, these elements prioritize empirical effectiveness over normative ideals, with violations—such as foreign occupation—eroding sovereignty de facto, as seen in Iraq under Coalition Provisional Authority control from 2003 to 2004.^[6]

Internal versus External Sovereignty

Internal sovereignty refers to the supreme authority of a state over its territory and population, entailing the exclusive right to exercise control without subordination to any internal higher power.^[6] This concept implies that the state's government holds ultimate competence in domestic political, legal, and administrative matters, such as law-making, enforcement, and adjudication, free from interference by subnational entities or parallel authorities within its borders.^[6] For instance, internal sovereignty manifests in the state's monopoly on legitimate violence, as theorized in political philosophy, enabling it to maintain order and suppress challenges to its rule.^[7] External sovereignty, in contrast, denotes a state's independence from external entities, particularly other states, allowing it to conduct autonomous foreign relations and avoid subjection to international coercion beyond voluntary agreements.^[8] It encompasses the capacity to enter treaties, declare war, or engage in diplomacy without external veto, often reinforced by mutual recognition among states that preserves each other's autonomy.^[8] This dimension aligns with the principle of non-intervention, where states refrain from interfering in one another's domestic affairs, as codified in instruments like the UN Charter's Article 2(7).^[9] The distinction between internal and external sovereignty highlights complementary yet distinct aspects of state power: internal sovereignty emphasizes hierarchical supremacy ("freedom-to" govern domestically), while external sovereignty stresses egalitarian independence ("freedom-from" foreign control).^[7] Without external sovereignty, internal authority may erode due to foreign incursions, as seen historically in cases of colonial domination where external subjugation undermined domestic control.^[6] Conversely, robust internal sovereignty supports external standing by ensuring stable governance capable of upholding international commitments.^[9] In practice, these facets are interdependent; a state lacking effective internal control, such as through civil war, often forfeits external sovereignty via interventions or non-recognition.^[8] Modern challenges, including globalization and supranational organizations like the European Union, test this binary by pooling certain external competences while preserving core internal autonomy.^[6]

Historical Development

Pre-Modern Concepts of Authority

In ancient Greece, political authority in the polis (city-state) derived from communal self-governance and military capability, with each independent unit exercising control over its urban center and hinterland without a centralized sovereign overlord. For instance, Athens and Sparta maintained autonomy through citizen assemblies and warrior elites, respectively, fostering rivalries that led to alliances like the Peloponnesian League rather than unified territorial sovereignty.^[10] This decentralized model emphasized autarkeia (self-sufficiency) rooted in geographic fragmentation, where authority stemmed from deliberative bodies or tyrants backed by force, not exclusive state monopolies on violence.^[11] The Roman Republic introduced imperium, denoting the supreme executive command vested in magistrates such as consuls, encompassing military, judicial, and administrative powers over provinces and legions. This authority was personal and temporary, tied to the officeholder's auspicia (divine auspices) and the Senate's collective will, enabling expansion through conquest but lacking the indivisible territorial sovereignty of later states.^[12] Under the Empire, emperors accumulated imperium maius (greater imperium), blending de facto absolutism with legal delegation, yet provincial governors retained delegated powers, illustrating layered rather than absolute authority.^[13] Medieval Europe featured feudal hierarchies where authority flowed through personal oaths of fealty, forming a pyramid from kings to vassals, knights, and serfs, with land (fiefs) granted in exchange for military service. Kings like those in post-Carolingian Francia (circa 843 onward) held nominal overlordship, but fragmentation—exemplified by the 962 election of Otto I as Holy Roman Emperor—resulted in overlapping jurisdictions between secular lords and ecclesiastical powers, undermining unified sovereignty.^[14] The Church asserted universal spiritual authority via papal decrees, as in Pope Gregory VII's 1075 Dictatus Papae, claiming supremacy over temporal rulers, which fueled investiture contests and diffused monarchical control.^[15] Emerging divine right conceptions traced kings' legitimacy to God's direct delegation, evolving from biblical precedents like the anointing of Saul (circa 1020 BCE) and medieval theocratic models in Byzantium, where emperors embodied divine order. In Western Europe, this intensified by the 13th century under theorists like Thomas Aquinas, who reconciled Aristotelian hierarchy with Christian providence, positing rulers as vicars enforcing natural law without popular consent.^[16] Yet, practical authority often hinged on coercive capacity, as vassal disloyalty—evident in baronial revolts like the 1215 Magna Carta—revealed the fragility of uncontracted rule.^[17] These pre-modern frameworks prioritized relational bonds, divine sanction, and martial prowess over fixed territorial exclusivity, contrasting with post-Westphalian models by permitting suzerainty, tribute systems, and imperial overreach, such as the Abbasid Caliphate's (750–1258) nominal suzerainty over autonomous emirs.^[18] Empirical patterns, including the Roman Empire's 476 CE collapse into successor kingdoms, underscore how authority's diffusion invited conquest, fostering resilience through adaptability rather than rigid sovereignty.^[19]

Formation of the Modern State System

The formation of the modern state system in Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries involved the gradual consolidation of fragmented feudal territories into centralized polities capable of monopolizing coercion, extracting resources, and projecting power externally. This process was propelled by military innovations, particularly the gunpowder revolution, which diminished the efficacy of decentralized knightly levies and favored rulers who could finance professional infantry, artillery, and fortifications through systematic taxation.^[20]^[21] Persistent interstate warfare amplified these demands, compelling monarchs to develop fiscal infrastructures and bureaucracies that reduced noble autonomy and integrated disparate regions under singular authority.^[22] In France, the Valois dynasty exemplified this shift: Charles VII, ruling from 1422 to 1461, established Europe's first permanent standing army in 1445 via the Compagnies d'ordonnance, comprising about 9,000 paid troops including cavalry and artillery units, which curtailed feudal military independence and enabled royal reconquest during the Hundred Years' War.^[23] Taxation reforms, such as the taille levy, funded these forces and administrative centralization, setting precedents for absolutist governance. Similarly, in Spain, the 1469 marriage of Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile initiated the unification of the Iberian crowns, culminating in the 1492 conquest of Granada and the expulsion or conversion of Muslim populations, thereby forging a cohesive Catholic realm with centralized fiscal and judicial controls.^[24]^[25] England's Tudor monarchs pursued parallel consolidation: Henry VII, who seized the throne in 1485 following the Battle of Bosworth that ended the Wars of the Roses, bolstered royal finances through customs duties, land forfeitures from disloyal nobles, and the Court of Star Chamber to enforce order, thereby stabilizing the realm and curtailing baronial factions.^[26]^[27] These cases illustrate how economic pressures from commerce and overseas expansion intertwined with military necessities to erode medieval overlappings of authority—such as those in the Holy Roman Empire—paving the way for territorially sovereign entities with defined borders and internal hierarchies.^[28] By the early 17th century, such states numbered fewer than 500 in Europe, down from medieval multiplicity, reflecting survival through competitive adaptation.^[29]

Westphalian Sovereignty and the Treaty of Westphalia (1648)

The Peace of Westphalia comprised two primary treaties signed on October 24, 1648: the Treaty of Münster, which concluded the Eighty Years' War between Spain and the Dutch Republic, and the Treaty of Osnabrück, which addressed conflicts within the Holy Roman Empire involving Sweden, France, and various German estates.^[30] ^[31] These agreements ended the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), a conflict that had devastated Central Europe, reducing the population of the German states by an estimated 20–30% through war, famine, and disease.^[32] The treaties' provisions diminished the Holy Roman Emperor's universal authority, granting German princes ius resistendi (right to resist imperial edicts) and the ability to form alliances and conduct foreign policy independently, provided they did not undermine the empire's collective security.^[33] France and Sweden were recognized as guarantors of the peace, with rights to intervene in imperial affairs to enforce compliance, effectively treating the empire's components as quasi-sovereign entities.^[34] Religiously, the settlements extended the cuius regio, eius religio principle from the 1555 Peace of Augsburg to include Calvinism alongside Lutheranism and Catholicism, while mandating restitution of church lands seized after 1624 and prohibiting future religious wars within the empire.^[32] These elements collectively prioritized territorial control and internal autonomy over supranational religious or imperial oversight. Westphalian sovereignty, a term retrospectively applied to the system's implications, denotes the principle that territorial rulers exercise exclusive, indivisible authority within defined borders, free from external interference in domestic governance, with states treated as juridically equal regardless of size or internal constitution.^[33] This framework embodied the maxim rex est imperator in suo regno (the king is emperor in his own realm), rejecting medieval hierarchies like papal or imperial supremacy in favor of bilateral relations among polities.^[33] Although the treaties did not explicitly codify "sovereignty" in modern terms—predating theorists like Jean Bodin and Hugo Grotius—they operationalized it by legalizing de facto independence for over 300 German entities and elevating France and Sweden as peer powers.^[35] Historians attribute to Westphalia the foundational shift toward a state-centric international order, where legitimacy derived from effective territorial control rather than dynastic, confessional, or feudal ties, laying groundwork for balance-of-power diplomacy and the decline of universalist claims.^[36] Subsequent ratifications, completed by the emperor, France, and Sweden in November 1648 and by German estates through January 1649, embedded these norms into European practice.^[35] The system's endurance is evident in its influence on later treaties, though critiques note that true non-interference emerged gradually amid ongoing absolutist expansions and colonial rivalries.^[37]

Theoretical Foundations

Declaratory and Constitutive Theories of Statehood

The declaratory theory posits that statehood emerges objectively when an entity fulfills empirical criteria—namely, a permanent population, defined territory, effective government, and capacity for international relations—without dependence on external recognition.^[38] Under this view, recognition by other states functions solely as evidence or acknowledgment of pre-existing factual conditions, not as a creative act conferring legal status.^[39] Developed primarily in the twentieth century, the theory aligns with first-principles assessments of governance and control, emphasizing causal effectiveness over subjective political acts.^[40] Scholars such as Ti-Chiang Chen advanced the declaratory approach by arguing that these criteria determinatively establish statehood upon their satisfaction, irrespective of diplomatic formalities.^[40] James Crawford, in his analysis of state creation, supports a nuanced declaratory framework that incorporates recognition's evidentiary value—such as verifying effective control—but rejects any constitutive role, noting that pure objectivism avoids the arbitrariness of denying evident realities.^[41] This position prevails in contemporary international legal practice, as evidenced by arbitral decisions prioritizing factual sovereignty over recognition consensus.^[42] By contrast, the constitutive theory contends that recognition by established states actively constitutes the new entity's international personality, rendering statehood contingent on collective consent rather than unilateral facts.^[43] Originating as the dominant nineteenth-century paradigm, it views international law as deriving from interstate agreement, with non-recognized entities lacking legal standing akin to non-persons.^[44] Key advocates included Lassa Oppenheim, who tied statehood to the "basis of the Law of Nations" through mutual acknowledgment, and Hersch Lauterpacht, who highlighted recognition's role in enabling legal relations while acknowledging its politicization.^[44] ^[45] Critics of constitutivism argue it enables powerful states to manipulate outcomes, as seen in delayed recognitions of breakaway entities despite demonstrated control, undermining causal realism by subordinating empirical governance to diplomatic leverage.^[45] ^[46] While neither theory fully resolves ambiguities—such as partial recognitions or failed states—the declaratory model's emphasis on verifiable control better comports with observed international dynamics, where non-recognized entities like Somaliland exercise de facto sovereignty without formal personality.^[41] Crawford's synthesis illustrates this hybrid utility: recognition influences participation but cannot negate foundational effectiveness.^[47]

Legal Standards: The Montevideo Convention (1933)

The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States was adopted on December 26, 1933, during the Seventh International Conference of American States in Montevideo, Uruguay.^[48] It entered into force on December 26, 1934, following ratifications by multiple signatory states, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, El Salvador, Uruguay, and Venezuela, with the United States ratifying it subject to a reservation on Article 7 concerning intervention.^[49] The convention, limited in formal scope to the Americas, articulated foundational criteria for statehood that have influenced global international legal practice despite not being universally ratified.^[4] Article 1 of the convention defines the essential qualifications for a state to qualify as a subject of international law: "(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."^[3] These criteria emphasize factual attributes over formal recognition, aligning with the declaratory theory of statehood, which posits that statehood arises from objective conditions rather than subjective acts by other entities. Article 3 reinforces this by stating that "the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states," underscoring sovereignty's inherent nature absent external validation.^[48] Article 4 further affirms the juridical equality of states, irrespective of size or power disparities.^[4] The convention's provisions have been interpreted as codifying pre-existing customary international law on statehood, though its application remains subject to debate in cases lacking effective control or facing territorial disputes.^[50] For instance, the requirement of a "defined territory" does not necessitate precisely delimited borders, as evidenced by the recognition of states with ongoing boundary claims, but demands some degree of territorial stability.^[51] Similarly, "government" implies effective control over the population and territory, without prescribing democratic or stable governance forms, allowing for provisional administrations in transitional contexts.^[52] The capacity for international relations is typically inferred from the other criteria, manifesting through diplomatic exchanges or treaty participation, though it does not require universal acceptance.^[5] While not binding beyond its ratifiers, the Montevideo criteria have achieved normative status in broader international jurisprudence, influencing assessments of entities like post-colonial states and secessionist movements, yet critics note its silence on normative elements such as human rights observance or non-aggression, which modern practice sometimes implicitly incorporates.^[53] The convention's enduring relevance stems from its empirical focus on observable facts, avoiding reliance on political recognition that could politicize statehood determinations.

Recognition and International Practice

Mechanisms of Diplomatic Recognition

Diplomatic recognition occurs through unilateral acts by existing states, whereby they formally acknowledge an entity's claim to sovereignty, often via explicit public declarations or implied through practical engagements. These acts are discretionary and not mandated by international law, allowing each recognizing state to assess the entity's effective control, capacity for international relations, and alignment with its own foreign policy interests.^[1]^[54] Primary mechanisms include overt statements, such as official notes verbales dispatched through diplomatic channels or presidential proclamations announcing recognition, which signal intent to treat the entity as a peer in international affairs. For instance, the United States recognized Israel on May 14, 1948, via a formal statement by President Harry Truman, enabling immediate diplomatic exchanges despite ongoing regional conflicts. Implied recognition arises from actions like accrediting ambassadors, establishing embassies, or concluding bilateral treaties, which presuppose the entity's legal personality without a preceding declaration. Such mechanisms facilitate entry into reciprocal relations, including trade agreements and mutual defense pacts, but require the aspiring state to demonstrate stable governance and territorial control to sustain them.^[1]^[55] Collective processes, such as admission to the United Nations, serve as indirect mechanisms amplifying bilateral recognitions, as Security Council recommendation and General Assembly approval under Article 4 of the UN Charter imply broad acceptance of statehood by member states. However, UN membership does not compel recognition; over 190 states have recognized entities like Kosovo since its 2008 declaration of independence, yet five UN Security Council permanent members abstain due to geopolitical rivalries, illustrating recognition's political selectivity over uniform legal criteria. Consular or trade relations without full diplomatic status represent limited mechanisms, allowing economic engagement while withholding formal sovereignty acknowledgment, as seen in interactions with Taiwan by states adhering to the one-China policy.^[56]^[57] These mechanisms underscore recognition's role as a tool of statecraft, where empirical evidence of governance efficacy—such as maintaining order and fulfilling treaty obligations—often outweighs declarative claims, though biases in multilateral forums can delay consensus for contested entities.^[58]^[59]

De Facto, De Jure, and Partial Recognition

De facto recognition in international practice refers to the informal acknowledgment of a state's or government's effective control over territory and population, without committing to full diplomatic relations or legal equivalence. This form of recognition is provisional and based on observable facts of governance, such as maintaining order, issuing currency, and conducting foreign affairs independently, rather than formal treaties or declarations. It often serves as a precursor to de jure recognition but can persist indefinitely if political conditions warrant caution, as seen in the initial responses of Western powers to the Bolshevik government in Russia following the 1917 Revolution, where limited consular contacts were established without full endorsement until the 1920s or later. ^[60] ^[61] De jure recognition, by contrast, constitutes explicit, legal affirmation of a state's sovereignty, typically through diplomatic exchanges, treaty ratification, or official statements, implying acceptance of its international personality and obligations under customary law. This full recognition enables participation in multilateral forums and mutual respect for territorial integrity, as exemplified by the widespread de jure acknowledgment of Bangladesh after its 1971 independence from Pakistan, formalized by over 100 states within months despite initial hesitations from some Islamic nations. The distinction matters because de jure status confers greater protections against intervention and facilitates access to international courts, whereas de facto recognition may limit a entity's ability to enforce treaties or claim reparations. ^[62] ^[63] Partial recognition arises when a state receives de jure or de facto endorsement from only a portion of the international community, often due to territorial disputes or geopolitical rivalries, resulting in fragmented diplomatic status and restricted global engagement. Kosovo, which declared independence from Serbia on February 17, 2008, illustrates this: as of October 2023, it holds recognition from 100 UN member states but faces non-recognition from major powers like Russia, China, and India, barring full UN membership and complicating economic integration. Similarly, the Republic of China (Taiwan) exercises de facto sovereignty over its territory since 1949 but enjoys de jure recognition from only 12 states as of 2024, primarily small nations in the Pacific and Latin America, while maintaining robust informal ties with others through trade offices rather than embassies. Such cases highlight how partial recognition can sustain functional statehood amid opposition, though it exposes entities to isolation in bodies like the UN Security Council. ^[64] ^[65] These modes are not mutually exclusive and can evolve; for instance, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which broke from Georgia in 2008 with Russian backing, receive de facto support from Moscow—including military presence and economic aid—but de jure recognition from only five UN members (Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru, and Syria as of 2023), underscoring how patron states can bolster partial entities against broader non-recognition. In practice, the absence of universal criteria for recognition, as affirmed in the 1970 UN Friendly Relations Declaration, allows states to weigh empirical control against normative concerns like self-determination or uti possidetis principles, often prioritizing strategic interests over consistency. This flexibility has enabled entities like Somaliland, which has governed effectively since 1991 with its own currency, parliament, and security forces, to achieve de facto autonomy without any formal recognition, relying instead on bilateral trade and diaspora remittances. ^[66]^[67]

Contested Cases and Functional Sovereignty

Contested cases of sovereignty occur when territorial entities exercise effective control but face rival claims from parent states or incomplete international acceptance, complicating their status under international law. These disputes often stem from secessionist movements, civil wars, or unresolved partitions, where de facto governance coexists with de jure challenges. Functional sovereignty in such contexts refers to the practical execution of state-like functions—internal order, public services, and selective external interactions—despite formal diplomatic limitations. Indicators include the issuance of functional documents like passports, currency, and licenses that garner partial global usability.^[68]^[69] Taiwan exemplifies functional sovereignty amid contestation, having governed its territory since the Republic of China government's retreat in 1949 after defeat in the Chinese Civil War. With a population of approximately 23 million, it maintains a presidential democracy, advanced military, and economy ranking among the world's largest semiconductor producers, yet the People's Republic of China asserts sovereignty over it under the One-China principle. As of 2025, Taiwan holds diplomatic relations with 12 UN member states, supplemented by informal ties and participation in bodies like the World Trade Organization as "Chinese Taipei." Its passports are accepted by most countries, and it conducts substantial trade, demonstrating robust operational independence.^[70]^[71] Kosovo's case illustrates partial recognition following its 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia, amid the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Recognized by 119 states as of April 2025—including recent additions like Kenya on March 26 and Sudan on April 12—it operates a unicameral parliament, uses the euro as currency, and fields international sports teams, but Serbia maintains territorial claims supported by Russia and others. Functional sovereignty is evident in its control over Pristina and issuance of documents, though EU-led missions handle some security roles.^[72]^[73] The State of Palestine, proclaimed in 1988, contests Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with recognition from over 150 UN members by September 2025, including new acknowledgments from France, the United Kingdom, and Canada amid the post-October 2023 Gaza conflict. The Palestinian Authority governs parts of the West Bank with limited autonomy, while Hamas exercises de facto rule in Gaza until 2024 Israeli operations disrupted it; Palestine holds UN non-member observer status since 2012 and issues passports valid for travel to numerous states. However, fragmented control and dependency on aid underscore incomplete functional sovereignty.^[74]^[75] Somaliland, self-declared independent from Somalia on May 18, 1991, after the collapse of Siad Barre's regime, maintains functional sovereignty without any UN member recognition. It holds multiparty elections, issues the Somaliland shilling, and secures its 176,120 square kilometers through a national army, achieving relative stability compared to Somalia. De facto partnerships, such as port access deals with Ethiopia, enable economic activity, though Somalia's federal government rejects its secession.^[76] Additional instances include the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, established in 1983 and recognized solely by Turkey, which governs northern areas of Cyprus post-1974 invasion with its own administration and economy; and Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which control Georgian territories since 1990s conflicts and 2008 war, recognized mainly by Russia and a few allies, exercising limited functions like passport issuance backed by Moscow. These cases reveal how patron support or geographic isolation sustains functional operations, yet geopolitical rivalries perpetuate contestation.^[68]^[77]

Sovereignty versus Government and Regime

Sovereignty refers to the supreme, indivisible authority of a state over its territory and population, independent of external interference and encompassing both internal supremacy and external recognition in international law.^[6] This authority inheres in the state as a legal entity, not in its transient rulers or institutions, allowing the state to maintain its identity amid internal upheavals.^[78] In contrast, government denotes the specific administrative and executive apparatus—such as ministries, legislatures, and judiciaries—that operationalizes sovereignty through policy implementation, law enforcement, and resource allocation within the state's framework.^[1] A political regime encompasses the enduring set of formal and informal rules, norms, and institutions that structure access to power, determine decision-making processes, and shape the distribution of authority, often outlasting individual governments but subject to fundamental shifts like transitions from monarchy to republic or democracy to authoritarianism.^[79] While governments can change via elections, appointments, or non-violent successions without altering sovereignty—as seen in the United States, where over 46 presidential administrations since 1789 have exercised the same foundational authority—the state's sovereignty persists because it derives from the state's continuous legal personality and capacity for self-governance.^[78] Regime changes, such as France's shift from the Third Republic (1870–1940) to the Fifth Republic (1958–present), involve reconstituting core power structures yet leave the sovereign state's territorial integrity and international obligations intact, provided no dissolution occurs.^[78] This distinction underscores that sovereignty is not contingent on the legitimacy or effectiveness of a particular government or regime; even ineffective or contested regimes, like those during civil wars, do not inherently negate a state's sovereignty if the entity retains defined territory, population, and international engagement capacity per standards like the Montevideo Convention.^[1] For instance, Somalia's sovereignty has endured despite regime fragmentation and weak central government since 1991, with international recognition affirming the state's continuity over fluctuating warlord controls or transitional authorities.^[6] Conversely, conflating sovereignty with regime stability risks overlooking how external actors may recognize a state's sovereignty while withholding legitimacy from its government, as in cases of de jure recognition without de facto control.^[78] Thus, sovereignty provides the enduring foundation, while governments and regimes serve as variable instruments of its exercise, enabling states to weather internal transformations without forfeiting their status in the international order.^[6]

Sovereign States versus Dependencies and Supranational Bodies

Sovereign states maintain exclusive authority over their internal affairs and conduct independent international relations, as outlined in criteria such as those from the Montevideo Convention, whereas dependencies, also known as dependent territories, lack full sovereignty and remain under the legal and political control of a parent sovereign state, typically handling external relations on their behalf.^[80] Dependencies often possess internal self-governance but cannot enter binding treaties or join international organizations independently, distinguishing them from sovereign entities that hold plenary international legal personality.^[81] The United Nations maintains a list of 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories as of 2024, including Gibraltar under United Kingdom administration since 1713 and American Samoa under United States control since 1900, which exemplify dependencies with limited autonomy and no separate UN membership as states.^[81] Other examples encompass Puerto Rico, a U.S. unincorporated territory acquired in 1898 following the Spanish-American War, where residents are U.S. citizens but the territory participates in U.S. foreign policy without sovereign status, and the Falkland Islands, a British Overseas Territory retained after the 1982 conflict with Argentina.^[82] Supranational bodies differ fundamentally from sovereign states by representing voluntary associations of states that delegate specific sovereign powers to centralized institutions, creating binding supranational authority without constituting a single sovereign entity.^[83] In such arrangements, member states retain core sovereignty—such as in defense or residual powers—while ceding control in delimited areas like economic policy, but the body itself lacks the full attributes of statehood, including undivided territory or unilateral international representation.^[83] The European Union, formalized by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and operational from 1993, serves as the preeminent example, where 27 member states (as of 2025) transfer competencies in trade, agriculture, and competition law to supranational organs like the European Commission and European Court of Justice, enabling decisions enforceable over national laws in those domains without member veto in qualified majority voting scenarios.^[83] Unlike dependencies, which are subordinate to a single sovereign, supranational entities like the EU facilitate pooled sovereignty among equals, yet they do not erode the fundamental statehood of participants, as evidenced by members' continued independent UN seats and bilateral treaties outside EU competence.^[83] This distinction underscores that neither dependencies nor supranational bodies qualify as sovereign states: the former are integral extensions of a state's domain without independent agency, while the latter are frameworks for cooperative governance that presuppose the existence of sovereign members, avoiding the creation of a super-state absent unanimous integration.^[80]^[83]

Challenges and Erosion

Globalization and Economic Interdependence

Globalization has intensified economic interdependence among sovereign states through expanded international trade, capital flows, and integrated supply chains, thereby constraining the unilateral exercise of economic policy. As of 2022, the ratio of global exports to world output reached 30.5 percent, reflecting deep reliance on cross-border exchanges that expose national economies to external shocks and market disciplines.^[84] This interdependence limits states' ability to pursue protectionist measures or fiscal expansions without risking capital flight, currency devaluation, or retaliatory tariffs, as financial markets rapidly penalize deviations from global norms.^[85] International institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) further embed these constraints by enforcing rules that curtail national discretion over trade policies. WTO agreements prohibit quantitative restrictions such as import quotas and bans, while binding tariffs and requiring national treatment—treating imported goods equivalently to domestic ones—prevent discriminatory practices that could shield local industries.^[86]^[87] For instance, export subsidies are largely banned, phasing out exceptions that once allowed states to bolster specific sectors, compelling governments to prioritize competitiveness over targeted interventions.^[88] Empirical analyses indicate that such bindings reduce policy space, particularly for developing states, where compliance with WTO disciplines correlates with diminished autonomy in industrial policy.^[89] Monetary and fiscal sovereignty faces analogous pressures from mobile capital and debt markets. Post-1997 Asian Financial Crisis, episodes of sudden capital reversals demonstrated how sovereign borrowing costs surge in response to perceived policy missteps, forcing austerity or structural reforms independent of domestic electoral cycles.^[85] International Monetary Fund (IMF) lending programs exemplify this dynamic, imposing conditionality—such as spending cuts or privatization—that overrides national priorities to restore market confidence, as seen in Greece's 2010-2018 bailouts where GDP contracted by over 25 percent under enforced fiscal consolidation. While states retain formal sovereignty, these mechanisms effectively transfer veto power to creditors and investors, eroding de facto control over economic destinies.^[90]

Supranational Organizations and Pooled Sovereignty

Supranational organizations are multinational entities to which member states voluntarily transfer specific decision-making powers, enabling the organization to enact binding rules that supersede national laws in designated policy areas. This transfer, known as pooled sovereignty, allows states to achieve collective objectives unattainable through individual action, such as integrated markets or coordinated security, by delegating authority to supranational institutions like courts or commissions that enforce compliance independently of unanimous member consent.^[91]^[92] In contrast to intergovernmental bodies, where decisions require consensus and lack direct enforceability over domestic policies, supranationalism involves majority or qualified majority voting, reducing veto power and facilitating deeper integration.^[93]^[94] The European Union (EU) exemplifies pooled sovereignty, formalized by the Maastricht Treaty signed on February 7, 1992, and effective from November 1, 1993, which established the EU framework encompassing economic, monetary, and limited political union among its then-12 members. Under this treaty, states pooled sovereignty in the single market, enabling the European Commission and Court of Justice to impose regulations on trade, competition, and environmental standards that member governments must implement without alteration. For the 20 eurozone countries as of 2025, monetary policy sovereignty resides with the European Central Bank, which sets interest rates and controls money supply independently of national parliaments.^[95]^[96] This pooling has expanded through subsequent treaties, such as Lisbon in 2009, to include areas like justice and home affairs, where EU directives on asylum and data protection override national preferences in qualified majority votes.^[97] Pooled sovereignty in the EU has yielded benefits like tariff-free trade generating €14.3 trillion in intra-EU goods and services in 2022, but it has also constrained national autonomy, prompting withdrawals such as the United Kingdom's Brexit referendum on June 23, 2016, where 51.9% voted to exit partly to reclaim control over borders, laws, and budgets. Critics argue this delegation creates a democratic deficit, as unelected EU bodies like the Commission initiate legislation, while member states bear enforcement costs without full recourse, leading to uneven sovereignty erosion—stronger in smaller states reliant on EU funds.^[92]^[97] Other supranational experiments, such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) with binding trade protocols since 1975, demonstrate similar dynamics but on a shallower scale, where enforcement often falters due to weaker institutional independence.^[91] Ultimately, pooled sovereignty remains reversible in principle, as evidenced by Article 50 of the EU Treaty allowing exit, yet the process incurs economic costs—UK GDP contracted by an estimated 2-5% post-Brexit—and political frictions, underscoring that while pooling mitigates collective action problems like policy gridlock, it risks entrenching supranational priorities over national interests, particularly in crises such as the 2015 migrant influx where EU quotas clashed with member vetoes.^[98]^[99] This arrangement preserves core attributes of statehood, like territorial control and treaty-making, but subordinates them in pooled domains, fueling debates on whether enhanced collective capacity truly amplifies or dilutes individual sovereignty.^[100]

Non-State Threats: Terrorism, Cyber, and Migration

Non-state actors and phenomena, including terrorist organizations, cybercriminals, and mass migratory flows, undermine sovereign states' core attributes of territorial integrity, monopoly on violence, and control over population movement. These threats operate transnationally, exploiting gaps in state capacity and international cooperation, often forcing governments to prioritize security over autonomy or to seek external assistance that dilutes independent decision-making. Empirical evidence from recent decades illustrates how such challenges erode the practical exercise of sovereignty, even if formal recognition persists.^[101] Terrorist groups directly contest state sovereignty by seizing territory, imposing parallel governance, and conducting operations that evade national borders. The Islamic State (ISIS), for instance, at its peak in 2015 controlled approximately 88,000 square kilometers across Iraq and Syria, encompassing a population of around 10 million and generating revenues exceeding $1 billion annually through oil sales, taxation, and extortion. This territorial hold challenged the sovereignty of Iraq and Syria by establishing quasi-state institutions, including courts and administrative systems, which supplanted central authority in affected regions. The subsequent international military coalition, involving over 80 countries, restored nominal control by 2019 but highlighted states' reliance on foreign intervention, temporarily suspending affected governments' exclusive right to manage internal threats. Persistent low-level insurgencies by ISIS affiliates, such as in Africa's Sahel region, continue to strain host states' capacities, with groups like JNIM controlling rural areas and disrupting governance.^[102]^[103]^[104] Cyber threats further erode sovereignty by penetrating digital infrastructures that underpin state functions, often without physical intrusion, complicating attribution and retaliation. The 2020 SolarWinds supply-chain attack, attributed to Russia's SVR, compromised Orion software updates distributed to 18,000 organizations, including nine U.S. federal agencies such as the Departments of Treasury, Commerce, and Homeland Security, enabling prolonged access to sensitive networks for espionage and potential disruption. This breach violated principles of sovereignty under international law, as it involved unauthorized interference in state systems without consent, yet the diffuse nature of cyber operations—blending state and non-state actors—limited unilateral responses and prompted U.S. reliance on private-sector remediation and allied intelligence sharing. Globally, ransomware attacks by non-state groups like Conti and LockBit have paralyzed critical infrastructure, such as the 2021 Colonial Pipeline shutdown in the U.S., which halted fuel distribution across the East Coast and exposed vulnerabilities in privatized systems beyond direct state control. Such incidents compel states to invest in defensive alliances or regulatory frameworks that constrain domestic autonomy.^[105]^[106]^[107] Uncontrolled migration poses sovereignty challenges by overwhelming border enforcement and altering population composition without governmental consent, straining resources and social cohesion. In the European Union, the 2015 migrant crisis saw 1.3 million asylum applications, primarily from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, leading to temporary suspensions of the Dublin Regulation and Schengen Area free movement, as states like Germany admitted over 1 million arrivals amid policy gridlock. This influx pressured national budgets—Germany's integration costs exceeded €20 billion annually by 2016—and contributed to political fragmentation, with border states like Greece and Italy bearing disproportionate burdens that questioned uniform EU sovereignty. In the United States, U.S. Customs and Border Protection recorded over 2.4 million encounters at the southwest border in fiscal year 2023, the highest on record, facilitating unauthorized entries that bypassed vetting and exacerbated fiscal strains estimated at $150 billion annually in public services. Globally, UNHCR data indicate 123.2 million forcibly displaced persons by the end of 2024, many seeking irregular entry, which tests states' ability to enforce territorial exclusivity and maintain demographic stability. These flows often correlate with elevated security risks, including terrorism infiltration, as evidenced by instances of ISIS operatives posing as migrants during the EU crisis.^[108]^[109]^[110]^[111]

Extinction and Dissolution

Causes of State Failure and Dissolution

State failure occurs when a sovereign state's central government loses its monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its territory, becoming unable to provide basic public goods such as security, law and order, and essential services to its population.^[112] This erosion often precedes dissolution, where the state fragments into smaller entities, is annexed, or ceases to function as a cohesive political unit. Empirical analyses identify internal factors as primary drivers, with governments convulsed by violence or mismanagement failing to maintain authority.^[113] External shocks, such as invasions, exacerbate but rarely initiate collapse without preexisting domestic vulnerabilities.^[114] Poor governance and institutional decay rank among the most direct causes, as leaders prioritize personal enrichment over effective administration, leading to predatory corruption that hollows out bureaucratic capacity. In such cases, states neglect taxation enforcement, allowing elites to evade contributions while public institutions atrophy, as observed in historical patterns of mounting inequality and power concentration.^[115] Factionalist politics and weak rule of law further enable rent-seeking behaviors, where elites appropriate resources inefficiently, stifling economic development and eroding public trust.^[116] Political transitions, such as abrupt shifts from authoritarianism without institutional safeguards, compound this by inviting power vacuums and elite infighting.^[117] Economic underdevelopment and resource mismanagement propel failure by undermining the state's fiscal base, with extreme poverty and declining government revenues preventing investment in security and infrastructure. States reliant on external aid or single commodities often spiral into collapse when aid dries up or prices fluctuate, as revenues fail to cover core functions like defense.^[117] Rapid population growth in low-capacity environments strains resources, accelerating brain drain and reducing human capital available for governance.^[118] These dynamics foster a vicious cycle where inability to deliver economic stability invites unrest, further depleting state resources. Internal conflicts, including civil wars and ethnic violence, directly precipitate failure by fragmenting territorial control and overwhelming state security apparatus. Political violence arises from societal divisions or elite manipulations, causing governments to lose authority over peripheral regions.^[116] In low-resilience systems, such conflicts trigger cascading effects like famine and politicides, simplifying political structures through devolution.^[119] Structural societal factors, including demographic pressures and factionalism, enable these breakdowns, distinct from mere exogenous events like droughts, which empirical reviews find insufficient without internal institutional frailties.^[120] Dissolution often follows prolonged failure when secessionist movements exploit central weakness, driven by economic disparities or cultural grievances that render unity untenable. Legal and theoretical frameworks highlight how uneven resource distribution incentivizes peripheral regions to break away, as central governments forfeit legitimacy by failing to equitably manage revenues.^[121] Sovereign debt defaults can accelerate this, as creditors impose conditions eroding autonomy, though defaults alone rarely cause full breakup without concurrent governance collapse.^[122] Ultimately, dissolution reflects a terminal loss of indivisible sovereign authority, where the state dissolves into competing factions absent a unifying coercive power.^[123]

Historical and Contemporary Examples

The dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991, marked the abrupt end of a superpower that had endured for 69 years, fragmenting into 15 independent republics amid severe economic decline, Gorbachev's perestroika reforms exacerbating shortages, and rising ethnic nationalisms in republics like the Baltics and Ukraine. A failed hardliner coup in August 1991 weakened central authority, enabling Boris Yeltsin to consolidate power in Russia and facilitate the Belavezha Accords on December 8, 1991, where Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus declared the USSR defunct.^[124]^[125] Yugoslavia's disintegration in the 1990s exemplifies violent state failure driven by ethnic divisions and post-communist power vacuums, with Slovenia declaring sovereignty in 1990 and both Slovenia and Croatia seceding on June 25, 1991, prompting Yugoslav People's Army interventions that escalated into wars killing over 140,000 by 1999. Economic hyperinflation exceeding 2,500% annually in 1989-1990 eroded federal cohesion, while Slobodan Milošević's Serbian centralism alienated other republics, leading to Bosnia's 1992 independence and NATO's 1999 bombing campaign against Serbia, culminating in Kosovo's de facto separation.^[126]^[127] Earlier precedents include the Austro-Hungarian Empire's collapse in 1918 following military defeat in World War I, which partitioned its multi-ethnic territories into successor states like Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia under the Treaty of Saint-Germain and Treaty of Trianon, reflecting irreconcilable national aspirations suppressed under Habsburg rule. The Ottoman Empire similarly dissolved by 1923 after Allied occupation post-World War I, with the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres and subsequent Turkish War of Independence yielding modern Turkey and mandates over Arab provinces, underscoring how imperial overextension and wartime losses precipitate sovereign extinction.^[128] In contemporary cases, full dissolution remains rare due to international recognition norms under the UN Charter, but functional state failure persists in Somalia, where the central government collapsed in January 1991 amid clan warfare after Siad Barre's ouster, yielding fragmented control by warlords, Islamists, and pirates, with no unified authority over Mogadishu until partial stabilization via African Union forces in 2011. Libya exemplifies post-intervention erosion since Muammar Gaddafi's 2011 overthrow, splintering into rival governments—the UN-recognized Government of National Unity in Tripoli and the Libyan National Army in the east—fueled by militia competition and oil revenue disputes, resulting in over 500,000 displacements by 2020. Yemen's sovereignty has frayed since the 2014 Houthi takeover of Sana'a, igniting civil war that displaced 4.5 million and halved GDP by 2021, with Saudi-led coalitions failing to restore the internationally recognized government amid Iranian-backed insurgencies and AQAP exploitation of ungoverned spaces.^[129]^[130]

Contemporary Trends and Debates

Proliferation and Current Number of States (195 as of 2025)

The proliferation of sovereign states accelerated markedly in the 20th century, driven primarily by the decline of European colonial empires and the principle of self-determination enshrined in international law after World War I, though its widespread application occurred post-World War II. In 1945, the United Nations Charter established a framework favoring territorial integrity alongside emerging independence norms, with the UN initially comprising 51 member states, mostly pre-existing entities from Europe, the Americas, and a few from Asia and Africa. Decolonization waves, particularly in Africa and Asia during the 1950s and 1960s, resulted in over 50 new states gaining independence, such as Ghana in 1957 and numerous former French and British colonies by 1962, elevating the global count beyond 100 by the late 1960s.^[131] This expansion reflected causal pressures from nationalist movements, weakened imperial control after global conflicts, and superpower rivalries during the Cold War that incentivized decolonization to secure alliances.^[132] The end of the Cold War further intensified state formation through the peaceful dissolution of multi-ethnic federations. The Soviet Union's breakup in December 1991 produced 15 independent republics, including Russia, Ukraine, and the Baltic states, while Yugoslavia fragmented into five states (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and later Montenegro and Serbia) amid ethnic conflicts from 1991 to 2006, and Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. These events added approximately 20-25 new sovereign entities in the early 1990s, contrasting with earlier consolidations like the unification of Germany in 1990. South Sudan became the 193rd UN member state on July 14, 2011, following a referendum on secession from Sudan, marking the most recent UN admission as of 2025.^[133] No further UN memberships have occurred since, reflecting stabilized borders and reluctance to endorse further secessions amid ongoing disputes like those in Catalonia or Kurdistan.^[134] As of October 2025, 195 sovereign states exist under conventional international counts, comprising the 193 UN member states, the Holy See (Vatican City) as a non-member observer with full diplomatic sovereignty, and Taiwan (Republic of China) as a de facto independent entity maintaining separate government, military, and economy despite lacking UN recognition due to the People's Republic of China's opposition.^[131] ^[135] This tally excludes partially recognized entities like Kosovo (declared independent in 2008 but not universally acknowledged) and Abkhazia, prioritizing effective control, diplomatic relations, and population thresholds over universal consensus.^[136] The figure underscores a net increase from fewer than 70 independent states in 1914 to the current total, attributable to empirical trends in territorial fragmentation rather than supranational consolidation, though debates persist on whether micro-states like Nauru (population ~10,000) truly embody full sovereignty.^[137]

Resurgence of Nationalist Sovereignty

The resurgence of nationalist sovereignty emerged prominently in the mid-2010s as a reaction to perceived encroachments by supranational entities on national decision-making, particularly in immigration, trade, and regulatory policies. Empirical data from electorates showed widespread dissatisfaction with outcomes like the 2015 European migration surge, which saw over 1 million arrivals into the EU, straining public resources and fueling demands for border control.^[138] In parallel, post-2008 economic stagnation highlighted trade deals' role in manufacturing job losses—U.S. data indicated 2-2.4 million jobs displaced by China trade liberalization from 1999-2011—prompting prioritization of domestic interests over multilateral commitments.^[139] This shift manifested in electoral victories for leaders rejecting pooled sovereignty models, contrasting with earlier post-Cold War assumptions of inevitable global integration. The United Kingdom's Brexit referendum on June 23, 2016, exemplified this trend, with 17.4 million voters (51.9% of turnout) endorsing withdrawal from the EU to restore full parliamentary sovereignty over laws and borders, culminating in formal exit on January 31, 2020.^[140] Proponents argued it reversed the transfer of competencies to Brussels, enabling independent trade pacts, though EU-aligned sources emphasized economic disruptions like a 4-5% GDP hit by 2023.^[141] Similarly, in the U.S., Donald Trump's "America First" doctrine, articulated in his 2017 inaugural address, withdrew from agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Paris Accord to safeguard economic sovereignty, with his November 5, 2024, re-election—securing 312 electoral votes—reinforcing policies against multilateral constraints.^[142] ^[143] Across Europe, nationalist governments proliferated, with Italy's Giorgia Meloni assuming the premiership on October 22, 2022, after her Brothers of Italy party won 26% of the vote, advocating sovereignty in migration and EU relations by blocking federalist overreach while upholding NATO commitments.^[144] Hungary's Viktor Orbán, in power since 2010, has vetoed EU sanctions on Russia and opposed Ukraine's accession, citing threats to Hungarian minorities and energy independence, actions that withheld €20 billion in EU funds by 2023 pending rule-of-law compliance.^[145] By mid-2025, nationalist or right-populist parties influenced governments in at least seven EU states, including Slovakia and the Netherlands, often conditioning support on repatriation policies and fiscal autonomy.^[146] These developments underscore causal links between sovereignty assertions and voter responses to uncontrolled migration—EU data showed net migration exceeding 1 million annually pre-2016—and trade asymmetries, despite critiques from institutions exhibiting systemic biases toward integration narratives.^[147]

Emerging Pressures: Climate Change and Technological Disruption

Rising sea levels, driven by anthropogenic climate change, pose existential risks to the territorial integrity of small island developing states. Nations such as Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the Maldives, with average elevations below 2 meters above sea level, face projections of substantial land loss; for instance, Kiribati's atolls could see up to 80% inundation under high-emission scenarios by 2100, potentially rendering them uninhabitable and challenging the Montevideo Convention's requirement for defined territory as a criterion of statehood.^[148]^[149] Such losses could force mass relocation, with Tuvalu exploring "digital statehood" concepts to preserve sovereignty without physical land, though international law lacks precedents for deterritorialized entities.^[150] These pressures not only erode physical control but also strain diplomatic relations, as affected states demand compensation from high-emission nations under frameworks like the UNFCCC, highlighting causal links between distant emissions and proximate sovereignty erosion. In polar regions, Arctic ice melt—accelerating at rates exceeding global averages, with summer sea ice extent declining by about 13% per decade since 1979—unlocks navigable routes and hydrocarbon reserves estimated at 13% of undiscovered global oil and 30% of gas.^[151] This has intensified overlapping territorial claims: Russia, controlling nearly half the Arctic coastline, planted a flag on the seabed in 2007 and submitted extended continental shelf claims to the UN in 2015 and 2021, while Canada plans revisions by 2023 and Denmark asserted rights over the Lomonosov Ridge in 2014.^[152]^[153] Resulting militarization, including Russia's buildup of 475 new Arctic facilities since 2014, underscores how climate-induced accessibility amplifies resource competition, potentially destabilizing state boundaries without formal conflict.^[154] Technological disruptions, especially from artificial intelligence and cyber capabilities, undermine states' internal control and external autonomy by eroding information monopolies and defensive perimeters. AI-augmented cyberattacks, capable of automating reconnaissance and exploitation at scale, are forecasted to significantly elevate threats to critical infrastructure through 2027, as adversaries leverage generative models for phishing and malware generation.^[155] Incidents like the 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack demonstrate how non-state or state-sponsored actors can paralyze economies, compelling governments to cede operational authority to private firms for resilience, thus diluting sovereign command.^[156] Data flows across borders challenge traditional sovereignty, as dominant U.S. and Chinese tech providers control vast citizen datasets, prompting "digital sovereignty" initiatives. By 2025, over 100 countries have enacted data localization laws, such as the EU's GDPR and India's PDP, to restrict extraterritorial processing, yet compliance gaps persist due to hyperscalers' foreign legal obligations, like U.S. CLOUD Act extraterritoriality.^[157]^[158] Sovereign AI pursuits, exemplified by France's €109 billion investment in domestic models and China's restrictions on foreign chips, aim to reclaim control over algorithmic decision-making in security and economy, but risk fragmentation and dependency on proprietary hardware.^[159]^[160] These dynamics reveal causal vulnerabilities: states' reliance on global tech ecosystems exposes them to supply chain coercion, as in Huawei bans, forcing trade-offs between innovation and autonomy.^[161]

References

[1]
Formation and Recognition of States Under International Law - Justia
Jun 10, 2025 · A sovereign state must have a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and the capacity to conduct international ...
[2]
Statehood (A Concept of International Law) - Colombo & Hurd, PL
Sovereignty is a concept of international law in which a sovereign state exercises independent control over a particular geographic area.
[3]
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States
The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law. Article 3. The political existence of the state is independent of recognition ...
[4]
Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American)
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and ...
[5]
International law - States, Sovereignty, Treaties | Britannica
Oct 11, 2025 · The sovereignty of a state is confined to a defined piece of territory, which is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and is ...
[6]
Sovereignty - Oxford Public International Law
Provided States have supreme authority within their territory, the plenitude of internal jurisdiction, their immunity from other States' own jurisdiction and ...
[7]
20th WCP: A Puzzle of Sovereignity
As internal sovereignty is a matter of supremacy, external sovereignty is a matter of independence. External sovereignty is independence, or freedom from ...
[8]
Sovereignty | Beyond Intractability
(Internal sovereignty means supreme authority within one's territory, while external sovereignty relates to the recognition on the part of all states that each ...
[9]
The Reflexive Relationship between Internal and External Sovereignty
May 21, 2014 · Firstly, sovereignty describes a legal and political status; secondly, it refers to a factual condition; and thirdly, sovereignty entails a ...
[10]
Greek City-States - National Geographic Education
May 30, 2025 · A city-state, or polis, was the community structure of ancient Greece. Each city-state was organized with an urban center and the surrounding countryside.
[11]
The Greeks - <b>Why did Greece develop city-states? - PBS
One major reason why ancient Greece was dominated by small city-states and independent towns, rather than by one all-powerful king, is its geography.Missing: sovereignty | Show results with:sovereignty
[12]
2.2 Imperium as power: Augustus and the beginning of the empire
The basic meaning of the Latin term imperium was 'command' and the term included the authority that lay behind the mandate. During the long period in which Rome ...
[13]
The Meaning of imperium in the Last Century BC and the First AD
At the end of the Republic, imperium meant 'power', primarily the power of an individual magistrate or pro-magistrate, but also that of the Roman people. This ...
[14]
The Feudal System - Students of History
As higher-ranking people, knights often presided over an entire manor, while vassals presided only over the land needed to support their families.
[15]
The feudal system - William's control of England - KS3 History - BBC
The feudal system shows the hierarchy. In the feudal system, the king was at the top and peasants were at the bottom. of different groups of people in medieval ...
[16]
Divine Right Theory of Origin of State - Legalosphere
Jul 10, 2025 · The Divine Right Theory finds its roots buried deep in antiquity. Early civilizations like Egypt and Mesopotamia portrayed their kings as gods ...Historical Background · Principles of the Divine Right... · The Divine Right in Asian...
[17]
A History of the 'Divine Right of Kings' Doctrine - Brewminate
Oct 4, 2020 · The theory came to the fore in England under the reign of King James I (1603–25). King Louis XIV of France (1643–1715), though Catholic, ...
[18]
Empire and the Nation-State Before the 18th Century - UCI Sites
Oct 28, 2016 · Hobbes was able to create his theory on political authority because of this separation, and his theory still has standing today because of ...
[19]
Hobbes — Talking Politics
There's a double life for the sovereign because to be a sovereign in Hobbes' state is both to have extraordinary power and also to have ordinary power.
[20]
Gunpowder: Revolutionizing Warfare In The Middle Ages
Jan 8, 2023 · This concentration of firepower in royal hands helped forge the first centralised states of Europe. Monarchs such as Charles VII of France ...
[21]
Europe's Big Bang: How Gunpowder Transformed the Medieval World
Nov 10, 2021 · Over the century to come, gunpowder began to leave its mark on the conduct of war in the West; access to superior siege artillery would make the ...
[22]
Different Paths to the Modern State in Europe: The Interaction ...
Jul 17, 2013 · This study reviews the arguments concerning the three determinants that have received most attention, namely warfare, economic structure, and political regime.
[23]
Charles VII's approach towards consolidating power - Fiveable
Charles established a more organized and professional standing army, allowing him to reduce the military influence of powerful nobles and establish greater ...
[24]
Ferdinand and Isabella: The Marriage That Unified Spain
May 31, 2022 · The Kingdom of Spain charts its origin in the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella in 1469. Their union, and their rule, triggered a war that forged the modern ...
[25]
Ferdinand of Aragon marries Isabella of Castile | October 19, 1469
On October 19, 1469, Ferdinand of Aragon marries Isabella of Castile in Valladolid, thus beginning a cooperative reign that would unite all the dominions of ...Also On This Day In History · Related Articles · Citation InformationMissing: unification | Show results with:unification
[26]
Henry VII of England - (AP European History) - Fiveable
His rule marked the beginning of a new era in English history characterized by the consolidation of power, the establishment of a centralized monarchy, and ...
[27]
How Henry VII Used English Coinage to Project Power - History Hit
Jul 1, 2024 · Indeed Henry VII's reign was characterised by his success at restoring the power and stability of the English monarchy after the civil war, as ...
[28]
Rise of European states - Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable
The rise of centralized states began in the late 15th century with strong monarchies in France, Spain, and England consolidating power over feudal lords.
[29]
The Modern State - Sage Publishing
The competition among absolutist states to preserve external sovereignty reduced their number from about five hundred sovereign entities in Europe in. 1500 to ...
[30]
The Peace of Westphalia | In Custodia Legis
Oct 24, 2017 · On October 24, 1648, the Peace of Westphalia formally ended the Thirty Years' War in Europe. The Peace of Westphalia consists of two different documents.
[31]
Peace of Westphalia | Research Starters - EBSCO
Because of their close interrelationship, the major provisions of the Treaties of Münster and Osnabrück, both signed on October 24, 1648, as well as a separate ...
[32]
The Peace of Westphalia and Sovereignty | Western Civilization
It officially ended the religious struggle between the two groups and made the legal division of Christendom permanent within the Holy Roman Empire.
[33]
The Peace Treaty of Westphalia (1648) and Its Consequences for ...
The 1648 Treaty of Westphalia established three focal principles in regard to IR: A sovereignty of the states, according to the standard of Rex est imperator ...
[34]
4.3 The Peace of Westphalia and Its Consequences - Fiveable
The treaties introduced the concept of territorial sovereignty, weakening the Holy Roman Empire and strengthening France and Sweden. This new system of ...
[35]
Westphalia, Peace of (1648) - Oxford Public International Law
The treaties were ratified by the Emperor, France, and Sweden in November 1648 and by the German Estates (Reich–sstände) between November 1648 and January 1649.<|control11|><|separator|>
[36]
https://diplomacy.edu/blog/whats-all-the-fuss-about-the-westphalia-settlement/
[37]
Defining Sovereignty - Indo-Pacific Defense FORUM
Mar 13, 2023 · Sovereignty rests on the principles of territoriality and noninterference in the domestic affairs of states, according to the Westphalian definition.<|separator|>
[38]
The recognitive practices of declaring and constituting statehood
Mar 21, 2013 · According to declaratory theory, the criteria of statehood are factual and objective. To this extent, acts of recognition declare something that ...
[39]
8 Theories of Recognition - Oxford Academic
Aug 22, 2024 · [The declaratory theory] maintains that recognition is merely an acceptance by states of an already existing situation. A new state will acquire ...2. The Constitutive View · 2.2 Objections To The... · 3. The Declaratory View
[40]
The Construction of States in International Politics
The declaratory theory, which represents the majority view among international lawyers and statesmen alike, holds that upon the satisfaction of these criteria, ...
[41]
https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004386242/BP000045.xml
[42]
6. Recognition of states and governments - Law Trove
The declaratory theory of recognition is opposed to the constitutive view, according to which the political act of recognition is a precondition of the ...
[43]
Declaratory and Constitutive Theories of State Recognition
In the declaratory theory of statehood, an entity becomes a state as soon as it meets the minimal criteria for statehood.
[44]
https://brill.com/display/book/9789004538153/BP000016.xml
[45]
[PDF] Political Realities of Recognition of States Contrary to the Bindings ...
The theories surrounding the concept of recognition of States focus on either its constitutive (the creator of the legal existence of the State) or declaratory ...
[46]
[PDF] Constructing States - Journal of Public and International Affairs
Declaratory theory submits potential states to an empirical test that equates statehood with possession of defined territory, permanent population, effective ...
[47]
[PDF] JAMES CRAWFORD - The British Academy
Sep 30, 2022 · The declaratory theory (or at least a declaratory theory that can accommodate a role for recognition) is favoured then with all its flaws. And ...
[48]
CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES
[Signatories and Ratifications] [text in Spanish]. CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES. a-4001.jpg (171060 bytes).
[49]
Montevideo - UNTC
Registration Number, 3802. Title, Convention on Rights and Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States.
[50]
https://brill.com/display/book/9789004538153/BP000014.xml?language=en
[51]
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and ...
[52]
[PDF] international law and the criteria for statehood - http
Crawford, „The Criteria for Statehood in International Law‟, British Yearbook of. International Law, (Vol. 48) 1977, p. 93-182. Crawford 2006. J. Crawford ...
[53]
https://hlr.wordpress.hull.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Hull-Law-Review-Vol-1-2023-24-Archana-Challenges-facing-the-Montevideo-Convention.pdf
[54]
Recognition - Oxford Public International Law
The first and generally accepted requirement for the recognition of a government is that this government be in control of the territory and the administration ...
[55]
[PDF] RECOGNITION OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
To recognize a state means declaring it fulfills statehood conditions, a duty for existing states, and creates international rights and duties.
[56]
State Recognition And Succession In International Law
Dec 8, 2023 · State recognition is the legal process of a government authority declaring that another community meets the conditions of statehood set out in ...
[57]
Recognition and Derecognition of States
Jul 16, 2025 · In this sense, state recognition has become a core criterion for determining statehood, sovereignty, subjectivity in international law, and ...
[58]
Rules of recognition? Explaining diplomatic representation since the ...
May 15, 2022 · The aim of this article is to explore the establishment of diplomatic representation as a measure of de facto recognition by other state ...
[59]
[PDF] The Diplomacy of State Recognition: Discourse, Performance and ...
In exploring the everyday politics of becoming a sovereign state, this paper explores Kosovo's diplomatic approach to becoming a sovereign state by obtaining ...
[60]
De facto and De jure Recognition - Unacademy
De facto recognition is provisional. It is the primary step to de jure recognition, which is fully recognised. When a regime changes, it is an existing State ...
[61]
INTERNATIONAL LAW: DE FACTO AND DE JURE AS MODES OF ...
De Facto is kind of practical recognition which is less official way to recognise a state or government. Also known as primary recognition before giving de jure ...
[62]
Recognition of States under International Law - LawBhoomi
Jun 8, 2021 · For recognition as a State, it must enter into relations with the other existing States. The elements, theories, and processes are reflected in ...Introduction · Modes of Recognition of State... · The distinction between De...
[63]
[PDF] The recognition of states and governments under international law
De facto recognition has a comparatively less binding effect, because the legal relationship – though effectively in existence – is only provisional.
[64]
Countries with Limited or no Recognition - Touriosity Travelmag
Sep 13, 2024 · The Republic of Kosovo is a partially recognized state in Europe. It became a selfdeclared nation in 1991 by breaking out of the erstwhile ...<|separator|>
[65]
Unrecognized Countries 2025 - World Population Review
The first, and perhaps most significant, unrecognized country is Palestine. While Palestine is recognized by the majority of UN Member states, it is not ...Missing: partially | Show results with:partially
[66]
Phantom States: Unrecognized Countries in the World
Aug 13, 2025 · 1. Somaliland, Africa · 2. Transnistria, Moldova · 3. Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan · 4. Abkhazia, Georgia · 5. Northern Cyprus, Turkey.
[67]
Independent States in the World - United States Department of State
Mar 12, 2025 · Afghanistan *+, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, AF ; Albania *+, Republic of Albania, AL ; Algeria *+, People's Democratic Republic of Algeria ...
[68]
[PDF] Functional Sovereignty in Contested Territories - University of Glasgow
Sep 17, 2025 · Below, we first propose a conceptual definition for func- tional sovereignty and discuss how it relates to statehood, rebel governance, and ...
[69]
Contested States in World Politics - ResearchGate
It includes case studies on the Eurasian Quartet, Kosovo, Somaliland, Palestine, Northern Cyprus, Western Sahara and Taiwan.
[70]
Countries that Recognize Taiwan 2025 - World Population Review
Taiwan's international recognition is limited by China's One-China policy and historical complexities, with only 13 UN states and Vatican City acknowledging it ...The Historical Reason Taiwan... · How China Prevents Taiwan...
[71]
Taiwan has 12 diplomatic partners left. Who'll drop it next?
Jun 12, 2025 · Since 2016, Taiwan has lost the recognition of 10 countries to China; just 12 remain. The question is not whether that number will fall again, ...
[72]
Countries that Recognize Kosovo 2025 - World Population Review
As of July 2022, Kosovo has been recognized as an independent state at one time or another by a total of 119 nations. However, a handful of those recognitions ...
[73]
Kosovo is now recognized by 119 countries. • New recognitions in ...
Apr 27, 2025 · Kosovo is now recognized by 119 countries. New recognitions in 2025: Kenya recognized Kosovo on March 26, 2025. Sudan recognized Kosovo on April 12, 2025.
[74]
Which are the 150+ countries that have recognised Palestine as of ...
Sep 23, 2025 · Together with Mexico, these countries marked 11 new recognitions in 2025 and the 20th since Israel's war on Gaza began in October 2023, ...
[75]
France, UK, Canada among countries that now recognize Palestine
Over the last few days, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, France and others recognized Palestine as a sovereign state.
[76]
Somaliland: The Horn of Africa's Breakaway State
No foreign government recognizes its sovereignty, but many effectively acknowledge Somaliland as separate from Somalia. It has held several, peaceful democratic ...
[77]
https://opiniojuris.org/2025/09/16/schrodingers-sovereign-statehood-consent-and-the-fictions-of-sovereign-equality/
[78]
[PDF] The Mystery of the State and Sovereignty in International Law
Apr 23, 2020 · In contemporary international law, continuity and identity of states basically mean that a state continues its existence (preserves its identity) ...<|separator|>
[79]
3.2: The Modern State and Regime Types - Social Sci LibreTexts
Jul 3, 2025 · A political regime is the set of rules that structures access to political power within a state, which is usually institutionalized through a ...
[80]
Dependencies And Territories Of The World
May 18, 2021 · A dependency or dependent territory is a territory that is not fully independent or sovereign and also not fully part of an independent country.
[81]
Non-Self-Governing Territories | The United Nations and ...
May 9, 2024 · Non-Self-Governing Territories ; EUROPE ; Gibraltar. Since 1946. United Kingdom ; PACIFIC ; American Samoa. Since 1946. United States.List of former Trust and Non... · Western Sahara · Gibraltar · New Caledonia
[82]
Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty - State Department
Jan 17, 2024 · Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty ; Norfolk Island, Territory of. Norfolk Island, Australia ; Northern Mariana Islands, Commonwealth
[83]
What Is Supranational? Definition, Criticism, and Example
A supranational organization is a multinational union or association in which member countries cede authority and sovereignty on at least some internal matters ...
[84]
[PDF] Key Statistics and Trends in International Trade 2023 - UNCTAD
The ratio of global exports to global output is expected to decline by about 1.5 percentage points from the all-time record 30.5 per cent in 2022.
[85]
International Financial Integration, Sovereignty, and Constraints on ...
Mar 1, 2006 · International financial integration restricts the capacity of national authorities to use fiscal, financial, and monetary policies to influence ...Ii. Sovereignty And Public... · Iii. Deficit Finance And... · Vi. Nominal Debt...
[86]
Understanding the WTO - principles of the trading system - WTO
The barriers concerned include customs duties (or tariffs) and measures such as import bans or quotas that restrict quantities selectively. From time to time ...
[87]
U.S. Trade Policy: Going it Alone vs. Abiding by the WTO | Econofact
Jun 15, 2018 · The WTO agreement prohibits discrimination against and among imported products, requiring that imports be accorded “national treatment” and “ ...
[88]
Industrial Policy: Trade Policy and World Trade Organization ...
Mar 11, 2024 · WTO rules prohibit export subsidies, including corporate tax provisions that incentivize exports. A few remaining exceptions are being phased ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[89]
[PDF] The impact of globalization on state sovereignty
Aug 4, 2024 · The aim of this study has been to demonstrate that economic globalization undermines state sovereignty, or the power ... empirical ...
[90]
The Impact of Globalization on State Sovereignty - ResearchGate
Aug 12, 2024 · Globalization has profoundly impacted the traditional concept of state sovereignty, reshaping the ways in which states exercise control over ...
[91]
International and Supranational Organizations - AP Comp ... - Fiveable
Supranational organizations (EU, ECOWAS, WTO) exercise pooled sovereignty and have legal powers that can bind member states—they can set rules, enforce ...
[92]
The European Union: The World's Biggest Sovereignty Experiment
Feb 14, 2023 · The EU is a collection of European countries that have pooled their sovereignty to a great extent and handed certain powers over to a supranational authority.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[93]
Distinctions Matter: Supranational vs. Intergovernmental Rules of the ...
Mar 26, 2019 · Some defence outcomes are based on supranational decision-making, while others are decided intergovernmentally.
[94]
Supranational Vs International
Feb 10, 2015 · Supra-national, instead, means over the nations: a supranational organization is over and beyond the authority of states. It expresses its own will.
[95]
https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1067
[96]
Maastricht Treaty - European Parliament
The Treaty on European Union was signed in Maastricht in the presence of the President of the European Parliament, Egon Klepsch.
[97]
[PDF] Brexit's Wake-Up Call To The EU: Selectively Sharing Sovereignty Is ...
2) The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 established the concept of EU citizenship. Significantly, a person cannot be an EU citizen without being a national of a ...
[98]
Pooled sovereignty - Oxford Reference
The main reason why states choose to pool sovereignty is to reduce the likelihood of gridlock in policy areas where—on average—states expect to be better off by ...
[99]
The sovereignty illusion: freedom to set one's own rules has a high ...
Dec 23, 2020 · The pooling of sovereignty is, under this approach, perhaps a 'step too far', but the existence of large trade flows between the UK and the EU ...
[100]
Conflicts of sovereignty in contemporary Europe: a framework of ...
This paper develops a conceptual framework that distinguishes between foundational, institutional and territorial conflicts of sovereignty.Missing: persists despite
[101]
[PDF] Non-State Actors Playing Greater Roles in Governance ... - DNI.gov
May 18, 2024 · They include organized criminal enterprises such as illicit drug cartels and human smuggling rings, violent extremist or terrorist organizations ...
[102]
The Islamic State and Its Affiliates - Congress.gov
Sep 8, 2025 · The Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS, ISIL, or Da'esh) is a transnational Sunni Islamist insurgent and terrorist group. At its 2015 height, ...
[103]
[PDF] A REVIEW OF ISIS IN SYRIA 2016 - 2019 | The Carter Center
Since the height of the violent extremist armed group Islamic State in Iraq and. Syria's (ISIS) territorial control in 2014, when it influenced an area some ...Missing: impact sovereignty
[104]
Country Reports on Terrorism 2019 - State Department
Southeast Asian governments remained concerned about foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) returning from Iraq or Syria and using their operational skills, ...
[105]
SolarWinds Cyberattack Demands Significant Federal and Private ...
Apr 22, 2021 · The cybersecurity breach of SolarWinds' software is one of the most widespread and sophisticated hacking campaigns ever conducted against the federal ...
[106]
Illegal: The SolarWinds Hack under International Law
Dec 7, 2022 · This article examines this cyber operation according to the relevant rules of international law – notably those on sovereignty, non-intervention, general due ...
[107]
Understanding and Responding to the SolarWinds Supply Chain ...
Mar 18, 2021 · The SolarWinds incident is the latest in a long line of malicious cyber activity that threatens the health and safety of the American people.
[108]
Number of Refugees to Europe Surges to Record 1.3 Million in 2015
Aug 2, 2016 · A record 1.3 million migrants applied for asylum in the 28 member states of the European Union, Norway and Switzerland in 2015.Refugee? Asylum Seeker?... · Europeans Disapprove Of How... · The Impact Of Asylum Seekers...
[109]
The Erosion of Border Control and Its Threat to National Sovereignty
Jun 3, 2022 · Washington's failure to control the country's southern border has longer-term implications: it erodes the principle of national sovereignty.Missing: empirical data
[110]
Global Trends report 2024 - UNHCR
At the end of 2024, 123.2 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events ...
[111]
Final FY23 Numbers Show Worst Year at America's Borders—Ever
Oct 26, 2023 · In FY23, CBP recorded more than 2.4 million encounters at the Southwest border and more than 3.2 million encounters nationwide.
[112]
[PDF] Failed States, Collapsed States, Weak States: Causes and Indicators
This book examines contemporary cases of nation-state collapse and fail- ure.1 It establishes clear criteria for distinguishing collapse and failure from.
[113]
[PDF] Improving Forecasts of State Failure - Gary King - Harvard University
State failure refers to the collapse of the authority of the central government to impose order, as in civil wars, revolutionary wars, genocides, politicides, ...
[114]
Full article: The Dimensions and Attributes of State Failure in Syria
Jan 19, 2023 · War is often a cause of state failure and is almost always a factor in collapse. When the state cannot repel external attacks, preserve regional ...
[115]
History shows that societies collapse when leaders undermine ...
Oct 16, 2020 · Mounting inequality, concentration of political power, evasion of taxation, hollowing out of bureaucratic institutions, diminishment of ...
[116]
[PDF] Conceptualising the Causes and Consequences of Failed States
Does political violence cause state failure? ... The literature on failed states has focused on the struggle to appropriate resources in underdeveloped economic ...
[117]
an inquiry into the causes of state collapse
Jun 9, 2020 · Other causal factors are political transition, extreme poverty, declining government resources or external aid, factionalist politics, ...
[118]
Failed state | Causes, Consequences & Solutions - Britannica
Sep 29, 2025 · The dynamics leading to and compounding state failure are many and varied, including civil war, ethnic violence or genocide, and predatory ...
[119]
Critical perspectives on historical collapse - PMC - NIH
With low resilience, cascading devolutionary feedbacks can then destabilize a system through famine, internal conflict, and political simplification, eventually ...
[120]
Political Collapse: Lessons From Fallen Empires - Popular Archeology
Sep 4, 2024 · We could not identify any exogenous causal factors for the collapses—such as drought, epidemic, or conquest by a more powerful foe (three of the ...
[121]
The economics of secession: a review of legal, theoretical, and ...
The aim of this paper is to present a review of the legal, theoretical, and empirical aspects of secessions from an economic perspective.
[122]
[PDF] State dissolution, sovereign debt and default
The reneging of a sovereign financial obligation to another state constitutes a sovereign default.
[123]
On the Indivisibility of Sovereignty - Stanford Humanities Center
In the absence of a determinate locus of sovereign authority, the state itself will lose its unity and dissolve into factions, divided along the lines of ...
[124]
The Collapse of the Soviet Union - Office of the Historian
On December 25, 1991, the Soviet hammer and sickle flag lowered for the last time over the Kremlin, thereafter replaced by the Russian tricolor. Earlier in the ...
[125]
The End of the Soviet Union 1991 | National Security Archive
Dec 21, 2021 · The August 1991 attempted coup by hardliners, which humiliated Gorbachev, discredited the state security organs, and made Boris Yeltsin a hero ...
[126]
The Breakup of Yugoslavia, 1990–1992 - Office of the Historian
Slovenia was the first to declare “sovereignty” in 1990, issuing a parliamentary declaration that Slovenian law took precedence over Yugoslav law. Croatia ...
[127]
The Conflicts | International Criminal Tribunal for the former ...
By 1991, the break-up of the country loomed with Slovenia and Croatia blaming Serbia of unjustly dominating Yugoslavia's government, military and finances.
[128]
The Crisis of the Sovereign State | The Heritage Foundation
Nov 19, 1999 · The fact that, after the French Revolution, the sovereign state became the only polity, as city-states, protectorates, principalities--all the ...Missing: dissolution | Show results with:dissolution
[129]
U.S. Foreign Assistance and Failed States - Brookings Institution
Colombia and Afghanistan are key examples. Right Focus; Insufficient Response. Despite the important focus on failed and failing states in the President's NSS, ...Missing: contemporary dissolution<|separator|>
[130]
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen - CSIS
Oct 25, 2019 · All five states have deep structural problems that make them “failed states” in many similar areas of governance, major social changes, and development.
[131]
How many countries are there in the world? (2025) - Total & List
There are 195 countries in the world today. This total comprises 193 countries that are member states of the United Nations and 2 countries that are non-member ...48 countries in Asia · 54 countries are in Africa · Countries in Northern America
[132]
Sovereign state - Our World in Data
For the years until 1919, Correlates of War considers a country a sovereign state if it has a population of at least 500,000 people, and is diplomatically ...
[133]
Member States | United Nations - UN.org.
Member States · Afghanistan · Albania · Algeria · Andorra · Angola · Antigua and Barbuda · Argentina · Armenia.
[134]
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1057158/number-lon-un-member-states-since-1920/
[135]
How many countries are there in 2025?
Dec 22, 2024 · There are 195 recognised countries in the world, according to the United Nations. 193 of these are member states of the UN, while two countries ...
[136]
Sovereign Nation 2025 - World Population Review
is claimed by Georgia · Artsakh — is claimed by Azerbaijan · China (the People's Republic of ...
[137]
What's Happening to the Number and Size of Nations?
Nov 9, 2015 · Since the end of the Second World War, the number of independent states has nearly tripled. In the last thirty years, over thirty new states ...Missing: proliferation | Show results with:proliferation
[138]
Why the far right is surging all over the world - Vox
Jul 17, 2024 · The reactionary right had risen to power in the United States, Hungary, Israel, India, Brazil, and Poland. Extreme-right western European ...
[139]
Trump's "America First" is America the Small - Brookings Institution
Wednesday's Wall Street Journal carried the first serious attempt by the Trump administration to articulate its foreign policy vision—what “America First” ...
[140]
Five key impacts of Brexit five years on - BBC
Jan 30, 2025 · Five years ago, on 31 January 2020, the UK left the European Union. On that day, Great Britain severed the political ties it had held for 47 ...
[141]
Sovereignty, economy, immigration: still the three pillars of the Brexit ...
Nov 8, 2023 · John Curtice explores whether sovereignty, the economy and immigration are still key to Leave voters' attitudes towards whether the UK should be in the EU.
[142]
Timeline: Trump's Foreign Policy Moments
In his inaugural address, President Donald Trump announces an “America First” approach to foreign policy and trade, centered on reducing U.S. trade deficits ...
[143]
Trump declares 'unprecedented mandate' after winning presidency ...
Nov 6, 2024 · Former President Trump declared the country had delivered him and Republicans an “unprecedented mandate” as he took a victory lap early Wednesday.Missing: sovereignty | Show results with:sovereignty
[144]
Giorgia Meloni's Strategic Balancing Act | GJIA
Feb 26, 2025 · Sovereignty has been Meloni's political mantra: the sovereignty of the Italian people, Italian territories, Italian goods, and Italian markets.
[145]
https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/viktor-orban-hungary-ukraine-peace-summit-eu-christianity-23-october-1956/
[146]
Right-Wing Parties in Europe Get a Boost from Recent Political ...
Jun 6, 2025 · Right-wing populists are now in government or supporting ruling coalitions in Belgium, Croatia, Finland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovakia, and Sweden.
[147]
The origins, characteristics and trends of neo-nationalism in the 21st ...
Dec 8, 2022 · There are more profound economic, political, social, cultural and psychological forces driving the rise of neo-nationalism. In Western countries ...
[148]
[PDF] Climate Change, Rising Seas, and the Loss of Island Nation ...
These changes will disproportionately impact small island and atoll states like Kiribati and the Maldives. Both states are vulnerable to climate change due to a ...
[149]
Climate, State, and Sovereignty: Self-Determination and Sea Level ...
Jun 1, 2021 · Climate change and sea-level rise are existential threats to low-lying island States, which face the looming submergence of their territory.
[150]
[PDF] Sea-level Rise and Deterritorialized Small Island States
Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Maldives are oft-cited examples of states facing the risk of having their territories destroyed by rising sea levels (e.g.. Barnett & ...
[151]
Chapter 15: Small Islands | Climate Change 2022: Impacts ...
Small islands are increasingly affected by increases in temperature, the growing impacts of tropical cyclones (TCs), storm surges, droughts, changing ...
[152]
What is behind Russia's interest in a warming Arctic? - Al Jazeera
Mar 28, 2022 · The last untapped area for shipping routes and exploitation is opening up and leading to new geopolitical tensions.
[153]
As the Arctic Melts, Nations Race to Own What's Left Behind
Jan 4, 2018 · Russia and Denmark have submitted new territorial claims in 2017, with Canada expected to follow, and it's up to the United Nations to determine ...
[154]
https://trendsresearch.org/insight/navigating-the-melting-north-climate-change-and-the-arctics-role-in-21st-century-geopolitics/
[155]
Impact of AI on cyber threat from now to 2027 - NCSC.GOV.UK
May 7, 2025 · It highlights the assessment of the most significant impacts on cyber threat from AI developments between now and 2027.
[156]
[PDF] Cybersecurity and National Sovereignty: Challenges in the Digital Age
Data breaches, cyber-attacks, and cyber warfare are real security threats to most countries, economies and political sovereignty. This paper focuses on the ...
[157]
Why Big Tech is threatened by a global push for data sovereignty
Jul 9, 2025 · Countries are forcing tech giants to store citizen data locally, challenging the standard business model of harvesting data abroad while keeping ...
[158]
Why Big Tech Can't Deliver True Data Sovereignty - Wire
Jun 19, 2025 · US surveillance laws override EU privacy rules, why Microsoft and other tech giants can't keep their promises on data sovereignty, ...
[159]
https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/ai-and-advanced-tech/sovereign-ai-how-states-and-institutions-have-to-take-back-their-digital-intelligence/
[160]
AI Sovereignty Makes Everyone Weaker—America Can Lead ...
Sep 4, 2025 · Governments may present control-oriented AI sovereignty to U.S. policymakers as a fair demand, one they argue safeguards their national ...
[161]
Managing the Crisis: AI and the Demise of National Sovereignty?
They identified three primary threats to digital sovereignty: dependence on a few dominant foreign technology providers, rising cybersecurity threats, and ...