STATAL DISCIPLINE AND INDISCIPLINE: SOVEREIGNTY AS FEALTY OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE TO INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN NORMATIVITY
Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto
Many newly independent sovereign States often tend to be weak in rapidly developing and consolidating new administrative and governance frameworks. This is usually as a consequence of the fact that they often come into being through bullets and blood. A consistent theme is that upon attaining autonomy and acceptance by the international community, they cloister themselves around classic notions of sovereignty, in particular supremacy within their territorial borders which excludes interference in internal affairs—a doctrine that has long been accepted and is embedded in Article 2(7) of the United Nations (UN) Charter. Often these States seek to claim in the interim immunity from international duties and obligations as they engage in nation-building. In some ways a number view this as a form of ‘compensation’ for their hard fought bid. However classical sovereignty has been eroded through increased participation by other non-State actors and more importantly, the individual as a direct and not incidental bearer of rights under international law. Consequently, the boundaries of sovereignty and jurisdictional have gradually shifted from an absolute sovereignty theory to a sovereignty as a bundle of rights accruing to the state in which it has established rights and prerogatives under international law but also co-relative duties and obligations. This is particularly manifested by the numerous treaties, declarations of principles and other human rights instruments that define the role of the individual on the international plane and the state’s duties to the welfare of its citizenry.