Суверена држава — разлика између измена
Садржај обрисан Садржај додат
. |
|||
Ред 1:
{{Short description|Political entity with a centralized independent government}}{{rut}}
[[File:United Nations (Member States and Territories).svg|thumb|Member states of the [[United Nations]] (UN), as defined by the UN (blue), as well as observer states (green), non-member states (orange), and non-self-governing territories (grey).]]
'''Суверена држава''' је [[држава]] са дефинисаном територијом која има унутрашњи и спољашњи [[suverenost|суверенитет]], стално [[становништво]], [[влада|владу]], независност од других држава и капацитет да уђе у [[међународни односи|међународне односе]] са другим сувереним државама.{{sfn|Shaw|2003|pp=178}}{{sfn|Jasentuliyana|1995|pp=20}}<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Philpott |first=Daniel |date=1995 |title=Sovereignty: An Introduction and Brief History |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24357595 |journal=Journal of International Affairs |volume=48 |issue=2 |pages=353–368 |jstor=24357595 |issn=0022-197X}}</ref> Влада суверене државе држи правну власт над свом тамошњом имовином. Такође се уобичајено подразумева да држава није подређена неком, или субјект неке друге државе и организације.<ref>See the following:
* {{cite book|title=Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of the science|first1=Henry |last1=Wheaton|publisher=Carey, Lea & Blanchard |year=1836|page=51|quote=A sovereign state is generally defined to be any nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs itself independently of foreign powers.}}
* {{citation|title=sovereign|work=The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language|edition=4th|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Company|year=2004|access-date=21 February 2010|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sovereign|quote=adj. 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.}}
* {{citation|title=sovereign|work=The [[New Oxford American Dictionary]]|edition=2nd|year=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press|place=Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-517077-1|quote=adjective ... [ attrib. ] (of a nation or state) fully independent and determining its own affairs.}}
* {{cite journal|url=http://ejil.org/pdfs/3/1/1175.pdf|title=The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee|author=Alain Pellet|page=182|journal=European Journal of International Law|volume=3|issue=1|year=1992|quote=The Committee considers [...] that the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty; [...]}}</ref> Иако у неким апстрактним условима суверена држава може иако је нису признале друге суверене државе, непризнате државе ће често имати проблеме да уживају пуне моћи при склапању споразума и да улазе у дипломатске односе са другим сувереним државама.
[[International law]] defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory (see [[Territorial dispute|territorial disputes]]), one [[government]], and the capacity to enter into [[International relations|relations with other sovereign states]].<ref>See the following:
* {{cite book|title=International law|url=https://archive.org/details/internationallaw00shaw_380|url-access=limited|first1=Malcolm Nathan|last1=Shaw|year=2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=[https://archive.org/details/internationallaw00shaw_380/page/n320 178]|quote=Article 1 of the [[Montevideo Convention]] on Rights and Duties of States, 1 lays down the most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It note that the state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: '(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states'}}.
* {{cite book|title=Perspectives on international law|editor1-first=Nandasiri|editor1-last=Jasentuliyana|publisher=Kluwer Law International|year=1995|page=20|quote=So far as States are concerned, the traditional definitions provided for in the Montevideo Convention remain generally accepted.}}</ref> According to the declarative theory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist without being [[Diplomatic recognition|recognised by other sovereign states]].<ref name="auto">Thomas D. Grant, ''The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution'' (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1999), chapter 1.</ref><ref name=RecognitionofStates>{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA64 |title=Recognition in International Law|last1=Lauterpacht |first1=Hersch|pages=64|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=9781107609433|year=2012|access-date=19 January 2018|df=dmy-all}}</ref> [[List of states with limited recognition|Unrecognised states]] will often find it difficult to exercise full treaty-making powers or engage in [[Diplomacy|diplomatic relations]] with other sovereign states.
== Вестфалијански суверенитет ==
{{Main|Вестфалијански суверенитет}}
Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of [[Nation state|nation-state]] sovereignty based on territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures. It is an international system of states, [[multinational corporation]]s, and organizations that began with the [[Peace of Westphalia]] in 1648.
Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused.<ref>{{cite book |title=Sovereignty: Organised Hypocrisy |first=Stephen D. |last=Krasner |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-691-00711-3 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Núñez|first1=Jorge Emilio|title=About the Impossibility of Absolute State Sovereignty|journal=International Journal for the Semiotics of Law|volume=27|issue=4|pages=645–664|doi=10.1007/s11196-013-9333-x|year=2013|s2cid=150817547}}</ref> Up until the 19th century, the radicalised concept of a "standard of civilization" was routinely deployed to determine that certain people in the world were "uncivilized", and lacking organised societies. That position was reflected and constituted in the notion that their "sovereignty" was either completely lacking or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of the "civilized" people."<ref>{{cite journal |first=Ralph |last=Wilde |title=From Trusteeship to Self-Determination and Back Again: The Role of the Hague Regulations in the Evolution of International Trusteeship, and the Framework of Rights and Duties of Occupying Powers |year=2009 |volume=31 |journal=Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. |pages=85–142 [p. 94] }}</ref> [[Lassa Oppenheim]] said, "There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning, which was universally agreed upon."<ref>Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 66 (Sir Arnold D. McNair ed., 4th ed. 1928)</ref> In the opinion of [[H. V. Evatt]] of the [[High Court of Australia]], "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all."<ref>{{cite book |chapter=Sovereignty in cases of Mandated Territories |title=International law and the protection of Namibia's territorial integrity |first=Sackey |last=Akweenda |publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers |year=1997 |isbn=978-90-411-0412-0 |page=40 }}</ref>
Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of [[self-determination]] and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as ''[[jus cogens]]'' norms of modern [[international law]]. The [[United Nations Charter]], the [[Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States]], and the charters of regional international organizations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law.<ref>{{cite web|title=Chapter IV Fundamental Rights and Duties of States|url=http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_A-41_Charter_of_the_Organization_of_American_States.htm#ch4|work=Charter of the Organization of American States|publisher=Secretariat of The Organization of American States|access-date=21 November 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States|url=http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/2_1_1949.pdf|publisher=UN Treaty Organization|access-date=21 November 2010|year=1949}}</ref> The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognized.<ref>{{cite web|title=General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, "Permanent sovereignty over natural resources"|url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/resources.htm|publisher=United Nations|access-date=21 November 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110218220818/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/resources.htm|archive-date=18 February 2011|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>Schwebel, Stephen M., The Story of the U.N.'s Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, 49 A.B.A. J. 463 (1963)</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx|title=OHCHR | International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights|website=www.ohchr.org}}</ref>
In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one.<ref>Grinin L. E. Globalization and Sovereignty: Why do States Abandon their Sovereign Prerogatives? Age of Globalization. Number 1 / 2008 [http://www.socionauki.ru/journal/articles/127716/]</ref>
Named after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the Westphalian System of state sovereignty, which according to Bryan Turner is "made a more or less clear separation between religion and state, and recognized the right of princes 'to confessionalize' the state, that is, to determine the religious affiliation of their kingdoms on the pragmatic principle of ''cuius regio eius religio'' {{Bracket|[[whose realm, his religion]]}}."<ref name=MariahSutt>{{cite journal|last1=Turner|first1=Bryan|title=Islam, Religious Revival and the Sovereign State|journal=Muslim World|date=July 2007|volume=97|issue=3|pages=405–418|doi=10.1111/j.1478-1913.2007.00187.x}}</ref>
Before 1900, sovereign states enjoyed [[absolute immunity]] from the judicial process, derived from the concepts of sovereignty and the Westphalian [[equality of states]]. First articulated by [[Jean Bodin]], the powers of the state are considered to be ''suprema potestas'' within territorial boundaries. Based on this, the jurisprudence has developed along the lines of affording immunity from prosecution to foreign states in domestic courts. In ''[[The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon]]'', Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] of the [[United States Supreme Court]] wrote that the "perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns" has created a class of cases where "every sovereign is understood to waive the exercise of a part of that complete exclusive territorial jurisdiction, which has been stated to be the attribute of every nation".<ref>{{cite book|last=Simpson|first=Gerry|title=Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VaIlYocvQO0C&pg=PA35 |publisher=Cambridge University Press|date=2004|isbn=9780521534901}}</ref><ref name=bankas>{{cite book|last=Bankas|first=Ernest K|title=The State Immunity Controversy in International Law: Private Suits Against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dv8PuKLGe1MC|publisher=Springer|date=2005|isbn=9783540256953}}</ref>
Absolute sovereign immunity is no longer as widely accepted as it has been in the past, and some countries, including the [[United States]], [[Canada]], [[Singapore]], [[Australia]], [[Pakistan]] and [[South Africa]], have introduced [[restrictive immunity]] by statute, which explicitly limits jurisdictional immunity to public acts, but not private or commercial ones, though there is no precise definition by which public acts can easily be distinguished from private ones.<ref name=bankas />
== Признање ==
State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign state.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/recognition "Recognition"], ''Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy''.</ref> Recognition can be either expressed or implied and is usually retroactive in its effects. It does not necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.
No definition is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. In actual practice, the criteria are mainly political, not legal.<ref>See B. Broms, "IV Recognition of States", pp 47-48 in ''International law: achievements and prospects'', UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui(ed), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, {{ISBN|92-3-102716-6}} [https://books.google.com/books?id=jrTsNTzcY7EC&lpg=PA47&client&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q&f=false]</ref> L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn [[Poland|Polish]] and [[Czechoslovakia|Czechoslovak]] states in World War I and explained that "since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government."<ref>See Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, [[Yoram Dinstein]], Mala Tabory eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, {{ISBN|0-7923-0450-0}}, page 135-136 [https://books.google.com/books?id=5okNqth8I9wC&lpg=PA136&ots=ARGGNDm7G-&dq=t&pg=PA136#v=onepage&q&f=false]</ref>
In [[international law]], however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognised as sovereign.<ref name="auto"/>
=== Конститутивна теорија ===
The '''constitutive theory of statehood'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> defines a state as a [[Legal person|person]] of international law if, and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by at least one other state. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognised it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognised nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.<ref name="ctos">{{cite book |title=Sourcebook on Public International Law |last=Hillier |first=Tim |year=1998 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-85941-050-9 |pages=201–2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Kr0sOuIx8q8C }}</ref> In 1815, at the [[Congress of Vienna]], the [[Final Act of the Congress of Vienna|Final Act]] recognised only 39 sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result, it was firmly established that in the future new states would have to be recognised by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of the [[great power]]s.<ref>[[Kalevi Jaakko Holsti]] ''Taming the Sovereigns'' [https://books.google.com/books?id=Jh6gjr-2ho8C&pg=PA128&dq=Final+Act+of+the+Congress+of+Vienna&lr=&sig=ACfU3U1FTkJPODAK8KkyGV5Nz6O-ke9_Ig p. 128].</ref>
One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognise a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's main proponents, suggested that a state must grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only recognise another state if it is to their advantage.<ref name="ctos" />
In 1912, [[L. F. L. Oppenheim]] said the following, regarding constitutive theory:
{{Quote|International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.<ref>{{cite book | author = Lassa Oppenheim, Ronald Roxburgh | title = International Law: A Treatise | publisher = The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. | year = 2005 | isbn = 978-1-58477-609-3 | pages = 135 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=vxJ1Jwmyw0EC&pg=PA135}}</ref>}}
=== Декларативна теорија ===
{{Main|Монтевидео конвенција}}
By contrast, the '''declarative theory of statehood'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> defines a state as a [[public international law|person in international law]] if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty was not gained by military force. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 [[Montevideo Convention]].<ref>{{cite book|author=Hersch Lauterpacht|title=Recognition in International Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419|year=2012|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=419|isbn=9781107609433}}</ref>
A 'territory' in the international law context consists of land territory, internal waters, territorial sea, and air space above the territory. There is no requirement on strictly delimited borders or minimum size of the land, but artificial installations and uninhabitable territories cannot be considered as territories sufficient for statehood. The term 'permanent population' defines the community that has the intention to inhabit the territory permanently and is capable to support the superstructure of the State, though there is no requirement of a minimum population. The government must be capable of exercising effective control over a territory and population (the requirement known in legal theory as 'effective control test') and guarantee the protection of basic human rights by legal methods and policies. The 'capacity to enter into relations with other states' reflects the entity's degree of independence.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bachmann|first1=Sascha Dov|last2=Prazauskas|first2=Martinas|date=19 December 2019|title=The Status of Unrecognized Quasi-States and Their Responsibilities Under the Montevideo Convention |url= https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3506442 |journal=The International Lawyer|volume=52|issue=3|pages=400–410|access-date=19 May 2020|via=SSRN}}</ref>
Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent of recognition by other states, and the state is not prohibited from defending itself.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-40.html|title=CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES|website=www.oas.org}}</ref> In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood. An important part of the convention was Article 11 that prohibits using military force to gain sovereignty.
A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by the [[European Economic Community]] ''Opinions of the [[Badinter Arbitration Committee]]'', which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states.<ref>{{cite book|last=Castellino|first=Joshua|title=International Law and Self-Determination: The Interplay of the Politics of Territorial Possession With Formulations of Post-Colonial National Identity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uGMxfj4oedEC|year=2000|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers|isbn=978-90-411-1409-9|page=[https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=uGMxfj4oedEC&pg=PA77 77]}}</ref>
== Види још ==
Линија 6 ⟶ 59:
== Референце ==
{{reflist|
== Литература ==
{{Refbegin|30em}}
* {{Cite book|ref=harv|title=International law |url=https://archive.org/details/internationallaw0000shaw|first=Malcolm Natෟhan |last=Shaw |year=2003 |publisher=Cambridge University Press}}
* {{cite book |last1 = Schmandt |first1 = Henry J. |last2 = Steinbicker |first2 = Paul G. |title = Fundamentals of Government |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=zCaLngEACAAJ |edition = 2nd printing |year = 1956 |orig-year = 1954 |publisher = Bruce Publishing Company }}
* {{cite book|author=Angie, Antony|title=Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Imperialism_Sovereignty_and_the_Making_o/VJuHlZ1_fbEC?hl=en|date=26 April 2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-82892-5}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Butcher |first1=Charles R. |last2=Griffiths |first2=Ryan D. |title=States and their international relations since 1816: introducing version 2 of the International System(s) Dataset (ISD) |journal=International Interactions |date=17 January 2020 |volume=46 |issue=2 |pages=291–308 |doi=10.1080/03050629.2020.1707199 |doi-access=free }}
* Chen, Ti-chiang. ''The International Law of Recognition, with Special Reference to Practice in Great Britain and the United States''. London, 1951.
* Crawford, James. ''The Creation of States in International Law''. Oxford University Press, 2005. {{ISBN|0-19-825402-4}}, pp. 15–24.
*{{cite book|author=Dieter Grimm|title=Sovereignty: The Origin and Future of a Political and Legal Concept|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PbXoBgAAQBAJ|date=21 April 2015|publisher=Columbia University Press|isbn=978-0-231-53930-2}}
* {{cite book|author=Lauterpacht, Hersch |title=Recognition in International Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419|year=2012|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9781107609433}}
* {{cite book |last1=Muir |first1=Richard |title=Modern Political Geography |date=1981 |publisher=Macmillan International Higher Education |isbn=9781349860760 |edition=Second |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GlBdDwAAQBAJ}}
* Raič, D. ''Statehood and the Law of Self-determination''. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002. {{ISBN|978-90-411-1890-5}}. p 29 (with reference to Oppenheim in International Law Vol. 1 1905 p110)
* Schmandt, Henry J., and Paul G. Steinbicker. ''Fundamentals of Government'', "Part Three. The Philosophy of the State" (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1954 [2nd printing, 1956]). 507 pgs. 23 cm. LOC classification: JA66 .S35 [https://lccn.loc.gov/54010666 Fundamentals of government]
* John Agnew, ''Globalization and Sovereignty'' (2009)
* T. Biersteker and C. Weber (eds.), ''State Sovereignty as Social Construct'' (1996)
* Wendy Brown, ''Walled States, Waning Sovereignty'' (2010)
* [[Hedley Bull]], ''The Anarchical Society'' (1977)
* [[Joseph Camilleri]] and Jim Falk, ''The End of Sovereignty?: The Politics of a Shrinking and Fragmenting World'', Edward Elgar, Aldershot (1992)
* Derek Croxton, "The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty," ''The International History Review'' vol. 21 (1999)
* A. Claire Cutler, "Critical Reflections on the Westphalian Assumptions of International Law and Organization," ''Review of International Studies'' vol. 27 (2001)
* M. Fowler and J. Bunck, ''Law, Power, and the Sovereign State'' (1995)
* S. H. Hashmi (ed.), ''State Sovereignty: Change and Persistence in International Relations'' (1997)
* [[F. H. Hinsley]], ''Sovereignty'' (1986)
* K. J. Holsti, ''Taming the Sovereigns'' (2004)
* Robert Jackson, ''The Global Covenant'' (2000)
* [[Henry Kissinger]], ''[[World Order (book)|World Order]]'' (2014)
* Stephen Krasner, ''Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy'' (1999)
* Stephen Krasner (ed.), ''Problematic Sovereignty'' (2001)
* J.H. Leurdijk, ''Intervention in International Politics'', Eisma BV, Leeuwarden, Netherlands (1986)
* Andreas Osiander, "Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth," ''International Organization'' vol. 55 (2001)
* Daniel Philpott, ''Revolutions in Sovereignty'' (2001)
* Cormac Shine, [http://www.historytoday.com/cormac-shine/treaties-and-turning-points-thirty-years-war 'Treaties and Turning Points: The Thirty Years' War'], ''History Today'' (2016)
* Hendrik Spruyt, ''The Sovereign State and Its Competitors'' (1994)
* Phil Williams, [http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?id=93880''Violent Non-State Actors and National and International Security''], ISN, 2008
* Wael Hallaq, "The Impossible State: Islam, Politics, and Modernity's Moral Predicament" (2012)
{{Refend}}
== Спољашње везе ==
{{Commons category|Sovereign state}}
* [http://www.burneylawfirm.com/international_law_primer.htm A Brief Primer on International Law] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161110081904/http://www.burneylawfirm.com/international_law_primer.htm |date=10 November 2016 }} With cases and commentary. Nathaniel Burney, 2007.
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=6305536&jid=RIS&volumeId=22&issueId=04&aid=6305528&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession= What constitutes the sovereign state?] by Michael Ross Fowler and Julie Marie Bunck
* [http://www.ipoliticalrisk.com Links to the best political risk websites, ipoliticalrisk.com] information on tracking, evaluating and managing sovereign risk for trade and permanent investment
* [http://thepalestinepapers.com/files/1402.PDF Legal opinion by the Negotiations Support Unit in the Palestinian Authority on transitional sovereignty] (PDF)
{{нормативна контрола}}
| |||