Description
This paper aims to investigate the inter-subjective dynamics that is instrumental in the constitution of sovereignty of states. Within mainstream International Relations theory, sovereignty is taken as a fundamental attribute of states. It is understood as a prerequisite for stepping into the comity of nations and is considered insular, inalienable, and sacrosanct. However, from a contrary perspective, various critical and sociological theorists argue that sovereignty is itself a product of the state’s interaction and is not something ‘given’ that states carry when they enter the international realm. As contemporary experience reflects, the façade of sovereignty is used as an alibi for decisive military intervention required in the face of several ethno-nationalist movements. Often, these ethno-nationalist movements culminate into genocide, refugee crisis, and the emergence of failed states which leads to gross violations of human rights. This paper explores the impediments that sovereignty throws in the path of humanitarian military interventions and looks for possibilities that could be extracted through a creative reconfiguration of sovereignty. The study will rely on a comparative case study to examine the dilemma of humanitarian military intervention and the allegations of selective approach by Western powers. The two cases chosen would be the NATO intervention in Kosovo and the Rwandan genocide. The logic of the two cases rests on the premise that Kosovo serves as a critical case while Rwanda stands as a unique case.
