POWER AND SOVEREIGNTY IN A STATE SYSTEM

Power and sovereignty are inseparable components of the state system and, by extension, the international system. Every state pursues power because according to the realists,  it is the best defence against aggression both form internal and external quarters. Thus, it  is the best guarantor to the  inviolability, sovereignty and  territorial integrity of the  nation-state.  Abyssinia, (Ethiopia)  world not have had any need for the league of nations’ intervention in its  invasion by Italy in  1935 if it had preponderant or  at least power  parity with Italy.

            In the same vein, the US would have spared itself the burden of mobilizing world opinion and armaments, including UN resolutions to  drive Iraq from Kuwait in 1990 if  Kuwait were in a position to discourage the Iraqi  invasion by  its power potentials. From these examples and hundreds, if  not thousands more  of like manner, it is axiomatic that the  greatest threat to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of  any nation-sate remains a diminutive national power  potential. 

            What then is power? As a central theme in international political relations analysis, the concept of power has received a variety of conceptualization by the varied commentators in the field. It thus haws no generally accepted definition. Some can however be highlighted as capturing the major essence of the concept. Hans Morgenthau conceives of  it is “ the  power of man over the minds of other  men”.  Emphasizing the coercive potentials of the concept George  Sschwarzenberger see it as the “capacity of impose one’s  will  on others by reliance on effective sanctions in case of  non-compliance”.² In  defining  power  as “the  production o f intended  effects”.³  Bertrend  Russell may have conceived  power  exclusively on  military terms, as  he goes on to  argue  that  “nothing but lack of military force limits  the power of  one state over another”.⁴

 

            Before we are stampeded into discussing the various forms or elements of national power following Russell’s  lead  it is  imperative that we distinguish between power  and  influence or force. The major  distinguishing characteristic  of  power and  influence is the lack of the coercive machinery or  the  threat of its use in influence as in power. This is what  Morgenthau refers  to as “reliance on effective sanctions”  to  compel compliance. This  is seen to be absent in influence  which is achieved by persuasion and other forms of  subtle  pressure.

            It is more difficult to distinguish force from  power since in the final analysis, the so-called effective sanctions could be a euphemism for  force. Force can however be  conceived from different  perspectives. But to the students  of  international relations  the  notion of force easily  connotes military action. Notwithstanding, force conceived in  the military context is more of a component of national power  than being synonymous with it. These  distinctions  must however  be recognized for what they are meant to achieve analytical  brevity.  

For  practical   purposes, it is  quite difficult, if not a near  impossibility to observe them individually, as  a whole range of  “pressure on  thought and conduct”  come under and  are influenced by power.