孙达拉姆·拉贾西曼｜全球安全治理：历史末期的“主权”
原创 孙达拉姆拉贾西曼 白昃研究 2026年1月16日 16:35
在小说阅读器中沉浸阅读
编者按
2025年12月19日，西南政法大学主办，西南政法大学白昃战略研究院、泰国国立法政大学政治学院承办的“第四届全球安全治理学术研讨会”成功召开，来自中国人民大学、复旦大学、南京大学、国际关系学院、广东外语外贸大学、泰国国立法政大学、印度德里政策研究协会、新加坡东亚研究所、巴基斯坦人类命运共同体研究中心等20余家单位的近百名专家学者围绕“推进国际关系民主化法治化”“坚持共商共建共享的全球治理观”“全球安全治理的区域实践”三大主题展开研讨，取得了良好的研讨效果。本公众号编辑整理了部分发言嘉宾的讲话内容，在征得本人同意的基础上予以登载，以飨读者。
引言：学界普遍认为，国际体系正处于转型之中，并经历着前所未有的动荡。当前的贸易战、领土战争，以及多边机构无力解决民族国家间的争端与冲突，都只是我们所有人在21世纪所面临根本问题的症状。联合国发展政策委员会将这一问题定义为：“有必要加强全球治理和全球规则，以便更有效地管理各国之间日益增长的相互依存关系，减少现有不平等，并保证各国在相互依存所设定的限度内，拥有追求自身优先事项所必需的政策空间”。
该委员会指出，执行全球治理最薄弱的环节在于政府间层面的合作。亟须把握和理解的现象是：无法有效管理因全球化进程而加剧的各国间日益增长的相互依存与经济一体化关系。该委员会提出了全球治理所需的五大要素：1.差异化责任；2.辅助性原则；3.包容性；4.连贯性；5.核心问题：“主权”（负责任的主权）。
全球治理并非一项新事业，类似的努力可追溯至14世纪，例如——但丁·阿利吉耶里的《帝制论》（De Monarchia, 1311年；1949年英译本名为《论世界政府》）。在20世纪，从旨在通过汇集主权以防止武装冲突的国际联盟（League of Nations）开始，一系列构建全球治理机制的努力相继出现，包括：民主国家联邦联盟（英国，1938年）、联合国（1946年）、关税与贸易总协定（GATT，1947年）、《联合国海洋法公约》（UNCLOS，1982年）、世界贸易组织（WTO，1995年），以及中国于2013年提出的“一带一路”倡议。
我们在21世纪面临的许多问题，例如关税战、移民、就业、全球供应链和贸易等，都源于20世纪中期大战后建立的机制。该机制旨在建立一个维护世界和平的经济体系，在此方面，经济上的相互依存被置于首位。
其背后的逻辑是：如果民族国家在供应链上相互依赖，就无法承受彼此开战的代价。这一思想的核心目标是“和平”，而非其他任何事物。这一思想促成了《关税与贸易总协定》（GATT, 1947），并在1944年7月，由来自44个国家的代表在美国新罕布什尔州布雷顿森林（Breton Woods）缔结的新国际货币体系基础上，开启了和平与繁荣的时代，并实现了全球国内生产总值（GDP）的高速增长。
然而，人们曾期望这一新安排能持续带来前所未有的繁荣，但这种期望在20世纪70-80年代开始减弱。一群新一代自由主义经济思想家聚集在一起，召开了为期八年的“第二次布雷顿森林会议”（即乌拉圭回合谈判），以寻求进一步推动全球经济一体化的途径。然而，在此期间，“和平”已不再是如20世纪40年代那样的关键关切，全球经济效率成为核心关注点。在这方面，它提出了一种从关税壁垒转向非关税壁垒的安排。在20世纪90年代，《关贸总协定》（GATT）被世界贸易组织（WTO）所取代。支配这一协定的哲学是“非关税壁垒”，围绕这一哲学，许多区域和双边贸易协定得以达成。这种经济哲学试图使各国的国内法律法规和产业政策与全球意义上的经济效率相一致。这一机制是对主权的直接干预，因为它要求主权国家在主权上做出妥协，从而引发了21世纪主权本质的重大疑问。简而言之，世界上几乎没有一个国家能够声称自己是完全主权的。
任何致力于全球治理的机制所面临的核心挑战，都是17世纪的概念——“主权”。许多此类倡议都试图应对这一概念所带来的挑战。“主权”概念最初起源于欧洲，旨在解决因宗教分歧（天主教徒与新教徒之间的三十年战争）而引发的武装冲突。自其在欧洲首次被构想和实践以来，“主权”概念已经历了深刻的转变，如今还包括了亚洲民族国家对其的实践与创新——这些国家在19世纪中期之前并不知晓这一概念，而是践行着自身独特的政治经济框架。因此，要构建21世纪全球治理的现代架构，就有必要系统地理解“主权”概念自17世纪至今的演变及其在21世纪的当代诠释。
现在显而易见的是，“主权”是任何旨在应对全球治理挑战的机制中的一个关键概念。就此而言，全球治理与“主权”概念呈反比关系——全球治理越多，赋予民族国家的主权就越少，反之亦然。“主权”与全球治理这两个概念相互矛盾，这正是全球治理所面临的核心问题。鉴于一些民族国家对主权高度敏感，从而引发其他国家的类似反应，主权与全球治理之间固有矛盾的加剧将在21世纪持续成为一个令人担忧的问题。在不损害政治主权的前提下接受经济全球化是一种破坏稳定的趋势，可能导致国际体系内部的冲突。
若不对“主权”概念进行重新构想，或使其适应民族国家间相互依存和全球化的现状，全球治理将始终只是一种愿望。然而，推动我们在21世纪重新思考主权的力量，并非由主权国家自身决定，而是由科学技术所决定。迄今为止及未来，科学技术的进步正日益走向一个“后主权”的世界秩序。例如，海上和空中航行技术的进步曾尊重主权理念，但基于太空的资产（卫星）却不尊重主权。可以预见，量子科学和纳米技术领域的许多科学突破将从根本上改变我们的科学观，并在其核心挑战“主权”理念。此前，核物理的突破就曾对世界政治结构产生过深远影响——自20世纪中期以来，核武器一直是基于主权的世界秩序的关键守护者。
“主权”概念的系统性演变
“主权”概念是一种根据历史和教义构建的社会-政治机制。它起源于特定的历史背景，并随着时间的推移不断演变以适应社会现实。在特定时期，“主权”位于作为国际体系最基本单元的“国家”层面。正如米尔恰·久瓦拉（Mircea Djuvara, 1999）所言，国家的理念是：“国家是一种绝对的现实，因为它不承认任何高于自身的权威，正如个人承认国家的权威一样。国家不承认任何高于自身的事物。”然而，事实是，在当今时代，世界上没有任何一个国家能够声称自己不承认任何高于自身的权威。
在全球治理的语境下，这并非一种新现象，而是早已在酝酿之中。例如，但丁·阿利吉耶里的《帝制论》（1311年）就是早期尝试。20世纪的一系列努力——国际联盟（1920年）、民主国家联邦联盟（英国，1938年）、联合国（1946年）、《关税与贸易总协定》（1947年）、《联合国海洋法公约》（1982年）、世界贸易组织（1995年）以及“一带一路”倡议（中国，2013年）——事实上都是在努力应对“主权”概念。换句话说，任何同意这些政治或经济倡议的主权国家，都是在妥协其主权。因此，从假设上讲，全球治理是一种应对“主权”概念的机制。
“主权”概念起源于17世纪欧洲的宗教战争。三十年战争（1618-1648年）在新教联盟（瑞典帝国、波希米亚王国、法兰西王国、英格兰王国等）与支持帝国的天主教同盟（神圣罗马帝国、巴伐利亚、西班牙帝国、奥地利大公国等）之间展开。由于缺乏一个能确立和平的霸权力量，各方开始在威斯特伐利亚省（Westphalia）谈判和平条约。谈判最终达成了《威斯特伐利亚和约》，确立了“国家主权”原则，即每个签字方承诺尊重其他各方的领土权利，并不干涉其内政。
“威斯特伐利亚主权”在其最严格、最纯粹的意义上意味着：一个主权国家承诺尊重其他主权国家的领土权利，并不干涉其内政。然而，鉴于国际体系已发生诸多全球化转变，这一原始理念已不再适用。在当今世界，尽管每个主权国家对自己的主权有清晰意识，却无法避免干涉他国主权。威斯特伐利亚主权最初旨在为欧洲交战的政治实体建立和平，随着这一社会现实的转变，“威斯特伐利亚主权”概念在19世纪经历了根本性的转变，当时世界首次成为一个封闭的政治体系。
“威斯特伐利亚主权”概念定义了现代国家体系——国家主权的概念、国家平等作为国际法的一项原则、由独立国家组成的国际社会、国家间关系的平等，以及最重要的是，将“均势”（balance of power）作为一种维持和平的手段。
法国思想家让·博丹（Jean Bodin）在其著作《共和六书》（The Six Books of the Republic, 1576）中首次系统地提出了“国家主权”理论。博丹将主权归于君主，并将国家制定法律的权力赋予君主。为了使君主摆脱教皇的控制，他将君主视为仅对上帝负责——这是一种世俗的主权理论。博丹作为首位将国家和主权概念引入政治理论的思想家，认为主权具有以下属性：任命高级行政官员并界定其职能的特权；颁布或废除法律；宣战或缔结和平；拥有终审判决权；以及生杀大权。
另一位荷兰法学家兼外交官胡果·格劳秀斯（Hugo Grotius, 1583-1645）在其著作《战争与和平法》（De jure belli ac pacis）中，对“国家权力的持有者”与“作为权力和主权主体的国家”进行了区分，这标志着主权概念发展的又一重大突破。
主权概念发展中最具决定性的时刻出现在18世纪，当时法国哲学家让-雅克·卢梭（Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1712-1778）在其名著《社会契约论》（The Social Contract）中，基于社会契约最明确地阐述了古典主权理论。根据卢梭的观点，公民通过社会契约创造了一个名为“国家”的公共人格，并由此创造了主权且使其合法化。卢梭认为：“国家中没有任何一项基本法是不可撤销的，包括社会契约本身；因为如果所有公民共同同意废除这一契约，那么没有人会怀疑它的废除是完全合法的。”
英国哲学家兼政治家约翰·洛克（John Locke, 1632-1704）提出了“人民主权”的理念。他在《政府论两篇》（Two Treatises of Government）中论证道：“人民将国家权力的实现委托给由他们自己选举产生的立法议会。在完成这一授权后，人民并未丧失其作为主权者的地位。在必要时，人民有权：取消社会契约；罢免或推翻和/或修改其在国家权力机构中的代表组成；发动革命。”
同样在18世纪，法国法学家兼哲学家查理·孟德斯鸠（Charles Montesquieu, 1689-1755）在科学和政治领域引入了“民族”这一范畴，并将其与主权概念联系起来，从而产生了一种新的观念，即“民族主权”（National Sovereignty）。
意大利哲学家、法学教授乔治·德尔·韦基奥（Giorgio del Vecchio）则确立了国家与主权之间的关联，他主张：“一个国家若缺乏主权，就不是真正的国家，或者至少不是一个完美的国家。所谓的半主权国家、保护国或附庸国，都是不完善的国家形态。”
到18世纪，主权的概念已从君主转移到人民——即“人民主权”（Popular Sovereignty）——这一转变体现在《美国独立宣言》（1776年）中，后来又被载入《人权和公民权宣言》（1789年）和法国大革命宪法（1791年）。
“主权者之上没有任何权威”这一理念在19世纪和20世纪的历史进程中变得站不住脚。资本主义的兴起催生了全球范围的帝国主义和殖民化，这需要一种更为温和的主权形式。格奥尔格·耶利内克（Georg Jellinek）作为主张自我限制主权的温和理论先驱，声称国家将国际法视为一种自我强加的必要性，但仍可能违反此类法律。在这方面，国家通过自愿加入国际条约和公约来限制自身的主权。其他学者，如乔治·谢尔（G. Scelle）则重新思考主权，将其视为国家可以或多或少地委托给国际机构的一种权力。
因此，自从“主权”概念（威斯特伐利亚主权）诞生以来，已经历了根本性的转变。21世纪因深刻影响民族国家角色和功能的全球性变革，而对主权概念提出了新的诠释。旨在通过处理主权问题以推进全球治理的努力——如国际联盟或联合国——均已失败，如今正因“主权”概念而陷入十字路口。
全球治理的迷思
全球治理是一种社会-经济-政治机制，治理的对象，例如“人口”，是随着1662年“统计学”技术的进步而产生的。同样，当前关于全球治理的辩论也可以从“技术”的角度得到更好的理解，这些技术引入了新的治理对象。例如，由于“气候变化”这一技术的出现，“环境”如今已成为一个治理对象。因此，要实现成功的全球治理，就需要一种合适的技术，或者这种技术会随着科学技术的进步而自然出现。只有当这种技术能够处理“主权”概念时，它才适用于全球治理。全球治理若要成功，就必须穿透主权；没有这一点，任何全球治理的尝试都将失败。
许多新时代的技术本质上是“后主权”的，并成为超越传统国家主权——即领土——界限的治理对象。因此，所有旨在理解、制定和实施全球治理机制的努力，都是为一个“后主权”的世界秩序服务的。
从现实主义的视角来看，整个全球治理事业是一种策略，旨在将一个以主权国家权威为中心的秩序，导向一个以“世界政府”为中心的秩序。这一理念如今正在被制度化。例如，联合国秘书长曾表示：“我们不能用祖辈建立的体系，去创造一个适合孙辈的未来。”2024年9月，联合国通过了《未来契约》（The Pact for the Future）、《全球数字契约》（Global Digital Compact）和《未来世代宣言》（Declaration on Future Generations），以改革全球治理。
《未来契约》中关于和平与安全领域的关键成果如下：
该契约所阐述的治理对象侵犯并依赖于主权权威才能实现。在可持续发展、气候与发展规划融资、数字合作、青年与未来世代、人权与性别等其他领域的治理对象，也都在寻求干预和管理主权领域。
本文论证，整个全球治理事业正致力于瓦解由主权国家行为体构成的国际体系。世界历史如今正处于一段历史时期——即“主权”时期的终结。换言之，“主权”概念已是一个过时的概念，也是全球治理理念的主要障碍。即便我们现在实践的是一种非常温和或稀释形式的主权，主权与全球治理之间的摩擦仍在加剧。
在关于全球治理的激烈辩论之际，“主权”的相关性体现在对一个问题的回答上——“我们总体上想要什么？”——这个问题由《国家安全战略》（NSS, 2025年11月）提出。在其回答中，作为战后全球治理体系主要构建者的美国国家安全战略指出：“首先，我们希望美国作为一个独立、主权的共和国继续生存和安全，其政府保障其公民的‘上帝赋予的自然权利’，并将他们的福祉和利益置于首位。”
该安全战略文件中概述的一些战略目标，完全否定了《未来契约》、《全球数字契约》和《未来世代宣言》中关于全面核裁军及对未来技术遵守战争法的呼吁。例如，美国国家安全战略指出：“我们希望拥有世界上最强大、最可信、最现代化的核威慑力量，以及下一代导弹防御系统——包括为美国本土打造的‘金色穹顶’（Golden Dome）——以保护美国人民、海外美国资产及美国盟友。”它进一步指出：“我们希望确保美国的技术和美国的标准——尤其是在人工智能、生物技术和量子计算领域——引领世界前进。”
全球治理，以及其实现所需的权威与合法性，是一种注定失败的全球统治概念。就此而言，全球治理是一个迷思——一种同时为真又为假的事物。作为一种政治机制，全球治理是欧洲所实践的政治秩序的延伸。随着全球南方的崛起，特别是中国的崛起，全球治理的传统架构已然转变。
根据玛德琳·赫伦（Madelein e Herren）在《全球治理史》（A Global History of Governance, 2018）中的观点，自19世纪末以来，全球治理的概念与实践就与现代民族国家建构和帝国主义交织在一起。根据一些学者（张勇进，2008年）的观点，中国是威斯特伐利亚体系的“最后堡垒”，或是“绝对主权”威斯特伐利亚观念的“捍卫者”。
例如，1999年，时任联合国秘书长科菲·安南（Kofi Annan）表示：“国家主权在其最基本的意义上正在被重新定义……与此同时，个人主权——我指的是《联合国宪章》及后续国际条约所载明的每个个体的基本自由——得到了加强。”而中国则拒绝了这一观点，并声明：“主权平等、相互尊重国家主权和不干涉他国内政是当今国际关系的基本原则……如果‘强权即公理’的观念盛行，新的炮舰政策将造成浩劫。”（时任外交部长唐家璇）
尽管美中两国——当今仅有的两个大国——都高举主权的旗帜，但它们也通过彼此不同且互不相容的技术来寻求全球治理。美国将“人权”（现已升级为“上帝赋予的自然权利”）作为一种技术来实施其全球治理愿景，而中国则将“发展”（以人民为中心的发展）作为一种技术来实现其自身的全球治理愿景。作为全球治理的技术，“人权”与“发展”都干预了其他国家的主权，正如本文前文所论证的那样，这对于全球治理是必需的。这正是我们所面临的困境或矛盾——全球治理∝主权。我们拥有的全球治理越多，拥有的主权就越少，反之亦然。
结论
本文论证了“主权”概念与全球治理之间存在一种反比关系。在追溯了“主权”概念自1648年在欧洲签订的和平条约中首次起源以来的演变历程后，该概念在21世纪的全球化世界中正经历着重大转型。在一个全球化的世界里，主权国家所面临问题的许多解决方案都超出了其自身管辖范围。“主权”概念如今已成为全球治理成功的最大障碍，然而许多民族国家，尤其是大国，如今正转向内部，绝对地捍卫自身主权，同时却又实施着侵犯或干预他国主权的技术。
在其演变过程中，“主权”概念曾一度归属于上帝，后转移至教皇，再至君主，最后至人民和公民。在当今时代，主权大多是“人民主权”，即通过社会契约允许国家代表人民行使主权。在一个全球化的世界里，实践的是一种温和的主权，即主权国家自愿设定其相对于其他主权国家的主权界限。
威斯特伐利亚主权最纯粹的定义——即一个主权国家不干涉他国主权——已成为过去。由于在核物理领域取得的科技突破，一些主权国家比其他国家拥有更多的主权。“核裁军”作为全球治理的一个目标，其矛头指向的是主权本身，而非核武器，这仍是21世纪全球治理面临的一个主要问题。
作为社会科学家，我们有必要在21世纪重新审视和诠释“主权”概念，并将其重新定位在一个能促进全球治理的层面。“主权”概念最初是作为一种宗教概念发展起来的，当时是上帝拥有主权和权威，而这种权威后来被政治权威所承袭。例如，《马太福音》28:18中写道：“天上地下所有的权柄都赐给了我。”卡尔·马克思曾言：“我欲向上帝复仇。”（马克思，引自理查德·沃姆布兰德《马克思与撒旦》，第12页）。亚洲及其他欧洲以外地区的民族国家已适应了“主权”概念，并在过去实践着其本土的政治理论。
现在，我们需要在21世纪发展的背景下理解“主权”概念，并将其重新定位在一个可被普遍接受的位置，使全人类能够和谐共处。世界各地正在尝试发明用于全球治理的新技术。例如，美国国会就不明飞行物/不明异常现象（UFOs/UAPs）最近一次听证会是在2022年，这是50多年来首次公开听证会，其动因是军方目击事件增多以及要求提高对“不明异常现象”透明度的呼声。
我们当然不需要外星人来让我们团结在一起。将主权归属于以自我为中心、深陷于自身生存之中的民族国家层面，将在21世纪持续构成一项挑战。
本文作者
孙达拉姆·拉贾西曼，四川外国语大学东方语言文化学院讲师。
本文翻译
赵勇智，西南政法大学白昃战略研究院研究人员。
免责声明
本公众号内容仅代表作者本人的观点，不代表本公众号的观点和看法，与本公众号立场无关，相关责任作者自负。
原文
Global Security Governance: The End Period of History “Sovereignty”Introduction:
There is a world-wide scholarly consensus that the international system is undergoing a transformation and witnessing unprecedented churn. The ongoing trade wars, territorial wars, inability of multilateral institutes to resolve disputes and conflicts among nation-states are but symptoms of the underlying problem confronting all of us in the 21st century. The problem is defined by the Committee for Development Policy (United Nations) as, “Strengthening global governance and global rules is necessary in order to manage the increasing interdependence among countries more efficiently, to reduce existing inequalities and to guarantee the necessary policy space for countries to pursue their own priorities within the limits given by interdependence”. According to the Committee for Development Policy the weakest link in executing global governance is the cooperation at the inter-governmental level. The phenomenon that needs to grasped and understood is the inability to manage the growing economic integration and interdependence among countries – both compounded by the process of globalization. The committee proposed five factors that were necessary for global governance – 1) Differentiated Responsibility, 2) Subsidiary, 3) Inclusiveness4) Coherenceand 5) “Sovereignty” [Responsible Sovereignty].
Global Governance is not a new endeavor, and efforts along the same line can be traced back to 14th century, for example – De Monarchia (1311, Dante Alighieri, Trans; 1949 On World Government). In the 20th century, beginning with the League of Nations, the first attempt to pool sovereignty with the aim to prevent armed conflict, led to series of efforts at building global governance mechanisms in the form of a Federal Union of Democratic States (Great Britain, 1938), The United Nations (1946), General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (1947), United Nations Convention on Laws of the Sea (1982), World Trade Organization (1995), and also China’s initiative of Belt and Road Initiative proposed in 2012. Many of the problems confronting us in the 21st century, for example, tariff wars, immigration, employment, global supply chain and trade etc. all originated in the mechanism put in place after great wars of the mid-20th century. This mechanism sought to put in place an economic system that secured world peace and, in this regard, economic inter-dependence took precedence. The thinking behind this endeavor was that if nation-states were dependent on each other for their supply-chains then could not afford to go to war with each other. The central objective behind this thinking was “peace” more than anything else. This thinking led to the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT, 1947) and led to era of peace and prosperity with a high rate of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth after a new international monetary system was forged by delegates from forty-four nations in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in July 1944. This agreement laid the foundation of globalization which was further strengthened by the revolution in information technology along with progress in other domains in the 1990’s. yet, the expectation that this new arrangement would continue to usher in unprecedented prosperity began to wane in the 1970’s-80’s. A group of new-generation liberal economic thinkers got together for a second Bretton Woods (Uruguay Round) lasting eight years of negotiation to find ways to further push for global economic integration. However, during this time peace was not a key concern as it was in the 1940’s. Global economic efficiency was a key concern and, in this regard, it proposed for an arrangement that moved away from tariff to non-tariff barriers. In the 1990’s the GATT was replaced with the World Trade Organization (WTO). The philosophy governing this agreement was “non-tariff barriers” and around this philosophy many regional and bilateral trade agreements were agreed to. This economic philosophy sought to align domestics laws, regulations, industrial policies with global sense economic efficiency. This mechanism is a direct intervention of sovereignty as it requires the sovereign to compromise on his sovereignty and thus raise major question of what is sovereignty in the 21st century. Put simply, there is hardly any nation in the world that can claim to be a sovereign.
The central challenge in any mechanism devoted to global governance is the 17th century concept – “sovereignty”. Many of these initiatives seek to address the challenge posed by this concept of sovereignty which first originated in Europe in order to address the armed conflicts arising out of religious differences – 30-year war between Catholics and protestants. The concept of sovereignty has undergone profound transformation since it was first conceptualized and practiced in Europe and now includes its practice and innovation by nation-states in Asia which remained unknown to this concept while practicing their own politic0-economic framework until the mid-19th century. Hence, understanding the systematic evolution of this concept since 17th century to its present interpretation in the 21st century is necessary to create the modern architecture of global governance in the 21st century. It is now evident that sovereignty is a key concept in any mechanism designed to address the challenges posed by Global Governance. Global governance, in this regard, shares an inverse relationship with the concept of sovereignty – the more global governance, the less sovereignty conferred on nation-states and vice versa. The concept of sovereignty and global governance contradict (矛盾) each other and this is the central problem confronting global governance. Intensification of the inherent contradiction between sovereignty and global governance will remain a cause of concern in the 21st century given that some nation-states are hyper-sovereignty conscious and thereby inducing a similar reaction on part of other nations. Acceptance of economic globalization without compromising on political sovereignty is a destabilizing trend and may lead towards conflicts within the international system.
Without reconceptualizing the concept ofsovereignty or adapting it to the existing conditions of interdependence among nation-states and globalization, global governance will remain an aspiration. Yet, the forces that are bringing about a transformation in the way we think about sovereignty in the 21st century is not being determined by sovereign states themselves, but science and technology. The progress of science and technology so far and in times to come is increasingly moving towards a post-sovereign world order. For example, advancement is navigation at sea and air respected the idea of sovereignty, but space-based assets (satellites) do not respect sovereignty. It is expected that many scientific breakthroughs in the quantum science and nano technology will radically transform our scientific outlook and challenge the idea of sovereignty at its core. Previously, breakthrough in nuclear physics had a profound impact on the political structure of the world with the advent of nuclear weapons – a key guardian of the sovereignty-based world order since the mid-20th century.
The Systematic Evolution of the Concept of Sovereignty
The concept of “sovereignty” is a socio-politico mechanism which constructed according to both historically and doctrinally. It originated within a specific context and has continuously evolved over a period of time to adapt to the social realities. In given times, sovereignty is located at the level of “state” which is most fundamental unit within the international system, and the idea of state held sovereignty according to Mircea Djuvara (1999) is – “The state is an absolute reality, as it does not recognize any higher authority, as the private person recognizes the authority of the state. The state does not recognize
anything superior toitself”. Yet, it is a fact that in given times there is no state in the world that can claim to not be in recognition of any authority superior to itself. In the context of global governance, which is simply not a new phenomenon, but has been in making for some time, for example, De Monarchia (1311, Dante Alighieri, Trans; 1949 On World Government). A series of efforts in the 20th century – League of Nations (1920), A Federal Union of Democratic States (Great Britain 1938), The United Nations (1946), General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (1947), UNCLOS (1982), World Trade Organization (1995) and also the Belt and Road Initiative (PRC, 2013) were and are in fact an effort to deal with the concept of sovereignty. In other words, any sovereign agreeing to these political or economic initiatives is compromising its sovereignty. Hence, hypothetically, global governance is a mechanism to deal with the concept of sovereignty.
The concept of sovereignty originated in the religious wars of 17th century in Europe. The Thirty Years’ War (1618 – 1648) took place between the Protestant Union (Swedish Empire, Kingdom of Bohemia, Kingdom of France, Kingdom of England and others) and the pro-imperial Catholic League (Holy Empire – Roman, Bavaria, Spanish Empire, Archduchy of Austria and others). With no hegemonic power to establish peace, work began to negotiate a peace treaty in the province of Westphalia. The negotiations ended in the Treaty of Westphalia which established the principle of ‘state sovereignty’, i.e. each signatory party undertakes to respect the territorial rights of the other parties and not to interfere in internal affairs. The original idea of ‘Westphalian Sovereignty’ in its strictest and purest terms means – a sovereign undertakes to respect the territorial rights of the other sovereign and not to interfere in its internal affairs. This original idea is no longer in practice given the transformation of the international system which in many ways is globalized and each sovereign while conscious of its own sovereignty cannot help to intervene in others sovereignty. The Westphalian sovereignty was aimed at establishing peace among warring political units in Europe, and with transformation of this social reality the concept of Westphalian sovereignty underwent radical transformation in the 19th century when the world for the first time became a closed political system.
The concept of Westphalian sovereignty came to define the modern state system – the concept of national sovereignty, equality of states as a principle of international law, an international community with independent states, equality of states in relation between them, and most importantly the idea of “balance of power” as a means of peace keeping. A theory of “State Sovereignty” was first developed by Jean Bodin in his work The Six Books of the Republic (1576). Bodin attributed sovereignty to the King and the power of the state to make laws. In order to disassociate the King from the clutches of Papal, he saw King as accountable only to God – a secular theory of sovereignty. With Bodin being the first to introduce the notion of state and sovereignty into political theory saw sovereignty as having the following attributes – the prerogative to appoint senior magistrates and to define the function of each; enactment or repeal of laws; declaring war or concluding peace; the right of judgment, of last resort; right to life and death.
Yet another major breakthrough in the development of the concept of sovereignty with the work of the Dutch jurist and diplomat Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) in his work De jure belli ac pacis, where in he differentiated the “bearer of state power” and “the state as a subject of power and sovereignty”. The most defining moment in the development of the concept of sovereignty arrived in 18th century when the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), who most explicitly formulated the classical theory of sovereignty, based on the social contract in his famous work The Social Contract. According to Rousseau a public person call “state” was created through a social contract where in the citizens created sovereignty and legitimized it. According to Rousseau, “there is no fundamental law in the state that cannot be revoked, including the social pact itself; for if all the citizens came together to break this pact by mutual agreement, no one would be able to doubt that it was broken very legitimately”. The idea of “People’s Sovereignty” was put forward by the English philosopher and politician John Locke (1632-1704), wherein he argued (Two Treaties of Government) that, “the people entrust the realization of state power to the legislative assembly, which the people themselves elect. Following this delegation, the people do not lose their status as sovereign. In case of necessity, the people have the right: to cancel the social contract; to remove or overthrow and / or modify the composition of its representatives within the power of the state; to revolt”. Also in 18th century, the concept of national sovereignty was introduced by French jurist and philosopher Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755) in the scientific and political circuit the category of nation, attaching it to the notion of sovereignty, thus generating a new conception, namely that of National Sovereignty. Furthermore, the correlation between state and sovereignty was established by Giorgio del Vecchio, Italian philosopher, professor of law who argued that – A state is not such, or at least not perfectly so, if it lacks sovereignty. The so-called semi-sovereign states, states under protectorate or vassal states, represent imperfect state figures. By 18th century, the concept of sovereignty had relocated from the monarch to the people – Popular Sovereignty – with the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America (1776), later enshrined in the Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights (1789) and the Constitution of revolutionary France (1791).
The idea that a sovereign has no authority above itself was untenable as history progressed through 19th and 20th century. Advent of capitalism which in turn produced imperialism and colonization on a global scale required a much-moderated form of sovereignty. Georg Jellinek, as a pioneer of moderating theories that argue for self-limitation of sovereignty, claimed that states accept international law as a self-imposing necessity and yet stand to violate such laws. In this regard states limit their sovereignty by their own will through submission to international treaties and conventions. Other scholars such as G. Scelle’s conception reconsidered sovereignty as an amount of power that states could delegate to a greater or lesser extent to international bodies. Hence, since the origin of the concept of sovereignty (Westphalian Sovereignty), the concept has undergone radical transformation and the 21st century brings new interpretations to the notion of sovereignty, caused by the intense global transformations that have affected the role and functions of the nation state. Attempts to deal with sovereignty in an effort to further the cause of global governance – The League of nations or The United Nations – have failed and are now at cross roads due the concept of sovereignty.
The Myth of Global Governance:
Global governance is a socio-economic-political mechanism. An object of governance, for example, population came into being due the advancement in technology – “statistics” in 1662. Similarly, the current debates on global governance can be better understood in terms of “technology” that have introduced new objects of governance. For example, environment has now become an object of governance given the advent of a technology – climate change. Hence, for global governance an appropriate technology is required or such a technology happens to come about with the advancement is science and technology. This technology is appropriate for global governance only if it is able to deal with concept of sovereignty. Global governance to be successful needs to penetrate sovereignty, without this any attempt at global governance will fail.
Many of the new age technologies are post-sovereign in nature and come to be objects of governance beyond the traditional limits of state-sovereignty – territorial. Hence, all efforts at understanding, formulation and implementation of mechanisms of global governance are meant for a post-sovereign world order. From a realist perspective, this entire enterprise of global governance is a ploy to direct an order centered on the authority of the sovereign state to an order centered on “one world government”. This idea is now being institutionalized, for example, according the UN General Secretary, “Secretary-General has said, “we cannot create a future fit for our grandchildren with a system built by our grandparents”. In September, 2024, the United Nationsadopted The Pact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations to transform global governance. Key deliverables in the pact pertaining to the domain of peace and security are as following;
The objects of governance as articulated within the pact infringe and depend on sovereign authority for its realization. The objects of governance in other domains such as sustainable development, climate and financing for development, on digital cooperation, youth and future generations, and human rights and gender also seek to intervene and manage the domain of sovereignty. This essay demonstrates that the entire enterprise of global governance is gearing to dismantle an international system made up of sovereign-state actors. The world history is now at the end of the period in world history – sovereignty. In other words, the concept of sovereignty is an outdated concept and major impediment to the idea of global governance. Even as we now practice a very moderate or diluted form of sovereignty, the friction between sovereignty and global governance is intensifying.
The relevance of sovereignty, at a time when a fierce debate on global governance is ensuing, is underscored by the answer to a question – What do we want overall? – raised by the National Security Strategy (NSS) (November, 2025). In its answer, the key architect of the global governance in the post-War era, the United States NSS states, “First and foremost, we want the continued survival and safety of the United States as an independent, sovereign republic whose government secures the “ ‘God-given natural rights of its citizens’ and prioritizes their well-being and interests”. Some of strategic objectives outlined in the security strategy document is a complete denial of The Pact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations which calls for complete nuclear disarmament and observation of laws of war with respect to future technologies. For example, the US NSS states, “We want the world’s most robust, credible, and modern nuclear deterrent, plus next generation missile defenses – including a Golden Dome for the American homeland – to protect the American people, American assets overseas, and American allies”. It further states, “We want to ensure that U.S. technology and US standards – particularly in AI, biotech, and quantum computing – drive the world forward”.
Global governance, the authority and legitimacy needed to actualize it is an ill-fated concept of global domination. In this regard global governance is a myth – something that is true, and also untrue simultaneously. As a political mechanism, global governance is the extension of political order practiced in Europe. The traditional architecture of global governance stands transformed with the rise of global south, especially the rise of China. According to Madeleine Herren (A Global History of Governance, 2018), concepts and practices of global governance intertwined modern nation-building and imperialism since the late nineteenth century. China, according to some scholars (Yongjin Zhang; 2008) is the “last bastion” of Westphalia, or the ‘champion’ of the Westphalian conception of absolute sovereignty. For example, in 1999 when the United nations General Secretary Kofi Annan stated that, “State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined”, while at the same time, individual sovereignty – by which I mean the fundamental freedom of each individual, enshrined in the charter of the United Nations and subsequent international treaties – has been enhanced”, China rejected this view by stating that “Sovereign equality, mutual respect for state sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of other are the basic principles governing international relations today …. If the notion of “might is right” should prevail, a new gun boat policy would wreak havoc” (Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan).
While both the US and China – the only two great powers – champion the cause of sovereignty, they also seek global governance through technologies that are dissimilar and incompatible to each other. While the US employs Human Rights, which has been now upgraded to ‘God given natural rights’ as a technology to implement its vision of global governance, China has employed development as a technology to realize its own vision of global governance. Both Human Rights and Development as technologies of global governance intervene in the sovereignty of other countries and this is required as it has argued elsewhere in this essay for global governance. This is the dilemma or contradiction that faces us – Global Governance ∝ Sovereignty. The more global governance we have, the less sovereignty we have and vice-versa.
Conclusion:
This essay has argued for an inverse relationship between the concept of sovereignty and global governance. Having traced the evolution of the concept of sovereignty since it first originated in peace treaty signed in 1648 in Europe, the concept is undergoing major transformation in the 21st century globalized world. In a globalized world many of the solutions to the problems faced by a sovereign are outside the jurisdiction of the sovereign. The concept of sovereign is now the biggest impediment for the success of global governance, yet many nation-states, especially great powers are now turning inward in absolute defense of their sovereignty while implementing technologies that violate or intervene others sovereignty.
In its evolution, the concept of sovereignty which was once located with God, transferred to the Papal, then to King, and then to people and citizens. In given times, sovereignty is mostly popular sovereignty with a social contract that allows the state to practice sovereignty on behalf of the people. In a globalized world a moderate sovereignty is in practice, where a sovereign by its own willingness sets the limits of his sovereignty in relation to other sovereigns. The purest definition of Westphalian sovereign where in a sovereign does not interfere in others sovereignty is a thing of the past. Some sovereigns are more sovereigns than others due to the breakthrough in science and technology in the domain of nuclear physics. Disarmament as object of global governance is aimed at sovereignty and not nuclear weapons and this remains a major problem for global governance in the 21st century. As social scientist, it is important for us to revisit and reinterpret the concept of sovereignty in the 21st century and relocate it at a level that fosters global governance. The concept of sovereignty originally developed as a religious concept where it was God that was sovereign and had the authority and this authority was assumed by Political authority. For example, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Mathew 28:18). Karl Max stated, “I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above” (Marx, cited from Richard Wurmbrand, Marx and Satan, p. 12). Nation-States in Asia and others outside Europe have adapted to the concept of sovereignty and have been in practice of their indigenous political theories in the past.
It is now required that we understand the concept of sovereignty in the context of developments in the 21st century and relocate it to an acceptable place where all of mankind can live with each other in harmony. Attempts to invent new technologies for global governance is underway in some parts of the world. For example, The U.S. Congress has held multiple hearings on UFOs/UAPs [不明飞行物], notably in 1966, 1969, 2022, and 2023, marking significant periods of inquiry, with the 2022 session being the first public hearing in over 50 years, driven by increased military sightings and calls for transparency on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. Most certainly, we do not need aliens to bring us together. Attributing, sovereignty at the level of nation-state which is self-centered and deeply consumed with its own survival will remain a challenge in the 21st century.
Presentation made at The 4th Academic Symposium on Global Security Governance (December 2025), South West University for Law and Political Science, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China.
