Why_Is_the_Concept_of_Sovereignty_so_Problematic

''Why is the concept of sovereignty so problematic''' The definition of a state in its most simple form is a territory with a permanent population and a government which has both internal and external sovereignty. Sovereignty in itself is problematic though as there are so many different types of it, the most simple definition of sovereignty is ultimate power, for example when we in the UK say ''Parliament is sovereign'' what we really mean is there is no higher body than parliament, as parliament has the ultimate power. In reality though sovereignty is much more difficult to define. One of the more specific forms, which falls under larger banner of sovereignty is that of pooled sovereignty. Pooled sovereignty in its simplest form is defined as a state giving away some of its own sovereignty to have more power as part of a collective. An example of this in action would be a small country such as Malta joining the EU. Malta on its own is a very small country and arguably lacks clout on the world stage, however when Malta joins with its neighbours and is incorporated into the European Union its power is greatly increased. This is the view point expressed by the group of people that are very pro europe, they are known as Europhiles. Not all people agree with with the idea of Pooled Sovereignty. The Eurosceptic view point is based on the idea of Zero-sum sovereignty, where national sovereignty is expressed as a finite amount, and when you give some away, for example by joining the EU you then have less as a state. The zero-sum / pooled sovereignty debate has arisen as part of EU expansion, with those on the political left arguing the case for pooled sovereignty and those on the right arguing the case for zero-sum. The argument reflects the changing attitudes due to the more interconnected world in which we now live. In the past, for example in the 18th and 19th century the concept of nationalism, where a state is completely independent and should only look after its own affairs, like Britain did with its empire, was the most powerful world force. In recent times, and particularly since the creation of the EU the concept of nationalism has become far less important, as the world has become far more interconnected, through both trade and in the case of the Eurozone through currency also. In addition to the sovereignty debate connected to the european union there is another regarding the nations themselves. This debate is that of de jure and de facto sovereignty, de jure sovereignty is the internationally recognised right to control a territory, de facto on the other hand is the reality of just whom has control of a state or territory. A case of this in action is in the Turkish republic of Northern Cyprus, which declared its self independent from the rest of Cyprus in 1983. However it is only recognised as an independent state by Turkey itself therefore it only has de facto sovereignty as the UN and others have yet to acknowledge its existence as an independent state Because of the number of different types of sovereignty the concept of it is indeed problematic. When people argue about a nations loss of sovereignty the argument is not clear and this general definition of sovereignty isn't specific enough. This therefore leads to confusion over what is really meant, as sovereignty can relate to anything from the debate about pooled and zero-sum sovereignty to the de jure and de facto theory. Clearness of argument however is not the only reason that the concept of sovereignty is problematic. On a more basic level the move from nationalism to the idea of a more interconnected world has further clouded the definition of sovereignty, as the loss of sovereignty historically was considered as a bad thing, today losing some sovereignty in return for more power as part of a collective like the EU is now considered by most people as a good thing. These differing views have lead to problems in defining the concept of sovereignty.