Multinational Conflict Management: Does the Concept Conflict with Sovereignty?

Sovereignty is classically and generally defined as, “supreme authority within a territory,”[1] and basically revolves around the notion that no entity supercedes the legal authority of the state. This definition has described the role of the state as the sovereign since the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the 30 Years War in 1648.[2] But with the development of supranational institutions, this definition of sovereignty has changed slightly to reflect, “the legal principle that no authority is above the state to establish or enforce rules about foreign or domestic conduct.”[3] However, with the expansion of supranational institutions and/or multinational coalitions, the conduct of state domestic policy is becoming ever more international. This development begs the question: does multinational conflict management conflict with the concept of sovereignty?

An obvious element of the question resides within the newer developments of sovereignty itself. As states concede certain provisions or accept a limited amount of oversight into their domestic policies, the idea of conflict or violation diminishes. So the acceptance of supranational supervision does not conflict with state sovereignty, provided the parameters of supervision include domestic policy. The United Nations is the world’s premier supranational institution, if for no other reason because of its size. The UN is the only institution with the mandate of maintaining global peace that can boast total global membership. But does the UN have the mandate to manage domestic peace?

The purpose of the UN per it’s Charter is, “to maintain international peace and security… take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace…[suppress] acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace…”[4] However, the charter states that, “nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.”[5] So clearly there is a limitation in the authority bestowed on the UN by member states. Per the charter, the UN does not posses a mandate for the enforcement of peace within state domestic policy. But what about regional organizations?

Second only to the UN in global stature is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The organization, established to counter the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, has been the preeminent regional security institution since the Second World War. But institutions, even ones such as NATO, are constrained in what they can and cannot do with regards to peace and security. The UN Charter states that, “nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.”[6] Moreover, the UN Charter goes on to explain that these regional institutions can be used, “where appropriate… such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority.”[7] However, the charter specifically comments that, “no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council.”[8] Since regional institutions require UN Security Council approval, and since the UN does not posses a mandate for interfering in state domestic policies, it is not justified for regional organizations or actors to interfere with state domestic policy.

But does this answer the question of conflict between the concept of sovereignty and multinational conflict management? The nature of the conflict is very important, especially with regards to the parties of the conflict. Is the nature of the conflict intra-state or inter-state? If the crisis meets the criteria of international conflict, then supranational institutions and regional collective security organizations are justified in their actions. But what happens with regards to intra-state conflict?

It is important to recognize that the norms of sovereignty- such as nonintervention, self-determination or sovereign equality- are “morally ambiguous” and can be judged moral or immoral based on perspective, period or place.[9] The relative norms of sovereignty contradict any moral justifications of its violation. Couple that with the lack of any legal provisions authorizing sovereignty’s breach and a conflict between the concepts of sovereignty and multilateral conflict management becomes more apparent.

So the precepts surrounding multilateral conflict management permit international conflicts to be addressed, but greatly constrain intervention with regards to intrastate crisis. Therefore within the classical and technical perceptions of multilateral conflict management, it is difficult to justify intrastate intervention. However, with the expansion of global interconnectedness, it is virtually impossible to have intrastate conflicts not impact their neighbors and thus transform into interstate conflicts.

This was the line of thought used by NATO to intervene in Kosovo. They asserted that, “NATO and the international community have a legitimate interest in developments in Kosovo, inter alia because of their impact on the stability of the whole region which is of concern to the Alliance.”[10] Supporters of their intervention contend that the refugee issues, specifically that involving the Albanians, were solved and that political stability was reinstalled in the region. Opponents disagree and claim that the Albanian refugees were simply replaced by different ethnic groups and that the region is still unstable with violence and crime still prevalent.

What is clear is that the intervention of NATO lead to the removal of Slobodan Milošević’s regime and expedited his standing trial for war crimes. What is not clear is whether or not NATO had the legal justification for such action. A Canadian law professor by the name of Michael Mandel filed a formal complaint to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in which he charged the NATO leadership with war crimes.[11] However, the tribunal rejected this complaint because they felt they had no jurisdiction over NATO, so the issue of NATO’s legitimacy in acting against Kosovo is likely to never be formally decided.[12]
What is clear is that multinational conflict management is directly applicable to international crisis, what is not so clear is the applicability of multinational conflict management to intrastate conflict. In a technical or classical sense, the concept of sovereignty does conflict with multinational conflict management directed towards intrastate conflict, but if the attitude associated with the NATO intervention is indicative of future international perspectives, then the use of multinational conflict management and intervention will continue to exist.


[1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/#1.
[2] The Avalon Project. The Treaty of Westphalia. Yale Law School. April 15, 2006. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/westphal.htm.
[3] Kegley, Charles W., Jr., Gregory A. Raymond. From War to Peace: Fateful Decisions in International Politics. Bedford/St. Martin’s. Boston. 2002. Pg. 280.
[4] United Nations Charter. Article 1:1. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/.
[5] Ibid. Article 2:7. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/.
[6] Ibid. Article 52:1. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/.
[7] Ibid. Article 53:1. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/.
[8] Ibid. Article 53:1. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/.
[9] Acharya, Amitav. “Multilateralism, Sovereignty and Normative Change in World Politics”. Institute of Defense and Security Studies, Nanyang Technological University. Singapore. May 2005. Apr 2006. Pg. 3. http://www.ntu.edu.sg/IDSS/publications/WorkingPapers/wp78.pdf.
[10] Council statement on the situation in Kosovo. NATO Press Release (98) 29. 5 Mar. 1998. Apr 2006. http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1998/p98-029e.htm.
[11] Formal complaint to the ICTFY stating NATO War Crimes. Apr 2006. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/icty.htm.
[12] A summary of the legitimacy of the NATO intervention in Kosovo is laid out in Wikipedia, however, as with anything in Wikipedia the information must be vetted.