Lakhasly

Politicians and media professionals use the word "sovereignty" in many of their speeches and analyses. What is its meaning, how did it arise, and what are its manifestations?!! This article answers these matters briefly. To begin with, it must be pointed out that the establishment of the contemporary state with its three pillars: the people, the territory, and political authority, entails that it is distinguished by two basic things: First: It has legal legal personality, The second thing is that the political authority is sovereign, and due to the importance of sovereignty in countries, some have made it the second pillar of the state. While the classical proposal of sovereignty expressed the reality of the concentration of absolute power in the hands of kings, new countries resort to it to reject a reality in which major powers dominate, as sovereignty has become a weapon of weak states in the face of strong states. In order to address this modern development, the content of sovereignty and its effects must be clarified. The concept of state sovereignty Sovereignty is a legal status attributed to the state when it has material components of a group of individuals, a territory, and an organized and governing body. It represents the state's authority with which it confronts individuals within its territory and with which it confronts other states abroad. One of the requirements of this authority is that the reference for the state's actions in its various affairs be its will alone. This means that the authority of the state at home and abroad is not superior to any other authority. After Boudin defined it as "the supreme authority over citizens and subjects that is not subject to laws," we find that a large number of jurists agreed on its description: one, indivisible, inalienable, and not subject to statute of limitations.The state is not absolute in its action in the field of international relations, as it is subject to international law, which is imposed on states based on considerations that transcend their will, which imposes restrictions on the actions of states and governs their relations with other states and with international bodies.International law prohibits any state from interfering in the internal affairs of another state, as each state is free to choose and develop its political, economic, social, political and cultural system, without interference from another party.He believes that state sovereignty is restricted by the provisions of international law, especially with regard to human rights, the commission of war crimes, and the crimes of genocide.Or for the statute of limitations.

Politicians and media professionals use the word “sovereignty” in many of their speeches and analyses. What is its meaning, how did it arise, and what are its manifestations?!! This article answers these matters briefly. To begin with, it must be pointed out that the establishment of the contemporary state with its three pillars: the people, the territory, and political authority, entails that it is distinguished by two basic things: First: It has legal legal personality, The second thing is that the political authority is sovereign, and due to the importance of sovereignty in countries, some have made it the second pillar of the state. While the classical proposal of sovereignty expressed the reality of the concentration of absolute power in the hands of kings, new countries resort to it to reject a reality in which major powers dominate, as sovereignty has become a weapon of weak states in the face of strong states. In order to address this modern development, the content of sovereignty and its effects must be clarified.
The concept of state sovereignty
Sovereignty is a legal status attributed to the state when it has material components of a group of individuals, a territory, and an organized and governing body. It represents the state’s authority with which it confronts individuals within its territory and with which it confronts other states abroad. One of the requirements of this authority is that the reference for the state’s actions in its various affairs be its will alone. This means that the authority of the state at home and abroad is not superior to any other authority. After Boudin defined it as “the supreme authority over citizens and subjects that is not subject to laws,” we find that a large number of jurists agreed on its description: one, indivisible, inalienable, and not subject to statute of limitations. Or for the statute of limitations.
We can rely on the definition of the International Court of Justice in the Corfu Strait case in 1949, which states that “sovereignty by necessity is the state’s jurisdiction within the limits of its territory, a unilateral and absolute mandate, and that respect for territorial sovereignty among independent states is a fundamental foundation of international relations.” Internally, sovereignty has a positive content through its supremacy for members of society, and this includes complete freedom to make decisions, establish laws and regulations, and legitimate monopoly on the tools of oppression. Externally, the content of sovereignty becomes negative, by not accepting any authority higher than it. External sovereignty means that the state does not acknowledge an authority above it, so it is not restricted in the international field except by international covenants and agreements that it itself has concluded, thereby expressing its sovereignty and independence in its affairs. Sovereignty is the expression of the highest levels of authority in the state, and it has a positive content internally and a negative content in international relations.
The idea of sovereignty has many implications, the most important of which are:
States enjoy all the rights and benefits inherent in their sovereignty, whether at the international level, such as concluding international treaties, exchanging diplomatic and consular representation, and raising international responsibility to demand compensation for the damages that have befallen them or their nationals, or to repair these damages. At the internal level, the state has the right to dispose of its primary resources and natural wealth, and it can take the measures it deems appropriate regarding people in its territory, regardless of their status as citizens or foreigners.

• Equality between states: Sovereignty also entails that states are legally equal, as there is no hierarchy in sovereignty. This means that the rights and duties that states enjoy or are bound by are equal from a legal standpoint, even if there is a difference between them in terms of population density, geographical area, or Economic resources.
  However, the principle of sovereign equality approved by the United Nations Charter is not absolute. There are many rights that permanent members of the Security Council enjoy and that other member states do not enjoy, including the use of the veto and the right to amend the Charter. However, on another level, there is a trend in international law that aims to try to address actual inequality, by establishing legal rules that reduce the current stark differences. The impermissibility of interference in the affairs of other countries: Perhaps one of the most difficult tasks faced by jurisprudence in international law is establishing a precise definition of what It is expressed by intervention at the international level.
  There are those who defined it as “dictatorial intervention by one state in the affairs of another state with the aim of maintaining or changing the current situation with the aim of compromising the integrity of the national territory and the political independence of this state.”
  International law prohibits any state from interfering in the internal affairs of another state, as each state is free to choose and develop its political, economic, social, political and cultural system, without interference from another party. He believes that state sovereignty is restricted by the provisions of international law, especially with regard to human rights, the commission of war crimes, and the crimes of genocide.
  The state is not absolute in its action in the field of international relations, as it is subject to international law, which is imposed on states based on considerations that transcend their will, which imposes restrictions on the actions of states and governs their relations with other states and with international bodies.