To expand my knowledge of trade law I've decided to begin a few articles breaking down the traditionally disputed vague terms or articles in the GATT. I decided to begin with sovereignty and apply it to a well known conflict.
In the article "Chronicles of a War Foretold," author Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera discusses the question of whether the United States is violating or disregarding Mexico's sovereignty in the U.S.-led War on Drugs, which primarily takes place in Mexico. 1
Cabrera's article argues that the United States has used national security and militarized frameworks to encroach upon Mexican territorial sovereignty. It strongly suggests that the U.S. regional security architecture continues to undermine Mexican authority, using the War on Drugs to expand its military-geostrategic influence and impose its security agenda on Mexico, effectively turning the country into a shared security zone.1 Other studies have also supported this argument, highlighting potential sovereignty concerns arising from recent rhetoric by U.S. politicians and popular media sources.4 These concerns have not been dismissed by U.S. authorities.
Rule
Black's Law Dictionary defines sovereignty as “the possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and Its administration ; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.”2 See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 455, 1 L. Ed. 440: Union Bank v. Hill, 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 325; Moore v. Shaw, 17 Cal. 218, 79 Am. Dec. 123.2
For purposes of this potential sovereignty violation analysis, we’ll be considering the parsed sub-elements of the above sovereignty definition, those being : (1) possession of sovereign power, (2) supreme political authority, (3) paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration, (4) a self-sufficient source of political power, (5) source of all political power, (6) international independence of the state, (7) right and power of regulating international affairs without foreign dictation, (8) and a political society or state that is independent. Not all sub-elements will be equally dispositive towards the outcome.
Analysis
(1)(2) Possession of Sovereign Power refers to the ownership or control of ultimate authority within a specific political entity, while Supreme Political Authority simply means being at the top of the political hierarchy in a nation. It could be argued that Mexican control of ultimate authority and their position at the top of the political hierarchy in Mexico are on the verge of being forfeited. As noted by Cabrera in his article, Mexico has faced pressure to share its internal sovereignty with the United States in order to address U.S. security concerns.1 This has led to increased militarization of security and stricter border control. The participation in the 2007 Merida Initiative and the establishment of the 2019 U.S.-Mexico security dialogues aimed at enhancing cross-border coordination further illustrate this trend.1 According to Cabrera, "This relationship has further eroded Mexico's political authority and control over its security apparatus...with Mexico becoming subservient to U.S. security interests and hegemonic goals."1 These measures include mandatory north-bound traffic searches, heightened requirements for Mexican produce and material cargo, and other unilateral demands. Such one-sided actions raise the question of whether Mexican sovereign powers accepted them willingly or were forced into doing so.
(3) Paramount control of the constitution and frame of government, as well as its administration, implies that the entity exercising sovereignty has the highest level of control over the fundamental laws and the structure of the government, including its day-to-day operations. Mexico, however, relinquished this ability by signing these security deals. One provision in Mexico's constitution prohibits foreign military bases, and federal regulations previously prohibited the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles within Mexican airspace without notice.1 Nevertheless, by signing numerous bilateral security deals, Mexico's government continues to compromise its position. By remaining subservient to the U.S. anti-narcotics strategy, Mexico's fundamental laws and traditional government controls are being overridden, thereby undermining its sovereignty.
(4) The concept of a Self-Sufficient Source of Political Power implies that an entity possesses political power independently, without relying on external sources, and that it is the sole source of all political power within its state. Cabrera suggests that the clear military dominance of the U.S. has created conditions that allow for more direct intervention in Mexican affairs.1 According to element 4 of Blacklaw's definition of sovereignty, the actions of the U.S. in leveraging the drug war can be seen as depriving Mexico of being the sole source of political power.2 By compartmentalizing the military structure and having Mexican authorities report to their American counterparts, the U.S. effectively becomes an external source of political power.
(5) International independence of a state implies that its sovereignty extends to the notion that the state is not controlled or governed by any foreign entity. The United States has exerted significant pressure on Mexico to cooperate on border security and counter-narcotics operations, which has intentionally or unintentionally influenced Mexico's foreign policy standards.1 In cases where the U.S. does not receive the expected level of cooperation, it has withheld aid and assistance, putting Mexico in a position where it must compromise its international independence or risk losing U.S. aid.3 By exerting such control over Mexico's national security policy and border control, the United States violates Mexico's international independence and sovereignty.
(6) A sovereign entity possesses the authority and capability to independently make decisions concerning its internal affairs, free from external interference or dictation by foreign nations. Mexican internal affairs and hence their sovereignty have been clearly and conducively interfered with and adapted by U.S. foreign policy as indicated above through their border doctrine and counter-narcotics policies.
(7) Sovereignty can be applied to a political society, such as a nation or state, and it implies that the entity is both sovereign, with the characteristics of supreme political authority, and independent, meaning it operates without being under the direct control of another state. Mexico, while not intrinsically under the control of the U.S., has had its domestic security policies and foreign policy be excessively shaped through U.S. requests; extensive external pressures from the U.S. continue to have a significant impact in shaping Mexican policy.
(8) However, the United States may have good reason to engage in strong-arm policy directives. As Quintana-Navarrete states in his article "War Hypotheses: Drug Trafficking, Sovereignty, and the Armed Forces in Mexico," the War on Drugs has proven to be a national security threat to both the United States and Mexico.3 Moreover, with drug consumption in the U.S. being the primary driver of the drug trade, and U.S. domestic drug policy failing to address the root cause of the drug supply, it has become the focal point.3
Considering that drug trafficking and U.S. omnipresence pose two primary threats to Mexican sovereignty, Mexican authorities may have found these short-term sacrifices to be less threatening than the growing drug problem. Furthermore, conservative American policymakers continue to call for increased action against the criminal elements of the Drug War in Mexico.4 However, their rhetoric often fails to distinguish between the criminals hiding in plain sight in Mexico and the Mexican people.
Conclusion
As mentioned earlier, the continuous counter-narcotics efforts and border control measures implemented by the United States have a negative impact on the political power and state-building initiatives in Mexico. These actions compromise Mexico's independence to some extent. Although Mexico is not directly controlled by another state, the significant external pressures exerted by the U.S. government have influenced the development of Mexican policies in a deliberative manner and violated state sovereignty.
Endnotes:
Correa-Cabrera, Guadalupe. 2020. “Chronicles of a War Foretold: Reversing Mexico’s Current Course toward Redoubled Militarization Requires a Shift in U.S. Policy Away from the Disastrous ‘War on Drugs’ and toward a Respect for Mexican Sovereignty.” NACLA Report on the Americas 52 (1): 41–46.
“SOVEREIGNTY Definition & Meaning - Black’s Law Dictionary.” The Law Dictionary, November 7, 2011. https://thelawdictionary.org/sovereignty/#:~:text=The%20possession%20of%20sovereign%20power,state%2C%20combined%20with%20the%20right.
FONDEVILA, GUSTAVO, and NAVARRETE, MIGUEL QUINTANA. 2015. “War Hypotheses: Drug Trafficking, Sovereignty and the Armed Forces in Mexico.” Bulletin of Latin American Research 34 (4): 517–3
Teague, Aileen. “Perspective | Why Abruptly Abandoning the Drug War Is a Bad Idea for Mexico.” The Washington Post, November 18, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/18/why-abruptly-abandoning-drug-war-is-bad-idea-mexico/.
Komentar