Carlos Marx (1818-1883)

State sovereignty is instrumental in assisting the UAE to control its marine boundaries, Without this sovereignty, the seas could be polluted by a range of causes such as oil pollution, sewage and dumping at sea from foreign vessels entering the state boundary illegally. As we have seen, international law has several basic principles, some of which are important in the field of the development of environmental law. Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations sets out principles which are important to the UN and member states: Cooperation in solving matters at an international level; compliance; respect for the agreement when the state is a party in the agreement and to abide by it in good faith; the pursuit of peace when attempting to solve international disputes; and the avoidance of interference in the sovereignty and domestic issues of other states.130

Sovereignty of the state is one of the most important principles of internal public law, which means that the state has exclusive jurisdiction over individuals, groups of people and organizations who are settled within its boundaries. The state may issue or may accept limitations on its freedom, for example human rights and environmental treaties which place obligations on territories such as prohibition treaties which prevent harm being intentionally done, for example to wild animals or the environment such as oil spillage in the oceans and seas, 128_{Ibid. P18-30.}

129_Ibid.

130_{Shelton, A. K. A. D (2007). Guide to International Environmental Law. United States of America, MartinusNijhoff} Publishers,P.11-13.

56

in order to protect the public and the common interests of a group of states. Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration, adopted in 1972, focused on environmental issues, which were threatened by state sovereignties; the declaration was set up in accordance with the United Nations and principles of international law.131

While states have rights to exploit their resources, this can lead to infringement upon the sovereignties of other states and will have an impact on common environmental resources. This creates political and environmental problems at an international level and needs the ruling of international law.132

The French thinker Jean Bodin, was the first to introduce the term sovereignty in 1576 in his work "Les Six Livres De La Republique." Bodin defined sovereignty as the supreme authority of citizens and nationals who are subject to the law. Bodin, described four aspects of the sovereignty theory. An essential element in the composition of the state is the existence of a supreme power, which controls all other authorities. Thehighest authorities in the state are not answerable to other authorities so they have the power to control the state and their citizens.133These factors can be explained further in the following five points:

Firstly, sovereignty is the supreme authority in the state and is above all the powers of the state so it controls everyone in it. The sovereign authority is not subject to any groups or individuals in the state. Secondly, sovereignty requires that the authority of the state is independent from the rulers and the people of the state. Thirdly, the sovereignty of the state applies to all citizens and residents of the state without exception. Only international law, rules and customs have the power to decide that there should be some exceptions, privileges or immunities for foreigners who are living within the state. Sovereignty of the state is also absolute within the geographical scope of the state where it extends beyond its territorial boundaries. Fourthly, sovereignty of the state is permanent which means that the state is the home of its authority and this authority may not be removed from it. Fifthly, the authority of the state has the ability to impose its will on all

131_{Ibid. p. 13} 132_{Ibid. 13.}

133 _{Mohamed, K (1994). State Theory. Dubai, Dubai Commerce Press, PP 291 – 322.} 57

groups, individuals and others who are residents within the state without the consent of the governed people.134

Sovereignty manifests itself in both external and internal forms within the territory of the state. External sovereignty concerns the state’s relationship with other states so the state has independent sovereignty when dealing with states of equal authority. The scope of external sovereignty in the international community is different from one country to another so the state can use either full or incomplete sovereignty. Full sovereignty means that the state has the power to control and manage all its internal and external affairs without any interference or reduction in authority from foreign states. Full sovereignty is the ideal aim since the state has the right and freedom to manage its own affairs. Incomplete sovereignty means that the state is governed and controlled by other states in certain respects such as countries under mandate or trusteeship. Complete and incomplete sovereignty has a close relationship to international public law. When the state has incomplete external power, this impacts on the internal power of the state. Incomplete external sovereignty means the state lacks the internal sovereignty to manage its internal affairs. This lack of sovereignty of the state will make the constitution of the state liable to amendment by foreign countries while full sovereignty of the state gives it absolute freedom to develop and amend its constitution. International law, as enshrined in Article Two of the Charter of the United Nations, forbids one state from interfering in the affairs of another independent state.135

Internal sovereignty means that the supreme authority in the state applies to all organizations and individuals within its territory and the state has full jurisdiction to control all affairs within its territory. Full sovereignty of the state means that the state has independence and full supreme authority in both the domestic sphere and external spheres. There is no conflict between the concept of external or internal sovereignty when the state obeys international public law rules or customs. For the holder of sovereignty there is no existence of the state until there is implementation of sovereign political authority. Sovereignty is the supreme authority in the state to control and manage its own affairs and is vested in the person/peoples who ‘own’ it. The state is a legal entity, which has permanence and stability. One question which arises, is: ‘Who owns 134 _Ibid

135 _Ibid

58

the sovereignty of the state?’ It is insufficient to say that the state is the owner of sovereignty as the state is only an entity because of the people within it; we have to determine who is the real owner of the sovereignty in the state. To answer this question, two kinds of theory have emerged – those related to the sovereignty of the nation and theories of sovereignty of the people.136

The French revolution clarified the theory that sovereignty belongs to the nation and is independent from the individuals and organizations within it. Individuals do not own any part of the sovereignty, as sovereignty belongs to the nation. Sovereignty is not subject to statutory limitations and is indivisible or inalienable. When the State tries to break the limits of its authority, which are based on the principles of nation sovereignty, and seeks to abuse the rights and freedoms of individuals, then those individuals have the right to resist the power of the state, based on the principle that sovereignty belongs to the nation and not to the State. Sovereignty of the nation theory has implications: Firstly, election is not an individual privilege, it is a duty undertaken on behalf the nation to serve it. Secondly, Parliament represents the whole nation and therefore is not to be used for individual or group advancement. Thirdly, the law in accordance with this theory is an expression of the absolute sovereignty of the nation.137

There are criticisms of this theory proposed by some scholars of law which are based on the notion that, as the nation and state are regarded as separate entities for the purpose of defining individual responsibilities and obligations, the two can come into conflict and this can lead to instability. Also, as in this theory sovereignty is free from restriction, it has the potential to infringe the rights and freedom of individuals.138

136 _{Mohamed, K (1994). State Theory. Dubai, Dubai Commerce Press. 322.} 137 _Ibid

138_{Ibid. p. 290}

59

In recognition of the importance of the sovereignty of the State, the Canadian Parliament issued the 1970 Act to give them wide jurisdiction over the Arctic Coast up to 100 nautical miles. Parliament established this Act to control water pollution.139

The theory of sovereignty of the people is based on the premise that sovereignty relates to individuals and that groups of individuals are not independent; the state, therefore, consists of a number of individuals, each of whom has sovereignty. Sovereignty is therefore shared between individuals. The difference between sovereignty of the nation and sovereignty of the people is that the theory of sovereignty of the people relies on the principle that sovereignty is shared between the individuals of the state while the theory of sovereignty of the nation is not shared with the individuals within it and the nation has absolute sovereignty. In sovereignty of the people theory the question arises of who is eligible to share that sovereignty. The answer to this question is that individuals have the right to share sovereignty when they have the nationality of the state and exercise their political rights.140

The principle of sovereignty of the people is characterized as more democratic than the principle of sovereignty of the nation. Just as the principle of sovereignty of the nation can lead to the establishment of the two legal entities of state and nation fighting over power and sovereignty, the principle of sovereignty of the people can have similar problems. As sovereignty of the people recognizes that sovereignty is shared between them, this can create conflict between the sovereignty of the state and the sovereignty of the people and representatives of the people can be led into accepting instructions and orders, which may be immoral or undemocratic.141

These aspects of sovereignty of the state have been described in detail to explain how the marine environment can be influenced by conflict between the people and government. In countries which lack sovereignty in its internal affairs the marine environment can be compromised, as foreign states will control its affairs and will establish their businesses and factories without care for the marine environment.

139_{Richard. B. Blider (1970). The Canadian Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act: New Stresses on the Law of the} Sea.Michigan Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 1, 1970; University of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper Series Archival Collection.

140 _{Mohamed, K (1994). State Theory. Dubai, Dubai Commerce Press PP 291 – 322.} 141 _Ibid

60