Example collocations logo

Sovereignty in sentence

1408 examples of Sovereignty in a sentence

When Putin questioned Kazakhstan’s independence last year, China was quick to support the country’s sovereignty.
When Merkel’s new government is in place, Germany will assume an even more important role in the pursuit of greater European integration – a process that will demand additional sacrifices, including the ceding of national sovereignty.
This reversal became apparent in June, when Britons – including those who benefit significantly from the existing open economic and financial system – voted to leave the European Union, based on what might be called the sovereignty principle.
A limited Turkish strike into northern Iraq would probably elicit little reaction beyond public condemnation and rhetorical assertions of Iraqi sovereignty.
In light of the totalitarian experience, they stopped identifying democracy with parliamentary sovereignty – the classic interpretation of modern representative democracy everywhere but in the United States.
Or we can rely on Facebook and Twitter to restore a semblance of will and sovereignty to what used to be called the people, by technical means that enable real-time responses to instant referenda.
They hope to perpetuate their influence by asserting claims of national sovereignty.
And two weeks ago, Denmark, which has sovereignty over Greenland, staked its own territorial claim, also covering the North Pole.
Not only does it seek sovereignty over everything between Greenland and the North Pole; it is also extending its claim to nearly 900,000 square kilometers, all the way to the existing limits of the Russian economic zone on the other side of the Pole – an area 20 times Denmark’s size.
Clearly, the need for much greater eurozone integration must be balanced against some countries’ strong desire to preserve more national sovereignty than is feasible in the monetary union.
This system would allow those who do not wish to share monetary sovereignty, or engage in the kind of fiscal cooperation that must eventually come with it, to make that choice.
But maximal security – for example, an insufferably long timetable for withdrawal, unreasonable territorial demands wrapped up as security needs, an Israeli presence in the Jordan valley, and full control of Palestinian airspace and the electromagnetic spectrum – would inevitably clash with Palestinians’ view of what sovereignty entails.
Since the June 2016 Brexit referendum, Britain has searched in vain for an illusory concept of sovereignty that might prevent the massive loss of international power and influence that awaits it after its departure from the European Union.
For the Kremlin, it is likely that South Ossetia and Abkhazia would remain under formal Georgian sovereignty only if the country did not join NATO.
Nevertheless, fiscal rules and common banking supervision are still regarded in many quarters as an illegitimate encroachment on member states’ sovereignty.
Its vision was shaped by the recent independence struggles of many of its member countries, and its agenda promoted national sovereignty, non-interference, a rebalancing of North-South relations, and support for national liberation movements.
Managing them effectively obliges us to rethink the concept of sovereignty.
After all, European unification was conceived as a project of pooled sovereignty, not surrendered prosperity.
Meanwhile, large emerging markets such as China, India, and Brazil are unlikely to fill the void, as they will remain keen to protect their national sovereignty and room to maneuver.
Rethinking SovereigntyFor 350 years, sovereignty – the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states – has provided the organizing principle of international relations.
Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.
Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change.
All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization.
Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker.
States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere.
Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.
Similarly, America’s preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.
Many would argue – correctly – that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.
Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens.
The NATO intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide.
BackNext