International Liberalism, Security and Sovereignty

International Liberalism, Security and Sovereignty
International liberalism is the requirement to consider and regulate equality, freedom and the application of the rule of law associated with the individual State policies within a global context. It allows for the security systems associated with the individual States to ensure that State borders are robust deflecting unlawful individual activity from crossing either external or internal. In doing so the security requirements are implemented to ensure that such ideals for the individual represented by the international community can be protected within a nuclear age. On the surface this may appear to be an erosion of sovereignty but in fact it enhances a State’s right to sovereignty, especially if the State is transparent in its actions.

The very nature of nuclear technology and resources, the economic and ecological costs that are involved in pursuing such technology, necessitates an international liberal approach to the control of such assets. By placing the Strategic nuclear assets in the control of an independent international that works within the guidelines of a set international institution. This shares the cost and responsibility for maintenance, sustainability and security of such assets. The forfeiting of sovereignty rights over nuclear civil and military structures by all States ensures that the security and safety measures for security and safety prevention can be adequately employed.

It can be argued that with the nuclear NPT and the associated groupings both governmental and non-government, that continually re-evaluate nuclear disarmament policy and nuclear energy policy that such an institution already exists. It does to a certain level. However the application of policy across the board is not equal and the institution does not provide the organisation facilitating the policy the appropriate level of authority or jurisdiction. The IAEA is unable to adequately ensure that preventive measures are in place and being followed for the insurance for the security and safety of a strategic nuclear asset if the State is not a signatory.

Accountability also rests with international institutions for the assurance of security and safety. This may not necessarily reflect popular policy idealised by civil society. These institutions are not accountable to civil society. This allows for classical liberalism to be administered. The international institutions are constrained in their formation, as they are reliant on a consensus between States. The international system has a growing number of actors, responsibilities and at times conflicting interests being meshed together. This forces States to consider if their governing parties are to remain in power.

All States want to advance themselves within the global market and culturally internationally। Yet some States are unwilling to allow for the appropriate authority and jurisdiction to be provided to an international body that in return can assure their security and safety if they chose to pursue nuclear strategic assets. They are defining security in terms of realism where they adopt a defensive posture with regards to security instead of embracing international liberalism and allowing for the burden of such assets to be controlled and coordinated by an international organisation. This is a sceptical view, considering that the same States have adopted liberalism domestically, which in turn has provided a security conundrum for them when considering the placing and running of the nuclear strategic assets. Contemporary or international liberalism reflects minimum intervention for the assurance of individual freedoms, a meshing of both classical and modern liberalism. States would only be forfeiting sovereignty rights with regards to nuclear strategic assets to ensure their ability to maintain sovereignty over their territory and constituents.