Here I am answering this question: Why do you think that countries in the Global South tend to strongly emphasize

respect for sovereignty in their foreign policies?

1. Why is sovereignty actively guarded in the Global South?

The following argument will demonstrate the causal effects of why states in the Global South are inclined to emphasize
their sovereignty. I will start with the conceptualization of sovereignty, which will be followed by my core argument.
The concluding remarks will address future expectations.

Sovereignty fundamentally guaranteed autonomy for a given entity within its borders and implied the right to non-
intervention in one’s affairs (Green & Luehrmann, 2017). Nowadays, sovereignty is more commonly seen to be
restricted when citizens are victims of mass atrocities (Green & Luehrmann, 2017). Being a sovereign is salient for all
states, but each of them thinks distinctly about its meaning and importance. I believe the main factors behind this
dissimilarity are historical precedents.

Many Southern states were deprived of their sovereignty by colonial powers. Some states, including East Timor, did not
gain control over their lands until the 2000s (Green & Luehrmann, 2017). Whether they were deemed capable of self-
governance was judged by foreigners. Those whose sovereignty was a hard win unsurprisingly address respect toward
this principle in their foreign policies. The exploitation of their natural resources continued under mandate systems
leaving no space for political, economic, and social development on their lands (Islam, 2015). While they suffered,
many Northern states acquired such military capabilities that their sovereignty became unchallengeable. These states are
unquestionably sovereign, hence there is nothing to emphasize respect for. Controversary, the sovereignty of many
countries in the Southern hemisphere can still be contested and disregarded by a simple great power intervention.
Arnison’s (1993) writing in the 1990s already acknowledged that the growing prominence of HR is opening paths to
mediate in domestic affairs of states under the name of humanitarian intervention. This introduces other fears in the
Southern region. Larger powers may not be reluctant to abuse this principle to their advantage (Arnison, 1993). The
Iraqi and the Libyan antecedents among many others demonstrate that such scepticism is rooted in real-life occurrences .
The hidden motives under “benevolent” intervention further stress states in the Global South to accentuate their
sovereignty in the eyes of others. It is additionally problematic that humanitarian intervention is asymmetrically directed
toward the Southern part of the globe. It can barely be imagined to be carried out against a state in the Global North
(Ayoob, 2002). The authorization of intervention is decided within the UN, which lacks representation of the Southern
states, as many are not members of this organization (Green & Luehrmann, 2017). The principle of non-intervention of
these states can be wounded without including their voices in the decision. This provides another reason for
governments in the Global South to feature the relevance of sovereignty in their foreign policies. Sovereignty is not
solely restricted by humanitarian considerations; globalization has drastically changed the picture (Islam, 2015). The
newly sovereign units are continuously pushed to open their borders for free trade and foreign investment in this
globalized era. Free trade is not equally beneficial to all, and foreign investment can be utilized to secure the interests of
the investor country (Green & Luehrmann, 2017). These repercussions of globalization encourage states to remain
inclined to their sovereignty.

The above-discussed paragraph demonstrates that many interrelated factors render the sovereignty of states in the
Global South contested. This leads to the counteraction of emphasizing sovereignty in their foreign policies. However,
cross-border problems in our globalized world, including terrorism, and climate change, direct attention away from state
sovereignty to that of individuals (Islam, 2015). To combat these intercontinental challenges governments must shrink
their sovereignty for more effective cooperation. If they fail to conclude a compromise because of intersecting national
interests, states may further isolate themselves into separate units exceptionally endorsing the principle of non-
intervention.

The African Union’s fighting to restrict the abuse of state power or Peru joining multiple regional organizations are
optimistic examples (Green & Luehrmann, 2017). After all, if states feel well-established when surpassing the earlier
stage of state-building highlighting their sovereignty may become negligible (Ayoob, 2002). Therefore, I conclude the
strong emphasis on respect toward state sovereignty by Southern countries may be outgrown with time, but this is yet to
be seen.

References:
 Arnison, N. D. (1993). International law and non-intervention: when do humanitarian concerns supersede
sovereignty?. In The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 17(2), 199-209. The Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy.
 Ayoob, M. (2002). Humanitarian intervention and state sovereignty. The international journal of human rights,
6(1), 81-102.
 Green, D., & Luehrmann, L. (2017). Comparative Politics of the Global South: Linking Concepts and Cases.
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
 Islam, M. R. (2015). History of the North-South divide in international law: Colonial discourses, sovereignty,
and self-determination. In International environmental law and the Global South, 23-49. Cambridge University
Press.
Here I am answering this question: Do the terms “Global South” and “Global North” help us understand international
relations? Make sure to justify your answer.
2. IR is invariably lacking the terms ”Global North” and “Global South”
The subsequent essay will attribute to highlight that mainstream International Relations (IR) has not yet incorporated
the terms “Global North” and “Global South” into its structure. After presenting the main argument, my concluding
thoughts address that albeit these phrases highlight what is crucially missing from IR, they do little to enhance our
understanding of this Western science.
IR primarily deals with the affairs of sovereign states. This exclusionary conceptualization signals that the colonized
Southern hemisphere did not qualify as a central piece of analysis. There is no denying that most of the centres of
learning and publishing of IR emanate from the West (Acharya, 2014). This region is still the one that dominates the
discourse in IR. Theories are guided by Western-educated scholars who tell their perspectives, but not others (Acharya,
2014). This setup was not altered by decolonization. The post-colonial world is continuously marginalized by this
discipline (Acharya, 2014). Although there is an increasing demand to reform the Western centrism of IR (Acharya,
2015), it is apparent that such efforts have not yet been ground-breaking.
If the expressions “Global North” and “Global South” exist in this field, attention should not be drawn to incorporate
voices below the equator. Green and Lauhrmann's (2017) work is an example of emphasising the lack of recognition
and difference beyond the Western zone. They did not reflect on how IR integrates the Southern hemisphere in its
research but instead stressed its absence. According to them, great powers should not matter more than others, what
happens with less powerful regions similarly emits worldwide effects. The world is reciprocal, but as they observe
international organizations are heavily dependent on Western powers and exclusionist toward the Rest. They estimate
that the relationship between the North and South remains exploitative. A good illustration of that is foreign aid, which
rather contributes to the well-being of the donor country than to that of the “beneficiary”. There is a constant emphasis
in their work to include a wide variety of voices from the “Global South” in the current institutional setup. However,
they propose no solution. They justly acknowledge there is no coherent strategy to reach this scenario (Green &
Luehrmann, 2017), much like there is no unified method of how to open the gates of IR to the terms “Global North” and
“Global South”.
During my years of studying IR, I have not encountered an outstanding Realist or Liberal piece of work that accentuated
the division between North and South. It is because IR has not reconciled itself to the fact that its current understanding
has a “Global South deficit”. The discipline does not articulate the history of colonization nor its legacy (Acharya,
2014). Historical precedents would sound differently from non-Western perspectives. Acharya (2014) righteously
pointed out the Cold War was not cold in many Southern states where proxy wars unfolded, likewise democratic peace
theory fails if we include the “Global South” in our examination. Hence IR has one voice, that of the “Global North”.
Evidently, there is no apparent division between “Global North” and “Global South” in IR. It generalizes its Northern
concepts to the rest of the world without acknowledging differences. Therefore, something that has not yet been
incorporated into IR cannot make us understand this field of study. I in no way suggest that this is how IR should work,
however, my analysis demonstrates that we are biased to think IR endorses the division between the two hemispheres.
While there is an excessive need to embrace the Southern region in IR, it should not exclusively focus on that (Acharya,
2014). We need a Global IR, in which the world’s all diversity is encompassed equally (Acharya, 2014).
The first step towards a more inclusive IR has been reached since many scholars strongly exercise their voices to change
the biased standpoint of the discipline. Therefore, we can remain hopeful for the future. However, for now, IR persists
as a blatantly Eurocentric science.
Subsequently, I carry on my opinion that IR up until today does not contain the terms “Global North” and “Global
South”. Hence the terminology “Global North” and “Global South” cannot help us make sense of an area of study that
excludes this division.
References:
 Acharya, A. (2014). Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International
Studies. International studies quarterly, 58(4), 647-659.
 Acharya, A. (2015). An IR for the Global South or a Global IR?. Global South Review, 2(2), 175-178.
 Green, D., & Luehrmann, L. (2017). Comparative Politics of the Global South: Linking Concepts and Cases.
Lynne Rienner Publishers.