Sovereignty in theory is defined as a country or a state’s rights to control its own borders and

everything happening within it. Sovereignty includes economic and political rights or acts that
are controlled by the state itself. A sovereign state is defined as a state that is represented by a
central government which has control over a specific sovereign of a country or state and other
countries tend to avoid interaction or interference with the political and economical affairs of a
country.
This concept is labeled outdated due to different reasons such as the outbreak of different
NGO’s, people who are obligated to follow new policies, the influence of IGO’s and human
rights over a state. They all demonstrate that sovereignty may not prevail, Conversely, the
elements that erode state sovereignty may be insignificant for nations; after all, IGOs are largely
ineffective when it comes to enforcing their resolutions, and several nation states continue to
govern their own policies in the face of globalization pressure. Another threat, which is similar to
globalization, towards state sovereignty is the activities of MNCs as states. MNCs are
multinational corporations that have great influence over international trades; thus, they have
significant influence over the financial situation of a country. As a result, the EU has had an
impact on the foreign policy of several nations, undermining national sovereignty. States cannot
claim sovereignty if they violate human rights. When they believe they are violating human
rights, other countries believe they have the right to act or impose penalties on the country. For
example, when the United States launched the Iraq War, numerous EU members ceased
business with the United States. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on the other hand,
is neither legally enforceable nor effectively implemented. It is lawful for a state to choose to
disregard it. For example, while invading Crimea, Russia violated several Human Rights;
nonetheless, Russia was able to demonstrate its supremacy in the region, and no other nations
imposed sanctions on Russia.
Although there are several counter-arguments that state sovereignty still exists, the
consequences of globalization, the impact of NGOs and IGOs, MNCs' power over governments,
and human rights versus state sovereignty all point to the contrary. To begin with, liberal views
that are shared by the majority of nations support global actions between states, which
constitute a significant danger to sovereign states.Non-state actors, on the other hand, assist
organizations while severely undermining state sovereignty. Non-state actors include inter-
governmental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). IGOs and
NGOs are private organizations that have members and supporters from more than one country
and engage in political activities that span national boundaries. They gain their power from two
sources. For starters, they frequently obtain legitimacy by defining the language and goals of
international law.
After all, it has been over 400 years since the Treaties of Westphalia, and the world has
discovered new methods to international order. Although state sovereignty is crucial, the
interconnectedness and interconnection between countries as a result of globalization outdated
national sovereignty. As a result, the shift of MNCs from companies to public and government
institutions predates state sovereignty. Because globalization has allowed nations to develop
international commerce, MNCs should play these functions. After all, liberalism provides
benefits for the people of a state, therefore safeguarding human rights with non-state actors at
the expense of state sovereignty is a must for the liberal world in the twenty-first century. As a
result, state sovereignty is an outmoded idea, particularly in the twenty-first century.