Research Articles - VTechWorks - Virginia Tech

Research Articles
Crain
sion to the sovereignty discourse; however,
scholars continue to evaluate the changing
ways through which legitimacy is achieved
and lost. Von Rooy developed an important
demarcation of legitimacy transactions,
in which she argues that claims to legitimacy
must be based firstly upon “meaningful
representation” (Von Rooy 2004:
67). The legitimacy dimension of sovereignty
therefore necessitates “acceptance
of representation” (Von Rooy 2004: 68).
As such, localized populations maintain a
significant role in this dimension of sovereignty
1 . From this perspective, civil society
cannot exist or achieve legitimacy without
originating and operating from a very low
level within Africa. Global civil society theorists
tend to equate NGOs with civil society,
since on the global stage they are the most
prominent non-state actors in governance.
However, especially in Africa these NGOs
are often not representative of the locals
for which they advocate, and so a distinction
must be made. Global actors receive
legitimacy when they have the capacity to
reach and empower local movements in
areas of failed state capacity. International
actors, therefore, can achieve legitimacy
through the accurate reflection of local interests.
However, it is extremely important
to remember that this legitimacy can only
be granted by the localized population. It is
also important to note that the state simply
represents a single entity in a complex
web of international governance capable of
achieving local legitimacy.
Secondly, sovereignty implies a certain
level of capacity. This dimension follows
logically from legitimacy; in order to receive
legitimacy by internal and external agents,
state institutions and rulers must hold the
capacity to exercise influence and authority.
This dimension, although it follows logically
from the original concept of sovereignty,
catalyzes a significant evolution of the
1 This role has often been clouded by the state-society perspective in civil society literature.
64
sovereignty concept when placed within
the failed states context of Africa. Since
independence, African states have often
been granted external legitimacy by the international
community. However, since they
have often failed to maintain the capacity
to rule within their delineated territory, we
witness a fracturing of sovereignty (Bacik
2008). Essentially, the state formation process
in Africa has proven that sovereignty
can be shared between actors, and that
the location of external legitimacy does not
preclude internal capacity.
Thirdly, sovereignty entails responsibility
(Deng and Lyons 1996;1998). This dimension
represents the most radical evolution
of sovereignty theory, and it remains slightly
theoretical due to the relative weakness
of the international community. It reflects
the collective response of the international
community to the humanitarian and governance
crises that have occurred in the
developing world, and thereby reflects the
global humanitarian ideals that have spread
following the institutionalization of international
cooperation. Essentially, states can
no longer obtain external legitimacy without
accepting responsibility for the wellbeing of
the citizenry that they represent and rule.
Sovereignty as responsibility represents
the will of the collective international community
for global order. Before the World
Wars of the 20th century and recent globalization,
the international arena attempted
to maintain order through the maintenance
of state sovereignty. However, as Deng argues,
the international system has evolved
in such a manner that certain states no
longer uphold the responsibility to ensure
order that sovereignty has always implied.
This is reflected empirically by the implicit
refusal of states such as the DRC, Somalia,
and Sudan to accept responsibility for the
well-being and security of the population.
For this reason, sovereignty as responsibil-