Nowadays, countries face many internal issues such as civil wars, authoritarian regimes and riots. However, the authority of governments hasn’t been a recent problem for the majority of nation-states around the globe. After all, they are the only ones who have the power to create laws and policies that affect their own territory. Or, are they? The truth is that there are many factors that can affect a country's sovereignity. But, what does the concept of sovereignty really means? According to the Dictionary of Politics and Government written by P.H Collins, sovereignty is “the power to govern independently”. For the most part of history, sovereignty was only possessed by absolute monarchs because they were the only people who could rule over a country. However, as democracies started forming around the world, sovereignty begun to apply to whole governments instead of just one person. This means that a nation-state that is sovereign is “an independent country which governs itself” (Collins, 230). Taking into account the definition of sovereignty, it can be stated that nowadays, nation-states aren’t sovereign because of multinational corporations, international organizations and international law which are factors that have the power to influence the domestic policies of a country.   

Multinational corporations are capable of changing domestic plicies or even influencing their creation Before explaining how multinational corporations are able to do this, it is important to understand what are the effects of an MNC (multinational corporation) arriving to a country. To start, the arrival of a MNC has a positive effect on the domestic suppliers. This happens because the domestic suppliers produce the inputs that the MNC needs to make its products. Actually, according to Steve Kapfer, an expert in Political Science from Brigham Young university, MNCs also help domestic suppliers reach specific quality standards so that the inputs they produce allow the corporations to maintain their reputation and to improve their efficiency and profits (Kapfer, 6). However, the effects of the arrival of an MNC to a nation-state don’t limit to domestic suppliers. In fact, multinational corporations can improve overall wages in a country because they offer higher salaries than domestic competitors in order to attract better qualified workers (Kapfer, 5). Finally,  domestic competition can also be benefited by the arrival of an MNC to a country. Competitors can buy the improved inputs produced by domestic suppliers since they were helped by a multinational corporation to offer a better product (Kapfer, 7). Also, domestic competitors can gain the managerial knowledge from an MNC by hiring former workers of that corporation (Kapfer, 7). All the effects that the arrival of MNCs produce, make them very powerful because they can determine the rate at which a country develops and the economic prosperity of entire nations (Kapfer, 9). Corporations can use this power to make governments change an internal policy. For example, the U.S decreased the amount of taxes the corporations had to pay so that they stayed in that country instead of moving the corporation’s factories to a more profitable nation-state. Specifically, since April 8, 2019, the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has been applied. In this Act, the income taxes corporations had to pay dropped from 35% to just 21% (DePillis). Taking into account the example and all the information provided previously it can be said that, multinational corporations pose a threat to the sovereignty of a country because of the governmental dependance they create thanks to their power to determine the prosperity of a nation.

Another factor that can force a country to change its policies is international organizations. According to Julian Ku and John Yoo, both professors of law, International organizations are able to do this thanks to their independence and their power (Ku and Yoo, 218). But how can an international organization gain independence? Well, the most common way of achieving it is by choosing leaders who aren’t loyal to any country in specific. An example of this is the appointment of judges from the International Court of Justice. These judges are elected by the United Nations General Assembly and since countries from many different ideological positions are represented on this assembly, the judges that are elected won’t favor any nation-state in specific (Ku and Yoo, 219). Being independent isn’t enough to require a country to modify its laws so, where does the power from the international organizations to do this comes from? This question has two answers: the countries that are members of the organization and international law. Members of an international organization (nation-states) yield some of their sovereign power with the purpose of joining the institution or to convince the organization of benefiting them (Ku and Yoo, 218). But as explained before, international organizations don’t favor any specific country thanks to their independent leadership. Sometimes, organizations can use the power yielded by a country to force the government of that same nation-state to modify its policies because it doesn’t follow international law which is enforced by international organizations (Ku and Yoo, 222). In fewer words, international organizations are able to influence the policy-making process of a government thanks to its independence and to its power, yielded by its members, that is used to enforce international law. If organizations have the capacity to this, it means that countries can’t decide independently which policies they adopt making them lose their sovereignty. 

Since international law is enforced by international organizations, it has the power to force a country to change its domestic policies. However, international law hasn’t always had this power. Before explaining how international law has changed its focus as time passed, it is important to clarify what does international law really is. Well, according to Manuel Alberto Restrepo, PhD in Law, international law is the set of legal compromises established by countries all around the world (Interview done in the 30/05/2019). At first, when international law just emerged, it was focused on supervising the relationships between different nation-states. Nowadays, it also focuses on regulating the relation between governments and their citizens (Ku and Yoo, 223). International organizations enforce international law when it considers that a country do not guarantee their citizens universal rights like the right of life, liberty and security (Ku and Yoo, 222). International organizations that enforce international law use mechanisms such as economic sanctions and military interventions to force countries to modify their policies. This was unthinkable in the past since, a few decades ago, countries could decide how they treated their residents without any kind of consequences in the international community (Ku and Yoo, 222). If international organizations continue to gain more power to enforce international law, nation-states will lose all their capacity to create their own domestic policies which means they will lose all their sovereignty. Because of this, nation-states around the world could end up having the same laws and policies.

In theory, democratic countries are sovereign because they allow their citizens to make the ultimate decision about the most important issues that affect the whole nation. Ideally this would happen without any interference from external factors (Restrepo, 10). One example of citizens deciding through democracy about the issues that affect them, is the case of the 2001 referendum of Turbaco, a municipality located in the state of Bolívar, Colombia. In this referendum, the residents of a neighbourhood located in this municipality called San José de los Campanos, were asked if they wanted their sector to belong to the district of Cartagena de Indias rather than to Turbaco. The results of the referendum were overwhelming. Of the 2,254 people that voted just 22 of them were against their neighbourhood being part of  Cartagena (“HISTÓRICO CONSULTAS POPULARES”). After this popular query, the sector immediately passed to belong to the big city known as Cartagena (Arcieri). However, there are many cases in which governments do not abide the decisions made by the people because of pressure either from multinational corporation or from the international community, including organizations. For example, last October, the Corte Constitucional, the Supreme Court of Colombia, annulled the results of a referendum taken place in the municipality of Cumaral, Meta in which the residents decided if exploitation of petroleum should continue in that zone or not. The Corte Constitucional did this even though 97% of voters didn’t support the exploitation of oil in the municipality arguing that according to the Colombian Constitution, the soil is property of the national government (“Claves del fallo sobre consultas para frenar actividades extractivas”). But, why did the state decide to override the results of the referendum if the cease of operations of the corporation in charge of exploiting the oil would benefit the population’s health and the environment? Well, one of the factors that certainly influenced this decision was economic pressure. The government depended in the royalties given by the corporation who exploited the oil in Cumaral (Mansarovar Energy) to build infrastructure in Meta and to develop different nation-wide projects that needed funding. The Cumaral referendum demonstrates that democracy isn’t always a tool which allows the citizens to decide on how their government react to certain issues. In other words, sometimes, governments can prioritize the permanence of a corporation in a region over the will of the citizens in order to gain the benefits that corporations can give the country’s economy. 

To close up, there are external factors such as multinational corporations, international organizations and international law that can limit the sovereignty of a country even if that country is ruled through democracy. Because of all information provided above it can be stated that in actuality, nation-states aren't sovereign. But, how does the erosion of sovereignty from nation-states affects the common citizen? Well, as governments lose the power to govern independently, citizens will also lose their capacity to control how do their government act. This will happen because governments will be forced to follow the will of international organizations and multinational corporations over the will of the people if they want to comply international law and to develop their economy. 

             Works Cited 

Arcieri, Vicente.“UN BARRIO SE MUDÓ DE CIUDAD” El Tiempo. 19/09/2001. Accessed 04/06/2019. 

“Claves del fallo sobre consultas para frenar actividades extractivas” El  Tiempo. 18/10/2018. Accessed 04/06/2019. 

Collin, P.H. “Dictionary of Politics and Government” BLOOMSBURY, 2004. Page: 230. Accessed 12 May 2019.

DePillis, Lydia. “4 ways Trump’s tax cuts changed the American economy” CNN Business. CNN. 15/04/2019. Accessed: 04/06/2019. 

Kapfer, Steve. “Multinational Corporations and the Erosion of State Sovereignty” Illinois State University Conference for Students of Political Science, 2006. Pages 1, 5-10, 13, 15. Accessed 9 April 2019.

Ku, Julian and Yoo, John. “Globalization and Sovereignty” Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, 2003. Pages: 213, 214, 217, 218, 220, 222-226, Accessed 11/05/2019.

“HISTÓRICO CONSULTAS POPULARES” Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil. 27/04/2014. Accessed 04/06/2019.

Restrepo, Manuel . “ALCANCES E IMPLICACIONES DE LA CRISIS DE LA SOBERANÍA ESTATAL” 2019. Pages: 1, 5, 7-10, 12, 13. Accessed 11 May 2019.