There has always been a discussion whether the incorporation of a country to an International

Treaty or Convention, or the general acceptance of International Law, means that it surrenders
to its sovereignty. This problem is created because of the argument which states that each
Country has its own power and will to decide what kind of laws and acts are created or executed
within its territorial limits, so, the adhesion of a country to an international instrument, same that
establishes some general rules and obligations, can imply, somehow, that the State is
surrendering its sovereignty. But, how can that happen if sovereignty is the highest will to make
decisions without being dependent to an external power? Doesn’t the acceptance of
international law means that de “free will” of the countries will be constrained because of a so
much bigger organization?
First of all, in order to understand the real essence of the problem, we gotta know its basic
concepts and main definitions of the elements that integrate the issue. So the right thing to start
with is the meaning of “Sovereignty”. The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines
Sovereignty as “the supreme power over a body politics; or the freedom from external control”.
(Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2011).
In the same category of ideas, García Máynez tells us that sovereignty, or the sovereign
power, is the highest or supreme, and also an independent power. (García Máynez, 1940). This
concept implies the denial of any superior power to the State’s, what is also the absence of
limits imposed by an external entity. The independence of an entity from the power of other can
be seen primarily in the internal relations between the States that integrate the Mexican
Republic. In this country, each state (México, Colima, Coahuila, Tabasco and others), has its
own partial sovereignty, what means that their respective authorities have the power to create
and apply their laws within their territories, with the only reserve of the cases appointed by the
Federal Constitution and secondary laws. Something similar happens with the Country’s
sovereignty. Each country has its own power to create and apply law within its territory, to make
internal decisions; but the main difference between these two examples is that in the first case,
of the local states, they together integrate a Federation, and in the second examples, Countries,
even though they can celebrate treaties and may regulate their international acts by common
enactments, they don’t create a superior organizational union, so, unlike Federalism, in which,
each state gives a part of it sovereignty to the Federal power, going off into the international law
life, doesn’t necessarily means surrendering our sovereignty.
This figure of internal sovereignty had remained untouched until some decades ago, when
the globalization and the international gobernanza started being present in more political and
government ideas throughout the continents. Before that, everything the governments had to
worry about was the internal problems and the legislation to solve them, but nowadays it is
impossible giving law a gaze without considering the international relations that it regulates. This
involves not only commerce, but civil, criminal, family, and many other branches of law, so it is
utterly important for countries to be immersed into this part of law.
I will use Mexico and its history to express my point of view. The sovereignty principle in this
country was and has been used since de 19th century to give identity and ground to the “new
state” back in 1821. It was from that time, the time of the Mexican Independence, that the
principle of sovereignty has formally existed in our culture. For example, the Constitution of
Apatzingán of 1814, on it fifth article, established: “Sovereignty resides originally on its people,
and its exercise on the nacional representation integrated by deputies chosen by the citizens
under the process that the constitution previously stipulates”. Also, the same document as
above said that the attributions of sovereignty were: “the power to create laws, the power tu
execute them and the power tu apply them to concrete problems”. Analyzing the previous
statements, we can see that sovereignty is not only the autonomy of a country or the power to
create law and apply it, but it is the basis to express and make what the Nation, through its
Powers and institutions, wants within the limits of law. However, even though that vision of
sovereignty was an instrument against any kind of invasion or social disorder after all the political
changes in México, the same statements have been used until these days, as we can see in
our current Constitution.
Nowadays, we can see sovereignty from two points of perspective: internal sovereignty, as
the public power of the government to create and execute law, and more generally, legally act,
inside their own territory; and external sovereignty, which means independence and autonomy
from any external entity or organization that doesn’t belong to the same territory or government.
The second kind of sovereignty is which applies to this case.
Putting the Sovereignty subject apart for a little bit, and continuing the further explaining of
my position to the problem exposed in this essay, I’d like to shortly emphasize the meaning of
International Law. International Law shall be defined as a body of rules which regulate the
relations between Countries, point out their rights and duties (Public), or establish the way in
which the private problems may be solved when they come from the plurality of law (Private).
(García Máynez, 1940). Had said that, as can be easily seen from the last definition, the main
reason for the existence of the International law is to standardize the rules that will establish the
principles, procedures and even rights and duties that Countries will rely on when it comes to
international related issues or relations. Again, as can see from the previous explanation, this
doesn’t mean the submission of a country or the acts of it; it implies an agreement between
countries, which decide whether or not to sign the international instrument, according to each
State principles, ideas and costumes, so the acceptance to live under the rules of international
law shouldn’t affect the sovereignty, as every nation expresses its consent to be a part of it.
The problem of whether sovereignty is affected by International Law gets worse when one
analyzes the many theories created to explained this issue. First, there is a Nationalist Theory
that considers that the nations internal law will prevail over the external or international acts;
second, there is the International Monistic Theory, established by Kelsen, which explains that
the external or international law is above the inner state law; an third, the Dualistic Theory, which
considers that internal and external law shall nos be compared or put one higher than the other,
because the belong to different law regulations, with different nature. In the case of Mexico, the
Constitution, on its article number 133, says what follows: “This Constitution, the laws of the
Congress of the Union that arise from it and all the treaties that agree with it, celebrated and to
be celebrated bye the President of the Republic, with the approval of the Senate, will be the
Supreme Law of the Union”. With the first read of this article, one can think that the Constitution
and the treaties of International Law of which Mexico is part stand on the same level of hierarchy,
but I have given special attention to the part that says “agree with it”, meaning “the treaties that
agree with the Constitution”, because this could mean that even though the Constitution and
the treaties will be applied indistinctly, the writing of the article establishes that the international
instrument has to previously agree to our internal law. In this way, I think that it doesn’t matter
how many treaties we sign as a Country, it doesn’t matter how many theories exist over this
problem, sovereignty doesn’t get essentially affected by International Law, because even when
we agree to follow external and general rules with other Countries, those laws have to agree
with our Constitution, the document that positively and literally expresses our will. And what is
our will but the real expression of sovereignty? To finish this part, I think it is required to mention
a fact that happens in Mexico. I have read that some academics or researchers have analyzed
the situation involving the acceptance of many International instruments and the changes to the
Constitution. They affirm that the inclusion of an international treaty to our legal system doesn’t
happen as explained in the Constitution, that the treaty has previously agree with our supreme
law of the land, and what really happens is that the Mexican State reforms or makes additions
to the Constitution to make it suitable with the rules of international law that apply to us.
However, I would say that, even when this happens, the Constitution is the fundamental
document in which our will and sovereignty get established, so it doesn’t matter if we decide to
make changes or additions to it because of a situation, for it will still be integrated by our
principles, thoughts and will, and instead of looking at this situation as an external control or
pressure, I dare to say that it is also a way to look forward to a future where there are no more
isolated nations, our Countries that work together, creating these instruments tu standardize the
relations between nations and people.
To start my conclusion, I’d like to first give a glance of what many scholars and learners of
law think and then I’ll give my argument of why I think it is different. The main flaw about the
various thesis about sovereignty is that they study it from the inside of a State, and don’t give
importance about the external or international form of the concept; they don’t care about
countries relations. What I think is that even though it seems like sovereignty is affected by
international law, as it can limit a country to do or not do something, that acceptance of a Country
to be a part of those international regulations expresses the will and auto determination of the
Country to do it, and what can you translate these word to? Sovereignty. Personally, I believe
that the main issue of this situation is that it is being studied from an old and narrow concept of
Sovereignty, and the problem is more doctrinal than any other matter.
Furthermore, if someone still sees sovereignty as a concept that refers only to the internal
power of a country, they couldn’t say that International Law affects it, because after all, it
regulates external relations, but doesn’t constrain the power that the Country has to decide
independently. Just as Burga Coronel says: “International law doesn’t collisions with the State
sovereignty. Sovereignty in modern law can’t be understood as the supreme power or the
highest authority, according to the constitutional point of view, for this approach is characteristic
of the internal regulation of each State in relation with its citizens and no with other countries.
This concept of absolute sovereignty doesn’t adapt to reality of internationalization and
integration of international relations”. (Burga Coronel, 2016).
Finally, I’d like to end this essay by making two statements or proposals, which revolve
around the doctrinaire approach of sovereignty. One is we can see it only as a concept of
internal law that is not appropriate for the international law discussions. These is because of al
the arguments that I poured on the previous parts of this essay, sustaining why it should be
treated like that. The second statement is that if we decide to take the concept of sovereignty
into the current life of international law, we should analyze the possibility that the same fact that
a Nation is a part of an International Organization or accepts this matter regulations, it doesn’t
mean that its sovereignty is being constrained, but is being expressed through the will to be
there.
• Burga Coronel, A. (2016). Derecho Internacional y Derecho Interno: el caso de los tratados
de derechos humanos. Bogotá, D.C., Ed. UniAcademia Leyer

• García Máynez, E. (1940). Introducción al Estudio del Derecho. Mexico, D.F., Ed. Porrúa

• Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. (2011) Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law. U.S.A.,

Massachusetts. Ed. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

• Mexican United States Political Constitution. (1917)

• Constitution of Apatzingan. (1814)