In global relations, weaker participants were played from the earliest times. This was already erstwhile the concept of sovereignty had not yet been known.
Great empires subjugated peoples and their territories, not counting their subjectivity or independence. Only at the threshold of modern times, whose caesium is contractually linked to the peace of Westphalia, ending the 30 Years' War (1648), was the thought of sovereign equality born, expressed in the Latin maxim "par in pairs of non-habet empires" (equal to equal does not exercise power). In time, attention was besides drawn to the warrant of respect for sovereignty by not interfering with national interior affairs, in connection with the protection of spiritual rights.
The knowing of sovereignty in the context of the state was complemented by an enlightened thought which was presented most full by Jan Jakub Rousseau (1712-1788). For the first time it combined the sovereignty of the nation with its most crucial attributes, i.e. indivisibility and inalienability. The sovereignty of which the people as a full are subject cannot be waived, is not subject to statute of limitations, nor can it be divided or limited. The nation has full freedom to establish a government that is legal for so long and may require obedience as long as it fulfills the main nonsubjective of the state, guaranteeing freedom and equality for all.
Under the influence of Rousseau's thought, the sovereignty of the nation became a modern constitutional rule and entered modern constitutional law. However, while constitutional law defines a sovereign in a state, global law defines the state's position in global relations and the attribute of sovereignty only binds to the State. Since the French Revolution, it has been assumed that the state is an organ of the will of the nation, and that the nation is the eventual and ultimate origin of power. In addition to the sovereignty of the state, therefore, there is simply a constitutional rule of national sovereignty. As 1 of the first to proclaim this principle, Constitution 3 May: “All authority of the human community takes its origin by the will of the Nation.” At the same time, the nation is simply a general citizen of a given country, understood in a political and not cultural sense.
The French Revolution – opposing the erstwhile rule of monarchic legitimacy, the rule of nation sovereignty in both interior and global life – has made the main criterion of planet order the sovereignty of nation organized into state. This meant opposition to the principles of the erstwhile global order: possessive wars and conquests, territorial changes without the consent of the people, the usage of force against the nations, interference in their interior affairs. The fresh democratic principles included the independency of the national state, the inviolability of its territory, the ban on the usage of armed forces and non-interference in the interior affairs of another states.
Proclaimed by the French Revolution, the rule of the sovereignty of the nation meant not only the subjectivity of the nation organized into the state, but besides the right of each nation to self-determine, to choose a state organization, including the right to separate from the former, to join another or to make its own state. It was the will of the nation and not the monarch to be the basis of the territorial-political division of Europe. France thus took on a peculiar historical mission, as expressed by the Convention's decree for a "propaganda war" of 19 November 1792, announcing its support for all nations wishing to overthrow tyrants and regain freedom.
State sovereignty and national sovereignty so have the same origin, but they be in parallel to each other, interact with each another and are interconnected. The state's global obligations affect the interior competence of the state authorities and, therefore, find national sovereignty. It is crucial to remember that all the assumptions presented here are ideal, i.e. they were and are idealistic abstraction, up to our times, frequently differing from reality. The cognitive desire to capture the perfect form (structure) of certain phenomena or processes, however, always favours conceptualization and the thought of goals with the intention of achieving them.
Sovereignty of nations and states
The way to full designation of the sovereignty of all states and the subjectivity of nations as general citizens in the processes of government was neither simple nor swift. The application of the rule of nation sovereignty and the attribution of the attribute of sovereignty to states belonging exclusively to ‘civilised society’ meant the usurpation of the sovereignty and supremacy of Western powers over the remainder of the remainder of the “wild” and “barbarbarity”. Only the dissolution of the colonial empires and the subsequent decolonization created conditions for the implementation of the universal ideals of the Westphalian and Enlightenment.
The improvement of the modern strategy of national states took respective centuries, and the apogee of the normalization of the global order, based on sovereign equality of states, was reflected in the United Nations Charter adopted in 1945. It became a quasi-constitution of the "international society", and the Cold War period until 1989 encouraged the strengthening of the Charter's principles, despite ongoing imperial and powerful dependence.
Sovereignty as a constitutional rule and a constitutional attribute of states at different times has been based on political views with a view to prioritising national (ethnic and civil) communities organised in the countries. The sovereignty of nations and states was the top accomplishment in the collision with the trend known from ancient times to modern times to the imperialization of the global system, or to dominate it by large powers.
However, in the context of the ever-increasing waves of internationalisation of social life and their manifestations in the form of integration and globalisation, erosion and dismantling of the sovereignty of states are reaching a critical minute in our eyes. Further strengthening the transnational communities that are most advanced in the improvement of integration of the European Union threatens to eradicate national states. The simplification of their sovereignty is accelerated against the will of the stakeholders themselves, and there are alarming calls at various places to halt these processes.
At the same time, national sovereignty is being degraded as a systemic rule in democratic systems (in authoritarian systems it is not of much importance). The alienation of political and economical elites from society caused a division into an oligarchical establishment and alleged social pits. Due to the increasing polarisation against the background of inequality of chance and the division of social wealth, conflicts between the circles of power and the increasingly frustrated population (nation, people, society, electorate, etc.) are growing, which is simply a cynically insignificant "superena". Sovereign votes, but has no real impact on governments. It has long been noted that no political system, including democracy, ensures the participation of all citizens in the exercise of power. Hence, the various concepts camouflage this flaw, from "liberal" and "people's" democracy, beginning with "swinging democracy" and "demotic mobilisation".
Against this background, a political-ideological trend called sovereignism was born. It has a double pronunciation. With respect to intra-state relations, it is an expression of rebellion against the narrow circles' abuse of the rule of national sovereignty. He calls for the liberation of the nation from the power of the hated elite. On these slogans Donald Trump triumphantly returned to power in the United States. Sam being a billionaire, he stood demagoguely and cynically on the side of the injured and excluded. Evil attributed media elites and the establishment of the east Coast, advocating the leftist slogans of emancipation, sex equality and sexual preferences, not equal opportunities and promotion of people from "social pits".
Enemy No 1 – Globalism
In the global aspect, sovereignty is an expression of opposition to the global oligarchy of the globalist agenda to countries that do not have adequate resources and strength to defend their interests in a collision with the power of global corporations and corporations. It is simply a reaction not only to the limits of decision-making autonomy and sovereignty of sovereign states, but besides to the increasing dependence in the cultural and axiological sphere. It gives impetus to the consolidation of states defending themselves against the external financing of NGOs, acting against the constitutional system, interfering with electoral processes, or undermining the moral condition, historical memory and spiritual traditions of nations. For complex states, it promotes legitimacy of separatist aspirations and secessionist tendencies, e.g. in Catalonia or Quebec.
Sovereignism refers to any aspects of nationalism, and has populist pronunciation, although there is no clear right-wing or left-wing profile. In the associate States of the European Union, which is the most advanced in integration processes, sovereignty is becoming the political doctrine of an expanding number of parties, both ruling (e.g. Hungary or Slovakia) and opposition groups (e.g. Poland, the Czech Republic or Romania), which request clear borders between associate States' competence and EU authorities. The latter, without treaty regulations, let for expanding interference in their interior affairs and dictate the uniformization behaviour, without respect for the privacy and specificity of each participant. In addition, there is an expanding initiative by EU bodies to strengthen the position of EU leadership and centralisation, at the expense of the decision-making autonomy of another members.
Despite pro-EU propaganda, it turns out that citizens of EU countries are not committed to the possible of fast federalisation of Europe. They are closer to national identity than any enigmatic European identity that has not been formatted or institutionalised in subsequent treaties. These were artificial and counterproductive treatments.
What sovereignism?
It is simply a pity that in the election run for the office of the president of the Republic of Poland these matters did not sound clear adequate so that citizens could realize the real threats to Polish subjectivity in integration processes. The slogans were used, recognising the complexity of the decision-making mechanisms in the European Union as being besides hard to explain in collective terms. However, the fresh president will not escape the impact assessment of Poland's increasing dependence, which limits the ability to usage its own political rationality and does not let to separate the anticipation of deciding independently from uncritical obedience to top-down directives and orders.
Member States, in peculiar those smaller and weaker in terms of potential, are aware that by losing equal position and the right of veto in matters of migration, agriculture, trade, energy, climate and security, they will only become protectorates and puppets in the hands of the strongest.
The apologists of the European Union, which puts it on the pedestal of the priorities of the state's abroad policy, as a panacea for all problems, accuse the sovereigns that they do not realize the logic of the functioning of this transnational structure and do not see the civilizational benefits of integration processes. This is an approach of conceited and self-confident beneficiaries of integration processes which are not beyond the slogans to show the advantages of EU centralisation in the long term, at the expense of associate States' own competences.
All the more so, the fresh president should be expected to find what position he will take against the increasing Eurosceptic and sovereign sentiments in society. They are not political aberrations, or even more cognitive deviancy. On the contrary, they are a healthy defence response, conscious of opposition to the expanding attempts to assassinate epochal political conquests, allowing nations organized in countries to follow their own values and interests.
Sovereignty must not mean the withdrawal of states to any kind of anachronistic self-sufficiency, as 1 in an interdependent global strategy is presently impossible to implement. utmost sovereignty, embroidered by the negative values of chauvinism, racism, fascism, or imperialism, can be clearly harmful. Who knows if the doctrine of Trumpism in the United States directs America to specified a dangerous direction? Therefore, the defence of the "egalitarian" order in global relations, based on the principles of sovereign equality between states and the sovereignty of the nation, requires the cooperation of all political forces, citing a common civilisational pedigree and having common good interests in order to avoid further hegemonisation or imperialisation.
Today's situation of Ukraine shows the present and instrumental treatment of Ukraine by external powers. Since the proclamation of independency in 1991, this country has become a “Grzyszko” of geopolitical games due to its crucial spatial location and its resources. The independency of Ukraine from Russian protection became not only the goal of the political elite of Kiev, but besides motivated Western states to drag it to their side. As a consequence of the expanding threats, citing its vital safety interests, Russia has decided to intervene in the military, recognizing the usage of the Ukrainian state against it in its western strategy.
On the example of opposing interference between the Anglo-Saxons and the European Union and Russia, it is clear that Ukrainian sovereignty has undergone complete erosion and relativisation. It is needed insofar as it is intended to confirm by the nominal Ukrainian authorities American and EU claims in exchange for safety guarantees. Donald Trump's administration is absolutely utilizing the weakness of the Kiev government to take control of Ukrainian natural materials and the energy system. erstwhile stalling in negotiations with Russia, Americans effort to play as much as possible for themselves, citing the deficiency of will of the militant parties to normalize the situation.
Russia, on the another hand, treats Ukraine as "the battlefield" and an highly crucial area to safeguard its existential interests. Hence, her determination to establish specified position as a Ukrainian State does not constitute a serious origin of real threats now and in the future. In this cruel “game of empires” the sovereignty of the people and the Ukrainian state is at last.
Deuverenisation of Poland
With respect to Poland, the mention to sovereignty is only a circumstantial decorum of the Polish establishment, as in fact no of the crucial parties sees an alternate to Poland's civilizational location outside Western structures. possibly objectively there is no specified alternative. This means that while dressing in the robes of sovereignism everyone agrees to unconditional patronage of both the US and the European Union, meaning further real desuverenization of Poland.
Referring to sovereignty through “economic nationalism” Donald Tusk is nothing little than a late reaction to the hurraliberal happiness of Poles during the period of systemic transformation through a thoughtless sale of national property. The mistakes made and the harm caused cannot be truly reversed, but at least it is possible to manipulate public awareness in order to pretend that Poland gained more than it lost in this plundering transformation. Compradorian political and economical elites, divided according to the importance of Atlantic or EU affiliations, are in vain flexing the muscles of a increasing state force, incapable to escape from the curatela and the ruthless “tresury” of globalists.
Social fatigue due to the oligarchy of PO-PiS and the deficiency of offer of equalization of opportunities are an explosive mixture. In a situation of comparative prosperity and apparent social tranquility, there is an imperceptible emergence in rebellion, which, in the name of interior and external sovereignty, can endure from the surface a strategy of regulation and regulation that has been mastered for 3 decades. Therefore, wiser politicians, regardless of political options, will be increasingly utilizing sovereign rhetoric, in line with the fashion flowing from across the Atlantic, which is to favour not so much the reversal of globalization trends, but the demonstration of false loyalty to the stupid electorate.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
Think Poland, No. 23-24 (8-15.06.2025)