00:00:18
I’m going to talk to you for a few minutes
today about sovereignty, a concept that is
00:00:25
both extremely important in the modern world
and a concept that’s also pretty abstract,
00:00:31
which I think often people don’t fully understand.
00:00:36
I think if you’re thinking about sovereignty,
the basic notion of sovereignty which people
00:00:42
have in their heads is that politics takes
place within countries, specific states.
00:00:51
These countries are independent from each
other, and within each country, the people
00:00:57
in that country are able to establish their
own laws, their own institutions.
00:01:02
This is something, actually, that’s very
familiar to Americans, since we know what
00:01:06
the United States is.
00:01:07
We know that the United States fought a revolution
with Britain, that the United States became,
00:01:15
at the end of the 18th century, an independent
sovereign state.
00:01:20
The critical first step in understanding how
sovereignty has actually worked, how this
00:01:27
way of organizing political life has actually
worked, is to recognize that there are at
00:01:33
least three different ways of thinking about
sovereignty.
00:01:38
And these three different ways of thinking
about sovereignty do not necessarily go together
00:01:45
either logically or historically.
00:01:49
The first way of thinking about sovereignty
is international legal sovereignty.
00:01:55
And international legal sovereignty has a
fundamental rule.
00:02:02
And the rule is: Recognize juridically independent
territorial entities.
00:02:10
By that, what I mean is that international
legal sovereignty occurs when one state or
00:02:15
many states recognize another state as being
an independent state.
00:02:19
The United States recognizes Great Britain,
or it recognizes France or Mexico or Brazil
00:02:25
or South Africa or Nigeria.
00:02:27
And once recognition has taken place, countries
would exchange ambassadors.
00:02:33
Internationally recognized states would become
members of international organizations like
00:02:38
the United Nations or the World Bank or the
International Monetary Fund.
00:02:43
And once states recognize each other, they
agree that they can sign treaties or contracts
00:02:49
with each other in the same way that private
individuals might sign business contracts
00:02:54
in the United States.
00:02:56
So international legal sovereignty is one
way of thinking about sovereignty.
00:03:00
The second way of thinking about sovereignty
is what people have generally called Westphalian
00:03:06
sovereignty.
00:03:08
Westphalian sovereignty refers actually to
a peace agreement that was signed in 1648
00:03:15
and ended the Thirty Years’ War, which was
a very, very costly war fought mostly in Germany.
00:03:23
The ideal of Westphalian sovereignty is that
each state is autonomous and independent.
00:03:29
Each state has the right to decide on its
own national laws, national institutions,
00:03:36
national voting arrangements.
00:03:39
And the corollary of that, the rule that goes
along with Westphalian sovereignty, is: Do
00:03:46
not intervene in the internal affairs of other
states.
00:03:50
So non-intervention in the internal affairs
of other countries is a basic rule of Westphalian
00:03:56
sovereignty.
00:03:57
I do have to say, although this is more history
than you need to know, actually Westphalian
00:04:02
sovereignty had very little to do with the
Peace of Westphalia.
00:04:05
And the idea of non-intervention was really
developed only 100 or 150 years later, actually
00:04:13
by a Swiss international lawyer named Emmerich
de Vattel.
00:04:18
But that’s an historical detail which you
don’t have to worry about.
00:04:25
So international legal sovereignty is one
way of thinking about sovereignty.
00:04:30
Westphalian sovereignty is a second way of
thinking about sovereignty.
00:04:35
The third way of thinking about sovereignty
is domestic sovereignty.
00:04:40
And basically domestic sovereignty means the
nature of the institutions, the rules, the
00:04:45
laws within a country, and the extent to which
those institutions and rules and laws are
00:04:51
actually effective.
00:04:53
So if you looked at the domestic sovereignty
of the United States, you would say it’s
00:04:57
a democracy, it has a presidential system
of government and the government works more
00:05:03
or less pretty well.
00:05:05
If you looked at Great Britain, you would
say that it’s a democracy, it has a parliamentary
00:05:11
form of government, and the government also
governs pretty effectively.
00:05:17
If you looked at China, you would probably
say that it’s an autocratic form of government
00:05:27
run by the Communist Party, very different
than the United States or Britain, although
00:05:31
there the government is also quite effective.
00:05:35
If we looked at Haiti at the moment, actually,
as we’re thinking about Haiti right now,
00:05:41
in March of 2004, Haiti actually has no government.
00:05:45
The president has just left the country, the
country is in chaos.
00:05:50
So we would say that it’s hard to identify,
uh, what Haitian institutional structures
00:05:57
are, although there is a constitution.
00:06:00
And it’s certainly the case that the government
in Haiti, what there is of it, is not very
00:06:06
effective.
00:06:07
So we have then, three kinds of sovereignty:
international legal sovereignty, Westphalian
00:06:16
sovereignty, and domestic sovereignty.
00:06:19
The single most important thing to understand
about sovereignty is that these three kinds
00:06:26
of sovereignty do not necessarily go together.
00:06:32
If you look, for instance, at the contemporary
international environment, there are countries
00:06:38
in the present world which have every possible
mix that you could imagine of international
00:06:45
legal sovereignty, Westphalian sovereignty,
and domestic sovereignty.
00:06:48
I would say that the United States, Japan,
China actually have all three kinds of sovereignty,
00:06:58
but most other states do not.
00:07:01
If you looked, for instance, at Haiti, Haiti
is a recognized country today.
00:07:07
It has international legal sovereignty, but
it is now being occupied by foreign troops.
00:07:13
So it doesn’t have Westphalian sovereignty,
nor does Haiti have effective domestic sovereignty.
00:07:22
If you look at many countries in Africa, these
countries all have international legal sovereignty.
00:07:32
Some of them have Westphalian sovereignty,
that is, people are not trying to alter their
00:07:37
internal affairs, but very few of them have
effective domestic sovereignty.
00:07:44
If you look at the countries that are members
of the European Union, this is now 15 countries,
00:07:52
which will be expanded to 25 in May of 2004,
00:07:56
all of these countries
have international legal sovereignty.
00:08:01
Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands
all sit in the United Nations.
00:08:09
They all have effective domestic governance,
effective domestic sovereignty.
00:08:16
But in many ways, these countries have voluntarily
signed away their Westphalian sovereignty.
00:08:22
They’ve agreed to be members of the European
Union.
00:08:26
Within the European Union, there are some
decisions that are taken by a majority of
00:08:31
states, so that if you’re a member of the
European Union, you have to honor these agreements
00:08:36
even if you disagree with them.
00:08:38
And they’ve created supranational institutions,
especially the European Court of Justice.
00:08:44
The European Court of Justice, which is a
kind of international court for the European
00:08:48
Union, makes decisions which are directly
applicable in national courts of the member
00:08:57
states.
00:08:58
So, for instance, there was a complaint about
how Britain was running its prison system.
00:09:03
The European Court of Justice decided that
Britain was in violation of European rules,
00:09:08
and Britain was compelled to alter the way
in which it was dealing with its prison system
00:09:13
because these findings, these decisions by
the European Court of Justice, were enforceable
00:09:20
in British courts.
00:09:21
It’s as if, and this is an idea that’s
very alien to the United States, it would
00:09:25
be as if a court, for instance, that was sitting
in Canada could make decisions that would
00:09:31
be directly applicable in a court in California
or Kansas or New Jersey.
00:09:36
So if you look at the member states of the
European Union, they have international legal
00:09:41
sovereignty, they have effective domestic
governance, they do not have Westphalian sovereignty.
00:09:48
So the first thing to recognize about sovereignty
is that it really has these three different
00:09:54
components.
00:09:56
These components are different.
00:09:57
They do not necessarily go together.
00:09:59
And if you look around the world, you can
find virtually any mix of Westphalian, international
00:10:06
legal, and domestic sovereignty.
00:10:09
It may be easier to understand the idea of
sovereignty if we contrast sovereignty with
00:10:15
other ways in which political life has been
organized.
00:10:19
And I’m going to give you three examples
of different ways in which historically politics
00:10:27
has been organized by human beings.
00:10:29
One is tribes.
00:10:31
If you think about tribes, tribes are a form
of political organization.
00:10:36
People become members of a tribe basically
through birth.
00:10:39
Tribes often did not have specific territories.
00:10:43
If you look at Native Americans, many Native
American tribes, not all, were nomadic.
00:10:49
They moved from one place to another.
00:10:51
They moved their laws with them.
00:10:53
They did not identify themselves with a specific
territory.
00:10:57
If you look historically at nomadic peoples
in Africa or the steppes of Eurasia, they
00:11:05
had rules, they had regulations, they had
rulers.
00:11:07
They had mechanisms for making decisions within
their societies, but they were not limited
00:11:12
to specific territory.
00:11:14
So if you think about tribes as a way of organizing
political life, tribes are characterized by
00:11:21
structures of governance, laws, rules, leaders,
but tribes did not have specific territories.
00:11:28
Very different from the idea of sovereignty.
00:11:31
Sovereignty has lines on a map.
00:11:33
States have territories.
00:11:35
States recognize the boundaries of other states
and it’s clear where a state exists.
00:11:42
A second example of a different way of organizing
political life: Medieval Europe.
00:11:48
Medieval Europe was a political system in
which there were often many different claims
00:11:55
to authority and authority structures within
a specific territory.
00:12:00
The most obvious disputes, and the ones historically
that were most consequential, were disagreements
00:12:06
between the Church, this was the Catholic
Church, on the one hand, and various secular
00:12:13
rulers, kings, on the other.
00:12:15
The Church made claims to govern certain kinds
of activities, certainly the activities of
00:12:20
the Church itself and its members, priests.
00:12:23
The Church often made claims to govern other
kinds of activities: Inheritance, marriage,
00:12:28
a number of different activities.
00:12:31
The Church, the popes in the 11th and 12th
and 13th century, often intervened in affairs
00:12:37
that we think of as being the affairs of state,
like wars and excommunicated, in some instances,
00:12:45
rulers for not honoring the decisions of the
Church.
00:12:50
So if you look at medieval Europe, medieval
Europe was a political system in which competing
00:12:56
authorities existed within the same territory.
00:13:00
There was not a claim to one exclusive authority
structure within a specific territory.
00:13:06
So within France, you had the King of France.
00:13:09
You also had at times historically the King
of England, who owned certain territories
00:13:15
in France.
00:13:16
You had the Catholic Church also making claims
within France to certain kinds of activities.
00:13:22
So medieval Europe had territory, but it didn’t
have any idea of exclusive authority within
00:13:27
that territory.
00:13:29
A third example: What’s called now the Sinocentric
world, the world of East Asia, the world of
00:13:36
China before the kind of massive arrival of
the European powers in the 19th century.
00:13:43
In the Sinocentric world, and this is something
that had existed for millennia before the
00:13:50
19th century, there was no notion of sovereign
equality.
00:13:54
There was no idea of international legal sovereignty.
00:13:58
There was no notion of mutual recognition.
00:14:01
China essentially claimed to be the center
of the universe.
00:14:04
There were other political entities like Korea
or Vietnam.
00:14:08
They were always regarded as tributary states
of China, inferior to China.
00:14:16
Tributary states episodically, sometimes once
a year, sometimes once every three years,
00:14:21
would send tribute missions to Beijing, the
capital of China.
00:14:25
The tribute missions included gifts to the
Chinese empire and also opportunities for
00:14:30
trade.
00:14:31
The Chinese emperor invested kings or rulers,
would send delegates to Vietnam or Korea or
00:14:38
other tributary states to legitimate the rule
of certain individuals.
00:14:43
But there was no idea that, for instance,
Korea and China were in some ways equal.
00:14:48
There was no such thing as an ambassador or
permanent representatives between Korea and
00:14:54
China because that would imply that these
two countries were equal.
00:14:58
China would have been ... a son.
00:15:01
I’m sorry, China would have been the father,
Korea would have been the son.
00:15:06
So there was always a sense in this traditional
Sinocentric world not of some idea of international
00:15:11
legal sovereignty and formal equality, but
rather of a world in which China was the center
00:15:17
of the universe and other political entities
were subordinate.
00:15:21
So we’ve lived in a world historically in
which there have been different ways of organizing
00:15:26
political life.
00:15:27
The notion of sovereignty as the key way of
organizing political life is something that’s
00:15:33
been widespread in the world for the last
200 years, and most forcefully since decolonization
00:15:41
after the Second World War and especially
since 1960.
00:15:47
If you look at how sovereignty has actually
worked, returning to these three ideas of
00:15:53
sovereignty, domestic sovereignty, international
legal sovereignty, and Westphalian sovereignty,
00:15:57
what’s striking, I think historically, is
the extent to which the basic rules of sovereignty
00:16:04
recognized juridically independent states,
and especially the rule of Westphalian sovereignty
00:16:10
non-intervention, have frequently been violated.
00:16:13
So even within the world of sovereign states,
the rules of sovereignty have not always been
00:16:20
honored.
00:16:21
In fact, they’ve frequently been ignored
or transgressed.
00:16:25
And let me give you a few examples of this
in the contemporary world and also some historical
00:16:34
examples.
00:16:35
If we think about international legal sovereignty,
the basic rule is recognize juridically independent
00:16:42
territorial entities.
00:16:44
If we look at the member states of the European
Union, none of these states are any longer
00:16:51
juridically independent.
00:16:52
In fact, in terms of their law, the laws of
each member state of the European Union are
00:16:58
subject to interpretations and decisions taken
by the European Court of Justice.
00:17:04
Despite that fact, all of the member states
of the European Union are still recognized,
00:17:09
and nobody’s proposed, for instance, taking
away France’s seat or Britain’s seat in
00:17:15
the Security Council of the United Nations
on the grounds that these states are no longer
00:17:19
juridically independent.
00:17:20
Yet, in fact, they’re not fully juridically
independent.
00:17:26
A second example, and one that I think is
in some ways odder and more interesting, is
00:17:31
the example of Hong Kong.
00:17:34
Hong Kong was for a long time essentially
a British colony.
00:17:39
In the 1990s, Hong Kong was returned to China.
00:17:42
Hong Kong, as many of you I’m sure know,
is a very prosperous place.
00:17:47
It’s basically kind of a large city with
the island of Hong Kong and then some territory
00:17:54
that’s on the mainland of China, has been
extremely successful.
00:17:59
When the country was returned to China, the
Chinese government in Beijing did not just
00:18:06
want to incorporate Hong Kong into China itself.
00:18:09
They demanded, in a formal sense, that Hong
Kong become part of China and be accepted
00:18:15
as part of China.
00:18:17
But they did not want to subject Hong Kong
to Chinese law.
00:18:22
They didn’t want the Beijing, the People’s
Republic Army, to simply march into Hong Kong.
00:18:28
And they didn’t want to do that because
they didn’t want to destroy the economic
00:18:34
prosperity of Hong Kong, which rested on this
very active, very wealthy, and very skilled
00:18:39
business community in Hong Kong.
00:18:41
So what they did was they created Hong Kong
as a special entity within China.
00:18:47
They allowed, that is the Beijing government,
allowed Hong Kong to continue to be a member
00:18:54
of the World Trade Organization.
00:18:56
The World Trade Organization is an organization
that sets rules for international trade.
00:19:02
China at this time was not itself even a member
of the WTO, the World Trade Organization,
00:19:07
but a piece of China actually was.
00:19:10
The Chinese government allowed Hong Kong to
conclude visa agreements with other countries.
00:19:17
So, for instance, if you’re an American,
you can fly into Hong Kong without getting
00:19:22
any visa in advance.
00:19:25
If you fly into the PRC, the People’s Republic
of China, mainland China, you have to get
00:19:31
a visa in advance.
00:19:32
If you’re a citizen of China and you’re
going to Hong Kong, you have to get special
00:19:37
papers that allow you to go to Hong Kong.
00:19:40
So it’s as if an American needed some kind
of certificate, almost a kind of visa, to
00:19:48
go, say, from New Jersey to Pennsylvania or
Florida to Georgia.
00:19:55
So internally, what happened in Hong Kong
is that Hong Kong actually does have international
00:20:00
legal sovereignty.
00:20:01
It is a recognized entity.
00:20:03
It is a member state of international organizations.
00:20:07
It has signed separate visa agreements with
many, many countries.
00:20:11
But at the same time, it’s not a juridically
independent state.
00:20:16
It’s part of China.
00:20:17
So again, the rule of international legal
sovereignty has been violated.
00:20:21
So international legal sovereignty is a rule
very widely understood, but not universally
00:20:28
honored.
00:20:29
Some of the entities that are recognized as
international legal sovereigns are actually
00:20:35
not juridically independent.
00:20:37
They are not fully independent states, or
in the case of Hong Kong, they’re certainly
00:20:41
not a fully independent political entity.
00:20:44
If you look at Westphalian sovereignty, Westphalian
sovereignty has been even more frequently
00:20:50
violated, very frequently violated.
00:20:53
There have been very, very frequent attempts
by especially powerful states, to influence
00:21:01
domestic authority structures in weaker states.
00:21:03
This is something that has happened historically
in virtually every major peace treaty that’s
00:21:09
been signed since the 17th century through
the end of the 20th century.
00:21:14
And it’s certainly something that you see
occurring in the contemporary international
00:21:19
environment and in many different places.
00:21:22
The basic reason that Westphalian sovereignty
has frequently been violated is this: Often
00:21:29
international peace and security depend on
what the nature of a domestic political regime
00:21:35
is in another state.
00:21:37
Is the state peaceful or not?
00:21:38
Is it ruled by someone who is interested in
peaceful international organizations or interactions
00:21:45
or ruled by someone who’s interested in
international conquest?
00:21:49
If you can change the nature of the ruler
or change the nature of the regime, you can
00:21:54
change the way in which that country affects
the international system.
00:21:59
Let me give you a few historical examples
and then turn to the contemporary era.
00:22:06
Historically, one of the places that has been
very troubled internationally and is still
00:22:11
troubled today in terms of the way in which
it’s been governed domestically is the Balkans.
00:22:18
The major states in the Balkans today are
Albania, Yugoslavia, Croatia, and Slovenia.
00:22:24
In the 19th century.
00:22:26
at the beginning of the 19th century, the
Balkan countries, the Balkans themselves,
00:22:32
were controlled by the Ottoman Empire.
00:22:34
The Ottoman Empire had its capital in Istanbul.
00:22:37
It had been a very large, powerful empire
really going back to the 14th century.
00:22:45
In the course of the 19th century, all of
the Balkan possessions of the Ottoman Empire
00:22:52
became independent, beginning with Greece
in 1832, then Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
00:23:04
in 1878 and ending with Albania in 1913.
00:23:09
In every single case, the major powers of
Europe said that we will recognize you as
00:23:15
an independent state, but only if you guarantee
the rights of religious minorities within
00:23:20
your own country.
00:23:22
And if you don’t guarantee minority rights,
we will not recognize you.
00:23:26
So your international legal sovereignty, the
international legal sovereignty of these new
00:23:30
states, was contingent on their accepting
minority rights, something which they would
00:23:37
not have done otherwise.
00:23:38
This is an example of a clear violation of
Westphalian sovereignty.
00:23:43
External actors, the major powers of Europe,
were intervening in the internal affairs of
00:23:48
Greece, of Romania, Bulgaria, of Albania,
to insist that these countries institute constitutional
00:23:57
rules that would protect religious minorities
and ethnic minorities within each of these
00:24:03
countries.
00:24:04
After the First World War, which ended in
1918, there were very extensive negotiations
00:24:11
in Versailles in France to try and create
a more peaceful international world.
00:24:16
The major powers, now including the United
States, looked at the First World War, saw
00:24:23
that in part at least, the First World War
had arisen as a result of ethnic nationalist
00:24:28
conflicts within the Balkans, decided that
it was critical to deal with issues of minority
00:24:33
rights.
00:24:34
Felt that if you were going to have democratic
regimes which Woodrow Wilson, the American
00:24:39
President, especially thought would be essential
for international peace, you had to find a
00:24:44
way to deal with issues of minority rights.
00:24:48
And again, what the major powers did, this
is the United States, Britain, France, the
00:24:53
major powers insisted that smaller states,
especially new states, states that were being
00:24:59
newly created as a condition of being recognized
and as a condition of becoming members of
00:25:05
the League of Nations.
00:25:06
(The League of Nations was a predecessor organization
to the United Nations.)
00:25:12
The major powers insisted that all of these
new states, there were something like 33 of
00:25:16
them that were either new or states that had
their boundaries changed, that all of these
00:25:22
states accept minority rights.
00:25:25
Often the provisions that they asked for were
very specific and very detailed.
00:25:30
For instance, Poland agreed that they would
have bilingual education in areas which had
00:25:37
large minority populations.
00:25:39
Poland agreed not to hold elections on Saturday
because it would violate the Jewish Sabbath.
00:25:44
There were large numbers of Jews in Poland
before the Holocaust took place.
00:25:50
So you’re in a situation in which often
these new states accepted very substantial
00:25:57
violations of their Westphalian sovereignty
because they saw this as the only way they
00:26:01
could get international recognition.
00:26:04
So Westphalian sovereignty is a set of rules
that actually has been frequently violated
00:26:09
throughout history.
00:26:10
And these violations, if you look at developments
in Yugoslavia, when Yugoslavia fell apart
00:26:16
in the 1990s, you had a very similar situation.
00:26:20
Again, the European countries insisted in
1991 that their recognition of the new states
00:26:26
that emerged from Yugoslavia, especially Slovenia
and Croatia and then later Bosnia, would accept
00:26:33
minority rights as a condition of recognition.
00:26:35
So Westphalian sovereignty has frequently
been violated historically and continues to
00:26:42
be violated to the present day.
00:26:45
I want to end by saying a few words about
what I think is really the most important
00:26:51
issue, security issue, in the contemporary
international environment and the way in which
00:26:57
sovereignty affects that issue.
00:27:00
The issue is this: There are many states in
the world now which are very badly governed,
00:27:06
in which domestic sovereignty is working very
ineffectively.
00:27:12
These states have declining national incomes.
00:27:16
Health is deteriorating.
00:27:18
The levels of violence are very large.
00:27:21
In some cases, the recognized government,
the entity that has international legal sovereignty,
00:27:27
does not control the entire territory of the
state.
00:27:31
And in some cases, where states are very badly
governed or governed by autocratic regimes
00:27:37
like Afghanistan or Iraq, these countries
may present real security threats to the United
00:27:45
States and other democratic industrialized
countries.
00:27:49
One of the great challenges, if not the great
challenge, of our era, of the next ten or
00:27:55
20 or 30 or 40 years, will be how can we improve
governance in these badly governed places?
00:28:02
When the issue is put that way, it’s clear
that getting better governance in places like
00:28:08
Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, many countries in
sub-Saharan Africa like the Congo, getting
00:28:15
better governance in these places will require
violations of Westphalian sovereignty.
00:28:23
It will require the international community,
external actors, the United States, international
00:28:29
organizations, the major democracies in Europe,
to engage for an extended period of time in
00:28:36
these countries to try and develop for them
better governance structures.
00:28:40
We can’t historically have much confidence
that these countries operating on their own
00:28:46
will develop decently governed domestic authority
structures, much less fully democratic ones.
00:28:53
So I think the great [thing] challenge, and
something that we have to think about with
00:28:58
in the deepest possible way right now is how
can we think about providing Haiti with a
00:29:06
government?
00:29:07
And by we, I mean the United States, Canada,
France, the Organization of American States,
00:29:12
the United Nations.
00:29:13
How can we provide Haiti, for instance, or
the Congo with a governance structure that
00:29:19
will be more effective for its own population,
that will increase levels of economic prosperity,
00:29:26
that will provide some levels of democracy?
00:29:29
And I think doing that will require imagination
and skill.
00:29:34
It will not just mean some kind of recreation
of colonialism where external actors will
00:29:41
step into a country and try to directly run
the country for some extended period of time.
00:29:48
But it may mean that international actors,
for instance, international judges or individuals
00:29:56
providing health care, or even police or even
security forces might in some badly governed
00:30:04
country, have to be provided by some kind
of external actors.
00:30:08
It might be that in elections in Haiti, perhaps
there should be one or two or three Haitian
00:30:15
candidates, but perhaps there should be a
candidate from another country supported by
00:30:21
the international community.
00:30:22
And Haitians would have the right to select
either from nationals from their own country
00:30:27
or from nationals that might come from elsewhere.
00:30:31
So the Haitians, for instance, could essentially
rent a government for some period of time,
00:30:36
the period of time of the election, and could
see if these external actors might be able
00:30:41
to govern Haiti more effectively than has
been the case for Haiti’s own national authorities.
00:30:47
We’re thinking about what will happen in
Iraq or Afghanistan, also issues that are
00:30:52
very critical for the United States, but the
international community writ large.
00:30:56
The key thing that has to happen in these
countries, the ideal thing that could happen,
00:31:04
would be the creation of better governed,
more prosperous, ideally democratic states.
00:31:11
Doing that is likely to require us, United
States, the rest of the international community,
00:31:18
international organizations, to think beyond
the confines of traditional sovereignty and
00:31:24
to try and create a new set of institutions
different than any that we’ve seen in the
00:31:29
past, which can bring effective governance,
peace, and security around the world.
00:31:35
Thanks.
