Is There Really Equality of States Working in International Legal framework?

https://doi.org/10.63189/NXEE7075

To discuss this as-if controversy when talking about equality of states while considering different features of individual states, one acknowledges that the principle of sovereign equality faces limitations due to the realpolitik of international relations. Powerful states, often through their economic, military, or political influence, exercise dominance over weaker states, challenging the ideal of equal sovereignty. These power dynamics underscore the difference between formal legal equality and practical inequality in international affairs.

The principle of equality of sovereign states can therefore be understood in two distinct dimensions: legal equality as a starting point and practical equality as a result. Legal equality, as has been already presented, is grounded in foundational international law principles such as those articulated in the UN Charter and establishes all states as equal regardless of size, power, or influence. This starting point emphasizes the formal parity of states within the framework of international law, ensuring equal sovereignty and the capacity to participate in legal and diplomatic processes on an equal footing. It reflects the aspiration that sovereignty confers equal dignity and autonomy to all states.

In contrast, practical equality addresses how equality is realized within disparities rooted in economic, political, and military power of individual states. Powerful states often tend for disproportionate influence in international institutions like the UN Security Council as if undermining the legal equality envisioned at the outset. This tension between rights emphasized for within the legal equality and responsibilities not to be forgotten for within the practical equality might help to understand power dynamics of international relations creating hierarchies. Furthermore, reconciliation of these tensions might be considered essential to maintain the legitimacy of international law. Legal equality as a starting point provides the basis for sovereignty, non-interference, and respect among states, practical equality in result influences reforms to international systems to regulate the use of power. To summarize different approaches to the equality of states within a functioning system of state cooperation and interdependence, while the principle of legal equality preserves formal sovereignty and independence, practical equality challenges states to address inequalities in political impact to consider and support common universal outcome. Only by balancing these two approaches it is possible to achieve more equitable international system that would work for common good. This balancing understands sovereign equality as the cornerstone of international order in which weaker states are protected from the dominance of more powerful ones while fostering mutual respect and cooperation.

Moreover, globalization, regional integration, and the rise of supranational organizations have questioned the concept of sovereignty, challenging the principle of sovereign equality according to law. Even international institutions create hierarchies within a system that is formally based on equality of its members. Furthermore, there have been discussions about the term of so-called ”outlaw states” and how great powers impose norms and sanctions that effectively create different standards for different states, thus undermining the universality of sovereign equality. This differentiation is evident in those situations where international norms and interventions are selectively enforced, often influenced by political and economic interests. On the other hand, within the development of the international law there have been efforts of a civil society accepted that e. g. an original UN based mechanism of human rights protection system control was improved from a selective approach toward “outlaw states” in front of the Commission of Human Rights to an inclusive approach involving an universal periodical review ensuring that all states and their national human rights protection system are periodically under review in front of the Human Rights Council.

The principle of sovereign equality might also be analysed vis-à-vis the principle of non-discrimination in international law and the related tension between equality and sovereignty themselves. The principle of non-discrimination mandates that no distinction is made between states or individuals on arbitrary grounds, e. g. in matters of international trade, human rights, or classically, international peace and security. There might be tension detected between sovereign equality and non-discrimination when states claim sovereign prerogatives to adopt policies that differentiate and that are based on national interests, potentially conflicting with universal norms promoting equality. For example, in the context of international economic law, preferential trade agreements challenge the uniform application of non-discrimination principles while being justified under sovereignty. Balance between equality and sovereignty requires careful consideration, recognizing that equality in international law does not negate state sovereignty but seeks to harmonize it with universal fairness and justice, even equity.

Nevertheless, experience from the long period of intensive cooperation also in free economic trade has lastly been challenged by changes that focus on national interests. National interests of a state are a natural driving force for a state to achieve its aims, however, it is indeed problematic if states do not consider cooperation a more effective tool to create a stronger platform to achieve those aims.

Moreover, it is also important to point that while states are expected to respect each other´s sovereignty, international norms on e.g. human rights protection or use of force prohibition sometimes challenge its understanding. Sovereign equality is thus realised within a framework of interdependence, where international norms increasingly influence domestic policies and limit state autonomy as such. However, as the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) pointed out in its decision in the Wimbledon case, state sovereignty includes also the capacity to enter into international treaties and to be bound by them. In this case, it was held that by signing the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had voluntarily agreed to certain limitations on itself. Moreover, the Wimbledon case illustrated that a state´s sovereign decision to adopt an international treaty carries with it the responsibility to comply with the treaty´s terms, even if doing so conflicts with the state´s changed interests or policies. The PCIJ´s ruling demonstrated that sovereignty, while foundational, is not absolute and must coexist with the principles of international law, especially such as the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) that is both a right and a duty of all parties involved.

Nevertheless, first months of the year of 2025 have proved doubts concerning equality of states especially in relation to the implementation of the principle of pacta sunt servanda. One case concerns differentiation of states based on their power and the other one concern subjects that are similar in their size, however, conditions of their statehood realisation differ.

The ongoing crises in Ukraine and Israel have deep roots in historical circumstances and current breaches of fundamental principles of international law. Among these, pacta sunt servanda, a cornerstone of treaty law, and the principle of sovereign equality play crucial roles. The violation of treaty obligations has contributed to these conflicts, while a stronger commitment to the sovereign equality of states (respected by all involved could offer pathways toward resolution.

The conflict in Ukraine, particularly Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion in 2022, can be traced to the violation of treaty commitments. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, assured Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for its relinquishment of nuclear weapons. However, Russia’s actions directly undermined this agreement, demonstrating a clear breach of pacta sunt servanda, even more if fundamental principles of the UN Charter.

By failing to uphold the Budapest Memorandum and the UN Charter, Russia has not only eroded trust in international agreements but also created a precedent that powerful states can disregard commitments when convenient. This breakdown in respect for treaty obligations has led an armed conflict and a humanitarian crisis. It has also weakened the broader framework of international security agreements, making it difficult for other states to rely on diplomatic assurances. The system where the primary responsibility for international peace and security has been given to a body that has not been respecting this responsibility, has let down the international community of smaller states that believed in their membership in the UN although the UN General Assembly has adopted several resolutions confirming commitment to fundamental principles of the UN Charter.

Similarly, in the Israel-Palestine conflict, numerous agreements have been either ignored or only partially implemented, aggravating tensions. The Oslo Accords (1993–1995) aimed to establish a framework for Palestinian self-governance and peace, but the failure of both parties to fully adhere to their commitments that was combined with continued Israeli settlement expansion and Palestinian militant activity has significantly delayed any progress or even destroyed it.

Moreover, UN resolutions regarding the status of Palestinian territories and Israel’s security rights have been selectively enforced. The failure to uphold these agreements has led to recurring violence and deepening mistrust between the parties. If pacta sunt servanda had been strictly followed, ensuring both sides complied with agreed-upon terms, the situation could have been significantly different today.

In the Israel-Palestine conflict, the failure to treat both entities as equals under international law has fuelled animosity. The recognition of Palestinian statehood remains a contentious issue, with some countries recognizing Palestine while others do not. The application of sovereign equality would mean that both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to self-determination, security, and governance. And that both must respect sovereignty of the other in all its aspects.

The crises in Ukraine and Israel illustrate the dangers of disregarding treaty obligations and failing to uphold the principle of sovereign equality. When agreements are broken, trust in international law erodes. Conversely, reaffirming these principles can provide a legal and diplomatic foundation for addressing disputes fairly and sustainably.

To find a solution, the international community must insist on the enforcement of treaty commitments and recognize all states and entities involved as equals under international law. Only when trust in these fundamental principles is restored, long-term peace and stability can be achieved in Ukraine, Israel, and beyond. To answer the question in the title, it depends: if respected, equality of states is a principle that helps states to improve their cooperation, if disrespected, the international legal framework is not working either.