For state to be able to fulfill its obligations, to
provide public goods to its people, state has to participate in global governance.
States can ensure their economic development, their internal security and
safety, their external security, only if they cooperate with the other states,
with international organizations, and
non-state actors on management of transnational threats and challenges.
And actually this state cooperation with the others, and
with international organizations and non-state actors on management of
transnational challenges is called global governance.
So states, the scale of states' participation in global governance,
responsibility of a state in terms of participation of global governance,
determines state sovereignty.
And the more responsible the state is, the more sovereign it is,
according to this liberal approach.
And finally, state sovereignty is no longer a border
which separates internal affairs from foreign affairs.
For realism, sovereignty is the unpenetratable border between
the internal and external, and the only discourse among
states can be only about foreign policy and foreign affairs.
For liberals, this is no longer the case.
And liberals actually emphasize and claim that discussion of internal affairs
of states have already become a norm of contemporary international relations.
Indeed, look at the agenda of what states are talking about at BRICS summits,
at G7 summits, even at the United Nations Security Council or in the Normandy Forum.
They talk about internal reforms in Ukraine.
They talk about internal management of Syria.
They talk about other internal problems.
So internal politics of sovereign states is already the agenda
of international relations, and this is reflected by liberalism.
On the basis of this change of the approach of sovereignty,
liberal school of international relations and practice has tried to elaborate
some new rules to overcome state sovereignty, including militarily.
And these new rules and practices to overcome state sovereignty
are humanitarian intervention concept, which was quite popular in the 1990s.
According to which international community, international society,
can intervene and violate sovereignty of state,
if there is a vast, large scale of violation of human rights.
And in 2000,
there was a concept created called Responsibility to Protect, or R to P.
According to which, again, international community have a right and
even responsibility to intervene and violate state sovereignty,
if the state fails to fulfill its obligations vis-a-vis it's people.
Fails to provide public goods to its people, above all security.
Of course these two both concepts of violating state sovereignty, or
penetrating state sovereignty, they have not become legal.
None of them are put into the treaty, international law.
But nevertheless,
they have impacted the practice of international relations very, very much.
[SOUND]