In the course of human history, the myth surrounding ‘state sovereignty’ has been exposed and history has arrived at a time when ‘state sovereignty’ has lived of its usefulness. The end of ‘state sovereignty’ is only natural since its emergence revolved around an exclusive and narrow understanding and interpretation of humanity. Evidently, the existence of state as the political institution of sovereignty emerged at the expense of people’s aspiration. It is no wonder that monopoly and exercise of force by State to establish its legitimacy is a contradiction which belies its moral relevance and political legitimacy.
Through its hegemonizing and homogenizing characteristics, the State has ensured that the question of war and peace is a matter of State prerogative. Nonetheless, experience has shown that priority of a State is its interest to protect what it considers its national interest and to compete with other existing States. In essence, the notion of statebuilding is in direct confrontation with peoples’ aspiration to decide their own future and to live in peace. Real politik has ensured that just because a people have rights does not necessarily mean that they enjoy them.
However, absolutism of state sovereignty which dominated international politics has been critically interrogated by the forces of global events that unfolded since 1991. The idea of State and Territorial Sovereignty no longer remains in an unchallenged position. Foucault says that the end of sovereignty is circular in the sense that the end of [State] sovereignty is the exercise of [Peoples] sovereignty. This is indispensable for the rehumanization of a people which would empower ordinary people to exercise their sovereign powers to become self-determining.
The organic nature of people’s sovereignty is the heart of the will of the people’s desire for a shared humanity. The issue of people’s sovereignty therefore is at the core of developing a political discourse between the different political communities in the northeast. It is by respecting each others sovereign rights and accommodating the diversity that a shared sovereignty between the different political communities in the northeast is made possible. Eventually such an assertion empowers political participation in contributing towards a political solution that embodies the will of the people of the diverse political communities in the northeast.
It is essential for the political communities in the northeast to rediscover the will of the people so that it may enable each of them to rise above all ethnic, political and territorial boundaries and provide a united expression to exercise their sovereign rights. No political community in the northeast can be an island of peace. Invariably the destiny of each political community is connected to each other and for a landlocked region such as the northeast; there is no option for the diverse political communities but to embrace each others rights. The political communities in the northeast need to muster the courage to focus on their common aspirations and find common grounds for the sake of the future.
