Sovereignty's Quandry

The Cuban embargo brings forth many interesting issues that, I believe, draw into question the entire idea of sovereignty. How can any nation-state be sovereign if the exercise of its own sovereignty will inevitably lead to violation that of another?

In the Cuban embargo, the U.S. is exercising its right to do—or not to do—business with whomever it wants—or does not want to—do business. That is obviously its choice as a sovereign nation. As a sovereign nation, presumably, it is also entitled to do whatever it wants within its own borders. Of course, if we accept that extreme sort of sovereignty, then we allow for bloodthirsty dictatorships and U.S. expropriation of properties belonging to foreigners who come from countries the U.S. does not like.

Clearly, sovereignty has some caveats. When the world was far less interconnected, what one country did certainly affected another. If France and Spain seemed as if they might ally and join together, Britain got its shirt in a knot. In our more interconnected world, pretty much every action that a country entertains can affect another country. If the U.S. subsidizes farmers, the Third World barrages the WTO with a gnashing of teeth.

Sovereignty has become an outdated concept as the world becomes less and less state-centric. What we do affects all of us. There is no fine line separating sovereignty rights from acts of aggression. There is only blur. Lots of blur.