Sovereignty in Global Criminology
In the age of globalization and the emergence of new technologies, where crimes have become border-less and state actions have become far-reaching, global awareness of state-sponsored atrocities and humanitarian issues are said to have taken centre stage. It is then logical to expect sovereignty, the ability of a state to behave with immunity and act with absolute supremacy over internal affairs, to continuously be discarded little by little , in the name of human dignity and rights, However its safe to say that sovereignty and national jurisdiction lives on and continues to impede the development of global criminology and the human rights discourse. Even though principles of sovereignty or political legitimacy in theory, are only affirmed or reclaimed by the state through taking on specific right and obligations such as the protection of human rights and its citizens, these principles can nevertheless, in practice survive on their own. State crimes, which involve civil, political or gross human rights violations and corresponding moral and legal responsibilities are still not effectively conceptualised and addressed. They continue to be sent to the back burner, while political agendas brew. A massive number of victims are produced yet the lone, visible perpetrators are essentially overlooked. In support of this argument three state policies or ‘crimes’ will be analysed, namely, (1) Australia’s mandatory detention of refugees, (2) The United States’ torture practices against suspected terrorists and (3) Sudan’s sponsored genocide of Darfuris. The first two will focus on the ‘criminals’ sovereignty. While for the third, the ‘watchdogs’’ or the supposed intervening states’ sovereignty will be thrown into the mix.
I The Criminal’s Sovereignty
As a sovereign, a state is able to define certain events or a group of actors within the criminological framework, in a way that would further affirm or strengthen their...