There may also be bilateral ‘pooling of sovereignty’ solutions to solve bilateral disputes. The joint sovereignty exercised by France and Spain over Andorra is an example. I suspect that if ever a final solution is to be reached on the Kashmir issue it will have to be on the lines of pooling sovereignty rather than a hard-headed insistence on absolute sovereignty, by all the sides concerned. The ‘pooling of sovereignty’ approach need not preclude the possibility of countries voluntarily ceding policy autonomy in certain areas. After all, many countries signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in spite of the discrimination implicit in the agreements. But it is perhaps desirable for countries not to want nuclear weapons, no matter what others do.

In the sphere of economics, the neo-classical school of economists believes that unilateral secession of tariff autonomy and the concomitant autonomy to raise trade barriers is best for a country no matter what other countries do. Again, nobody would object if a country decided to set strict standards against pollution unilaterally. It would be a sensible thing to do. Unilateral secession of sovereignty is very much a real policy option, and often a desirable one, even if it is more difficult for countries to pursue when compared with the middle-of-the-road ‘pooling of sovereignty’ option.

It would also be evident from the arguments and examples presented above that sovereignty in its absolute form favours big and powerful nations — mostly the US in today’s world, but perhaps also China and India — and powerful people in those nations, the ruling class.

... contd.