The modern international order is increasingly shaped by the friction between state sovereignty and global norms. While sovereignty, defined by the Westphalian principle of non-interference, remains a foundational pillar of the international system, the rise of transnational issues such as human rights, climate change, cyber governance, and humanitarian intervention is steadily eroding its absoluteness. In 2025, this tension has become more pronounced as states grapple with external expectations and internal pressures in an increasingly interconnected and contested world.

Sovereignty, once a shield, now often becomes a bargaining chip.

Recent developments highlight how global norms are pressing against traditional notions of sovereign autonomy. The UN’s expanding doctrine on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the international legal mandates on environmental governance under the Paris Agreement, and global digital surveillance norms proposed in forums like the G7 and the Council of Europe all require countries to conform to standards that transcend borders. At the same time, these norms often clash with domestic political calculations, national security doctrines, and cultural-political sovereignty, particularly in the Global South.

In practice, the gap between normative expectations and state behavior continues to widen. China rejects external criticism on its treatment of Uyghurs as a violation of its internal affairs; India defies international calls to reverse digital censorship laws on the grounds of national security; and the United States, despite championing liberal internationalism, withdraws from multilateral treaties when convenient to its strategic interests. Meanwhile, smaller states invoke sovereignty to resist debt restructuring terms from multilateral lenders, despite the global economic consequences. Sovereignty, once a shield, now often becomes a bargaining chip.

Technology has further complicated this dynamic. Cyber intrusions, digital disinformation, and data localization laws are all domains where global consensus is weak, but the consequences are international. States assert control over digital infrastructure to guard against foreign surveillance, but in doing so, risk fragmenting the internet into sovereign spheres, creating a “splinternet” that threatens global cooperation. Pakistan’s recent move to develop its data governance and AI ethics framework is an example of a country asserting digital sovereignty while balancing pressure from international tech firms and multilateral norms.

Global norms often clash with domestic political calculations, particularly in the Global South.

The global South faces the brunt of this dilemma. Norms are often crafted in the Global North and exported through development aid, financial incentives, and diplomatic pressure. Yet these norms, while progressive in intention, often overlook local contexts, historical asymmetries, and institutional readiness. For many developing countries, complying with global human rights norms can come at the cost of domestic legitimacy or political stability, especially when such norms challenge religious, cultural, or political identities.

The way forward is not a binary choice between sovereignty and global norms, but a negotiated framework that respects both. Sovereignty must evolve from a static shield into a dynamic instrument that enables responsible global engagement without sacrificing self-determination. International institutions must recognize the asymmetries in how norms are developed and enforced and must adopt a more inclusive, dialogical approach. Mechanisms for norm localization, where international standards are adapted to fit local realities, must be strengthened.

Technology risks fragmenting the internet into sovereign spheres, creating a ‘splinternet’ that threatens global cooperation.

State sovereignty is not obsolete, but it is in crisis. Its survival in the 21st century will depend not on rigid defense but on flexible adaptation, redefining sovereignty not as absolute control, but as the capacity to govern responsibly in a world where challenges rarely stop at borders. As global challenges grow more complex, the international community must accept that respecting sovereignty and upholding global norms are not mutually exclusive, but mutually necessary.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.