Jeremy A. Rabkin defends state sovereignty and, in particular, American sovereignty in his new book The Case for Sovereignty: Why the World Should Welcome American Independence. Although the concept of sovereignty has long dominated global affairs and is still taken very seriously in the United States, a majority of contemporary Europeans seem more comfortable with institutions of global governance that limit state sovereignty-a transatlantic tension exacerbated by differences over the U.S.-led war to liberate Iraq. In the book, Rabkin examines general principles of international law and how sovereignty can strengthen national security, human rights, and international trade.

Rabkin, a professor of government at Cornell University and a member of AEI's Council of Academic Advisers, offers a historical perspective on national sovereignty. Hugo Grotius, a seventeenth-century jurist considered by the American Founding Fathers to be the father of international law, defined sovereignty as the ability to act without being "subject to the legal control of another," yet within the bounds of wider moral or political principles. A sovereign state exercises control over its own territory through, among other methods, the use of force. Grotius and other philosophers held that states are restrained by laws that derive from a higher moral authority.

Rabkin contends that state sovereignty, contrary to prevailing opinion in many European capitals, strengthens rather than jeopardizes world peace. Governments that seek to live in peace respect the sovereignty of their neighbors. Sovereign states have the right to respond to acts of external aggression; international bodies cannot provide a substitute for sovereignty precisely because they do not have forces of their own to combat aggression. Achieving peace requires focusing on states and methods that directly threaten peace, whether through nations supporting international terrorism or organizations like al Qaeda trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In Rabkin's view, state sovereignty ensures global competition rather than domination.

In praising Rabkin's book, George Will notes, "Nowadays, almost all important arguments about U.S. foreign policy raise the question of our national sovereignty. Must it be diluted to make the world safe for America--or to make America safe for the world?" Rabkin argues that the two goals are not mutually exclusive: American diplomacy should preserve national sovereignty but should also attempt to shape the world in a way that makes America more secure. Twenty-first-century threats, including supranational movements that seek to impose their will on sovereign nations by force and intimidation can only be defeated through military force, and subjecting American use of force to approval by the UN Security Council compromises American sovereignty and jeopardizes world peace.

The United States cannot impose democracy or market reforms across the globe, but we can encourage more open markets through trade concessions, loans and grants, security cooperation, and technical assistance. As Rabkin contends, we are better off not relying on global forums to pursue our aims in strategic and security matters, as well as trade, the environ-ment, and issues of human rights. Because of our unique power, American independence and sovereignty depend upon moral discipline, exemplified by our commitment to live by the political rules of the U.S. Constitution. The United States should lead the world through the power of example.