Sovereignty without Responsibility is Emptiness: A rebuttal to South Sudan's Misreading of International Law

The hope of many South Sudanese before the independence was that South Sudan would be friend to the USA like South Korea and Israel. Unfortunately, after achieving the independence with the support from the Western Countries headed by the USA, South Sudanese wartime leaders learned and forgot nothing from the deep-rooted historical relations between South Sudanese and the citizens of Western Countries. The sovereignty that USA and its allies helped SPLM leaders secure has now become a weapon in their hands against the West.

The former SPLA/M leadership under the current SPLM-IG who owed much of its success in liberation of South Sudan to the USA and its allies is now using the sovereignty negatively against them. Thus, by invoking “sovereignty” before the United Nations, South Sudan’s deputy ambassador, Sabino Edward Nyawella Amaikwey, does not defend the state, he exposes its most profound contradiction. The assertion that “decisions on governance and national political matters remain the sovereign responsibility of the government” is, in principle, correct.

In practice, however, it is a profound misuse of diplomatic language, one that attempts to convert sovereignty from a legal responsibility into a political shield against accountability. This is not a defense of sovereignty. It is an evasion of it and hostility to the Western Countries who helped South Sudanese to become a sovereign state.

Sovereignty Is Not Immunity, It Is Obligation

Modern international law has long moved beyond the crude absolutism of classical Westphalian sovereignty. Today, sovereignty is understood not merely as control over territory, but as responsibility for people. This is the basis of Western Countries putting pressure on South Sudanese leaders. Sovereignty is inseparable from duties: to secure the population, uphold the rule of law, provide basic services, and protect fundamental rights. A sovereign state is not simply one that claims authority, rather, it is one that exercises that authority effectively and legitimately.

This evolution of the sovereignty is captured in the doctrine of “sovereignty as responsibility” and reinforced by the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Under this framework, sovereignty is conditional upon performance. When a state persistently fails to protect its population from violence, atrocity, and systemic deprivation, its claim to absolute non-interference weakens, not politically, but normatively and legally.

Thus, the issue is not whether South Sudan is sovereign but it is whether it fulfills the responsibilities that give sovereignty meaning. This is the argument of the Western Countries because they helped South Sudan become sovereign state to serve the citizens practically but not through lip services and deception to shield the weaknesses.

The Collapse of Core State Functions

Measured against the basic criteria of statehood, effective government, territorial control, and capacity to protect citizens, South Sudan presents a troubling case of systemic failure.

1.     Security and Protection of Citizens

The most fundamental duty of any state is to maintain a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and to protect its population. South Sudan has failed decisively on both counts. The persistence of armed conflict, the fragmentation of military command, and the proliferation of non-state armed groups demonstrate that the state does not exercise coherent control over violence.

Regions such as Nasir and Akobo are not merely “conflict-affected”; they are symptomatic of a deeper structural reality: the absence of a unified national security architecture. What exists instead is a patchwork of militarized factions, often organized along ethnic lines, competing for influence. This is not sovereignty. It is contested authority masquerading as governance.

2.     Rule of Law and Institutional Breakdown

A sovereign state must be governed by laws, not personalities. Yet South Sudan continues to operate without a permanent constitution more than a decade after independence. Legal institutions remain weak, politicized, and inconsistent. The absence of judicial independence, the prevalence of impunity, and the selective application of law have eroded public trust.

The ruling political structure has failed to transition from liberation movement to accountable government. In such a context, references to “interparty dialogue” ring hollow. Dialogue without institutional guarantees is not governance, it is elite bargaining detached from constitutional order.

3.     Failure of Service Delivery and Economic Governance

Sovereignty entails the capacity to provide for citizens’ basic needs. On this front, South Sudan’s record is stark. The economy remains overwhelmingly dependent on oil, exposing the state to volatility and reinforcing patterns of rent-seeking and elite capture. Public services are either minimal or absent. Food insecurity affects a majority of the population, while humanitarian dependency continues to rise. This is not merely underdevelopment; it is a failure of state capacity. A government that cannot deliver basic services cannot credibly invoke sovereignty as justification for exclusive control over political processes.

4.     Crisis of Legitimacy and Accountability

Perhaps the most profound deficit is one of legitimacy. Sovereignty ultimately rests on the consent of the governed. In South Sudan, that consent is deeply fractured. Persistent ethnic polarization, lack of accountability, and entrenched impunity have created a legitimacy vacuum. Elections are repeatedly postponed, and transitional arrangements are extended without clear democratic renewal. A state that cannot command the confidence of its citizens cannot convincingly claim that it alone should determine the political future of those citizens without scrutiny.

The Illusion of Blame Shifting

The ambassador’s attempt to attribute insecurity solely to opposition groups reflects a familiar but unconvincing narrative. While non-state actors undoubtedly contribute to instability, the primary responsibility remains with the state. Sovereignty does not permit selective accountability. A government cannot claim exclusive authority while disclaiming responsibility for outcomes within its territory. To do so is to hollow out the very concept it seeks to defend.

A Fragile State at a Critical Juncture

By widely accepted analytical measures, South Sudan fits the profile of a highly fragile state:

• A persistent security gap, marked by inability to protect civilians

• A severe capacity gap, reflected in weak institutions and service delivery

• A deep legitimacy gap, evidenced by contested authority and public distrust

These are not abstract indicators; they are lived realities for millions of South Sudanese citizens. The characterization of the country as exhibiting features of a “banana republic”, extreme resource dependency, elite capture, and institutional weakness, may be uncomfortable, but it reflects a growing consensus among observers. The state exists juridically, but its functional capacity remains severely constrained.

Sovereignty Cannot Substitute for State-Building

What South Sudan requires is not rhetorical defense of sovereignty, but substantive reconstruction of the state itself. The priority is not power consolidation, resource control, or leadership entrenchment. These strategies deepen fragility and entrench conflict. Instead, the focus must shift to:

Building unified, professional security institutions

Establishing a permanent constitutional order

Delivering basic services and economic stability

Restoring legitimacy through credible, inclusive governance

Until these foundations are laid, claims of sovereign prerogative will continue to be the main source of conflict and instability.

Conclusion: Sovereignty Demands Performance

South Sudan’s statement at the United Nations reveals a fundamental misunderstanding: sovereignty is not a license to act without scrutiny; it is a commitment to govern effectively and responsibly. A state that fails to protect its citizens, enforce the rule of law, and provide basic services cannot invoke sovereignty as a shield against criticism. On the contrary, such failure invites greater international concern, not as interference, but as a response to unmet obligations.

The international community does not challenge South Sudan’s sovereignty. It questions whether that sovereignty is being exercised in accordance with its essential responsibilities. Until that question is answered with credible reform rather than rhetorical deflection, the appeal to sovereignty will remain what it currently is: a powerful word, emptied of substance by the realities it seeks to obscure.

The Writer, Juol Nhomngek Daniel, is a prominent South Sudanese lawyer, academic, and politician. He is the Deputy Dean of the College of Law at Stanford International University in Juba. He is an independent researcher and author who has written extensively on corruption, public finance management, and human rights in South Sudan. He is a member of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO), representing Cueibet County in Lakes State.