

































 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual 
perspective 2025 

                                                                            Graham Nicholson* 

 

For a very long time, including up to the present day, the nation-state, 
or simply the “state”, has been the preeminent institution of the world 
order, around which the global system has been constructed.   It is a 
concept of geo-political organisation that divides up areas of the 
planet, mainly the dry land, and the people thereof, into discreet areas 
that are asserted as being exclusively under the jurisdiction and 
control of a single system of government of some kind.   

Ideas of such a state as a geo-political unit have been around for many 
centuries going back into antiquity. The concept has been one of 
variable content, from the evolution of the city-state with a common 
ethnic composition and then its emergence into a larger geo-political 
entities.  It evolved into the great multi-ethnic empire-states of history 
such as the Greek, Persian and Roman Empires, covering vast areas 
and made up of a great mixture of peoples and cultures.  As these 
empires rose and fell, more varied political relationships were 
established in the struggle for power and control of peoples and 
territories. Then in more recent centuries in Europe the concept has 
emerged as the “sovereign” nation-state1.  The whole process has 
been an evolutionary one, as described by Shoghi Effendi- 

“….an evolution that has had its earliest beginnings in the birth of 
family life, its subsequent development in the achievement of tribal 
solidarity, leading in turn to the constitution of the city-state, and 

                                                             
*Phd, retired barrister, writer.  The views the author has expressed are his own. 
1The reference to “nation” as used in this paper is not to be interpreted as a reference just to a nation or country 
with a single ethnicity.  Rather the word is used in the sense of a geo-political entity comprising one nation-state 
whether or not its population has multiple ethnicities. 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 1



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

expanding later into the institution of independent and sovereign 
nations.”2 

The term “sovereignty” comes from the latin“superanus”, meaning 
"chief" or "ruler". It is not a term of precise mean.  The concept of 
sovereignty has been the subject of discussion and debate throughout 
much of history and is still actively debated. Its definition, concept, 
and application has changed throughout, especially during the Age of 
Enlightenment.  It has come to mean the essential condition and 
nature of a nation-state by which it is recognised as such within the 
present global order and within which it exercises its sovereign power 
and authority over its own area of the planet. 

Political science has traditionally taken the view (although with some 
more recent reservations in the literature) that the beginning of the 
modern international system based on sovereign nation-states began 
with the Peace of Westphalia of 16483.  The characteristics of such a 
sovereign entity, often constituted with a monarch, was seen as ruling 
over a distinct area of land and its peoples to the exclusion of any 
supra-national authority or other body.  This emerged in international 
law as being the characteristics required for the recognition of such an 
entity by the wider community, comprising a permanent population, a 

                                                             

2The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, Shoghi Effendi, (US Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1991). 

. 
3  “The Peace of Westphalia .. is the collective name for two peace treaties signed in 

October 1648 in the Westphalian cities of Osnabrück and Münster. They ended 
the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) and brought peace to the Holy Roman Empire, 

closing a calamitous period of European history that killed approximately eight million 
people. Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III, the kingdoms of France and Sweden, 
and their respective allies among the princes of the Holy Roman Empire, participated 
in the treaties…. 

Several scholars of international relations have identified the Peace of Westphalia as 
the origin of principles crucial to modern international relations, collectively known 
as Westphalian sovereignty. However, some historians have argued against this, 
suggesting that such views emerged during the nineteenth and twentieth century in 
relation to concerns about sovereignty during that time.”(Wikipedia) 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment


 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

defined territory and an independent government exercising 
sovereignty over those people and territories, with capacity to enter 
into relations with other nation-states4.  This included the right to 
make war and peace.  It was an idea that had philosophical support.  
Thus Hobbes advocated a complete concentration of power in the 
sovereign5.   In more recent times the sovereignty in such a system has 
usually come to be vested in some form of a government of 
representatives, whether democratically elected or otherwise, rather 
than in a single monarchical ruler. But with appropriate domestic 
adjustments to reflect any such changed constitutional and 
institutional arrangements within the nation-state, the concept remains 
broadly much the same.  It is a concept that has now been exported 
around the world after colonialism. 

This concept was carried over into the Charter of the United Nations. 
That Organization is based upon the principle of thesovereigne quality 
of all its members tates6.  In theory there is no hierarchy of nation-
states.  Even the smallest of nation-states can be seen to be 
“sovereign”. The United Nations Organization itself has no 
independent powers of action to intervene in a nation-state without 
following the processes in the Charter, involving the consent of its 
members, and then only on limited grounds. The Charter purports to 
prohibits the threat or use of force and calls on all members to respect 
the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of 
other States7. 

                                                             
4Under the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, such a 
state must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the 
capacity to enter into relations with other states. 
5Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679).  His famous work was the Leviathan. 
6Charter of the United Nations,Article 2.1. 
7Ibid, Articles 2.4 and 2.7 and Chapter VII.  It has to be said that the United Nations, 
in combining the quest for world peace whilst largely retaining the concept of state 
sovereignty as the basis of world order, has to some extent at least failed in its most 
basic objectives, in that violent conflicts and the threats of same have still continued 
in the world since its formation. 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 3



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

But the ideas of nation and state as sovereign entities are not natural 
phenomena but are human constructs designed to meet the needs of 
the time.8The voluminous literature on this topic, supported in many 
cases by the experience in practice, has increasingly challenged the 
view that in the contemporary interdependent global system, the 
nation-state is still fully “sovereign” in the conduct of its affairs, even 
within its national boundaries.  There was and still is a perceived need 
to balance the claims of sovereignty against the need for an 
accommodation between different nation-states in the common 
interests of both.  Talbott writes: 

“There has always been, and always will be, a tension- sometimes 
creative, sometime destructive- between, on the one hand, the concept 
of an international community that recognizes interdependence as a 
fact and collective governance as a necessity, and, on the other, the 
appeal of a national community that thinks of itself as independent 
and sovereign.”9 

But the absolute concept of sovereignty still exercises a profound 
influence and has many adherents.  Bani Dugal10 states: 

“at the level of global governance, the concept of unfettered national 
sovereignty remains the dominant paradigm, limiting coordinated and 
effective action to address humanity’s most pressing challenges.”11 

Particular nation-states often assert their absolute rights to sovereignty 
and can be prepared to go to great lengths to defend it. Thus one view 
of the meaning of “sovereignty” in its fuller sense is: 

“Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, 
in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of 

                                                             
8Jared Diamond, in The World Until Yesterday, (Viking, 2012) suggests at 148 that 
state formation arose from an earlier practice of having tribal chiefdoms through 
competition, conquest or external pressure, the chiefdom being the most effective 
system of decision making to resist conquest or to outcompete other chiefdoms.  
Thus they were a human construct to deal with a divided and competitive scenario. 
9
The Great Experiment, S Talbott, (Simon &Schuster, NY, 2008, 6). 

10Principal Representative of the Bahá'í International Community to the UN. 
11Dugal, “Is the nation state past its sell-by-date?”, (Perspectives, 2015) 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 4



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

order. ... Derived from the Latin superanus through the French 
souveraineté, the term was originally understood to mean the 
equivalent of supreme power.”12 

Taking this absolute view of sovereignty to its fullest, it envisages 
that nation-states can still use all the powers in their hands to achieve 
whatever result they wish for their individual countries or peoples, no 
matter how unjust or inequitable, including in declaring of war and in 
the use of violence and the grossest of abuses, as a justifiable national 
tool of state.  There is on this view no limit, moral or otherwise.  
Arguably international law provides no effective limits, at least in 
practice. Subject to the requirements of aspects of international law 
such as to human rights, humanitarian law and the laws of war, there 
is no need to have regard to the wider best interests of the planet and 

all its people. While states generally observe international law and 
usually respect the rights and interests of other states applying rules of 
comity, this is not a uniform practice, and the continued existence of 
interstate conflicts and abuses testify to this fact. 

Increasingly however there is a view that that absolute degree of 
nation-state sovereignty has been eroded in practice by the increasing 
interdependence of all nations and peoples in more contemporary 
times.  Thus Sir John Boyd Orr stated: 

“We are now physically, politically, and economically one world and 
nations so interdependent that the absolute national sovereignty of 
nations is no longer possible.”13 

And the late Maurice Strong stated: 
 

“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed 
sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will 
yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global 
environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to 

                                                             
12 https://www.britannica.com/topic/sovereignty 
13Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, December 12, 1949. 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 5

https://www.azquotes.com/author/14256-Maurice_Strong


 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however 
powerful.”14 
 
Some prominent commentators go further and state that absolute 
national sovereignty is now incompatible with ongoing human 
survival. Thus Bertrand Russellis believed to have stated: 
 
“Science has made unrestricted national sovereignty incompatible 
with human survival. The only possibilities are now world 
government or death.”15 
 
The cosmopolitan school of philosophy has a number of contributors, 
such as Derrida and Appiah, who have advocated for a secular global 
view of global citizenship and governance transcending the sovereign 
nation-state16. 

Rodney Richards has written an article from a Baha’i perspective 
entitled “National Sovereignty: A Blight on Humanity”17, while 
Kenneth E Bowers has written another article entitled “Ending the Era 
of Unfettered National Sovereignty”18. 

Some commentators see a tension between the dictates of national 
sovereignty and the desire for closer degrees of international 
cooperation, being advocates of the latter.  But some current 
international events involving a number or powerful states engaged in 
conflict pose somewhat of a problem for this view.   If anything, the 
current practices suggest that there may have been somewhat of a 
reactive deterioration in more recent global cooperation among many 
states, although this may be a temporary phenomenon.  Some may 
argue that this reflects a contemporary movement away from the 

                                                             
14 https://www.idlehearts.com/2448182/the-concept-of-national-sovereignty-has-been-an-immutable-indeed-
sacred-principle 
15The accuracy of this quote has not been verified. 
16For a discussion of cosmopolitanism and the Baha’i view see Nalinie Mooten, The Bahá’í Contribution to 
Cosmopolitan International Relations Theory, Online Journal of Bahá’í Studies 4 1 (2007) , 4-7.  

17  Online at bahaiteachings.org, 2016. 
18  Online at bahaiteachings.org, 2017. 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 6

https://www.azquotes.com/quote/595340?ref=sovereignty
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/595340?ref=sovereignty
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/595340?ref=sovereignty
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/595340?ref=sovereignty
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/595340?ref=sovereignty
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/595340?ref=sovereignty
https://www.azquotes.com/author/12791-Bertrand_Russell
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1393115?ref=sovereignty
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1393115?ref=sovereignty
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1393115?ref=sovereignty


 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

alleged hegemony of Western interests during recent centuries, but 
the explanation may be more deep seated than that. 

Looking at the record of the nation-state in the last few centuries, one 
can safely conclude that the very concept of sovereignty has been at 
the root of so much terrible violence and suffering.   The rise of the 
sovereign nation-state out of the Middle Ages may have resolved 
some of the conflict and chaos that occurred within national 
boundaries by the imposition of sovereign powers within those 
boundaries, but the concentration of power that thereby resulted may 
have increased the scope for interstate conflict. Nation-states, through 
their governments, have vied with each other to advance their own 
self-defence, power, control and in some cases aggrandisement.  This 
often gave rise among the population to strong nationalistic views, 
even extending to what might be called jingoism.  This has often been 
at the heart of war, mass violence and global inequities.  Less thought 
has often been given to the wider deleterious effects of such an 
approach.  It has not yet lead to a substantial theoretical revision of 
the sovereignty concept among nation-states, let alone to significant 
changes on the ground to the global order and its practice.  Some 
regional alliances and confederations have emerged in recent decades 
of varied effectiveness in bringing the nation-states together, but 
overall the individual sovereign nation-state remains the centrepiece 
of the global system.  As a result the associated threat of further mass 
violence and suffering involving such entities in contention has not 
yet retreated.  This threat has become more significant and worrying 
with the spread of weapons of mass destruction. 
 
In part this is because most national leaders still assert, at least as a 
fall-back position, the priority and immutability of absolute national 
sovereignty, at least when applied to their own country. This is not 
uncommonly supported by the masses of peoples within the nation-
state who feel threatened or see no alternative for their own 
wellbeing.  Those peoples tend to regard the concept as the best 
safeguard of their own national interests.  In many cases the leaders 
are presumably prepared to use all means available to them to try and 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 7



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

enforce that view and are usually strongly opposed to what they may 
perceive as any outside intervention in their domestic affairs19. 

Commenting on this, Arnold Toynbee wrote: 

“Evidently few people are ready to recognize that the institutions of 
local sovereign  states have failed repeatedly, during the last 5000 
years, to meet mankind’s political needs, and that, in the global 
society, this institution is bound to prove to be transitory once again 
and this time more surely than ever before.”20 

He points out that just as the number of sovereign states has grown 
since the Second World War, so they have become more closely 
interdependent on the technological and economic planes. 

It is argued that in the light of many contemporary global events and 
circumstances, it is legitimate to ask whether the present global order, 

based primarily on the sovereign nation-state, best serves the interests 
of the one human race and of the planet as a whole.  In a world 
increasingly characterised by interdependence of all its peoples, and 
with the science and technology that now lends itself to greater global 
connections, and with the rise of many great issues of global concern 
that require coordinated global responses, one has to ask whether the 
concept of absolute state sovereignty best reflects the needs of the 
time. 

Transcending the nation-state 

Given that the doctrine of the supremacy of the nation-state still 
exercises, both in secular theory and in practice, such a compelling 
influence on the global order, and given the view of some that it is a 
transitory doctrine to a better global order, what are the prospects of 
changing attitudes towards sovereignty to a more globalist position? 
Here we seem to run into a degree of inertia, if not avoidance and 

                                                             
19The international law as to the right of outside intervention in the domestic affairs of a nation-state remains 
controversial. 
20 Mankind and Mother Earth, (OUP, 1976, viii-ix) 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 8



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

dismissal.   The weight of divisive national and international politics 
seems to be too heavy against it. 

Thus James Mayall21 states: 

“..there is no immediate prospect of transcending the national idea, 
either as the principle of legitimisation or as the basis of political 
organisation for the modern state…The theoretical alternatives to this 
scheme have not materialised.” 22 

The fact is that nationalism as expressed in the nation-state has proved 
to be an extraordinarily potent force, even as states have advanced 
politically and economically through multilateralism, and even as 
many countries have become more ethnically and religiously diverse 
and as people have increasingly crossed national borders.  There was 
a glimpse of hope for some sort of a more profound supra-national 
form of thinking emerging around the end of the twentieth century, as 
the iron curtain showed signs of decaying with the fall of the Berlin 
Wall, and as nations developed closer links with one another.  But in a 
more recent trend there has been a reassertion of the primacy of the 
doctrine of national sovereignty and the movement towards new 
forms of competitive rearmament and national ideological 
confrontation. It is no longer primarily a bi-polar movement between 
two great powers but increasingly it is a case of multi-polar 
competition. In most cases this has been limited in terms of actual 
large scale violent physical confrontation of the great powers, due to 
the threats posed by massive developments in armaments.  Recent 
interstate violence has mainly involved smaller client states, partners, 
or so-called rogue states.  But there is now a worrying trend towards 
substantial national rearmament and competition among the more 
powerful states.  And the emergence of aggressive forms of religious 
fundamentalism pose more issues of concern, especially when 
combined with national sovereign power. 

                                                             
21 first Sir Patrick Sheehy Professor of International Relations in the University of Cambridge. 
22Nationalism and international society, (Cambridge UP, 1990, 145). 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 9



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

 

What are the prospect of rendering the doctrine of national 
sovereignty an obsolete doctrine? 

Looking at the present very divided world order, a political observer 
may no doubt be inclined to take the view that there is little prospect, 
short of a major global catastrophe that brought the whole global 
systemto its knees, of the doctrine of national sovereignty being 
generally displaced in operative terms by a more inclusive and 
cooperative global concept.  The doctrine of sovereignty seems to 
have an entrenched global position in a divided, competitive and often 
nationalistically prejudiced world.  That is not to say that there have 
been no vocal critics of that doctrine, at least as applied in its more 
virulent form of extreme nationalism.  The doctrine lay at the root 
cause of two major global wars and many lesser conflicts, which in 
themselves indicates its inadequacy in an increasingly interdependent 
world.  It also lies, when combined with national prejudice, at the root 
of the many global disparities and injustices. The doctrine has drawn 
much criticism.  Going back to Harold J Laski, nationalism was seen 
as an obstinate virus or disease infecting the body politic of mankind.  
Erich Fromm excoriated it as our incest, our idolatry and our insanity. 
Bertrand Russell saw nationalism as the chief obstacle to the 
extension of social cohesion beyond national boundaries.  Hans J 
Morgenthau saw the nation-state as rendered obsolete by the nuclear 
revolution. Many other prominent secular critics have expressed 
similar sentiments23.   

But it seems that in practice the major powers are not interested in 
such views and are clinging to this doctrine even in the face of, or 
perhaps in reaction to, the growing interdependence of all peoples.  It 
seems that they are willing to pursue their own international 
objectives independently, or at least in alliances, usually only when it 
is in their own perceived national interests to do so.Lesser states, 

                                                             
23See the discussion in The New Nationalism, Louis L Snyder, (2003, Transaction Publishers, 357-358) 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 10



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

having secured their national independence post-colonialism, are 
likewise motivated to preserve it.  The doctrine of national 
sovereignty continues to exercise a very powerful influence in the 
global scheme of things. 

But is there a misconception here?.In my view,any movement towards 
a more globally based order doesn’t necessitate a complete 
abandonment of the doctrine of national sovereignty24.  It a more 
united world order, nation-states can still continue and can coexist 
within that order with a more limited form of national sovereignty or 
authority, much as the federal or provincial units of some nations do.  
For example, some form of a much more cooperative global order 
based on greater international cooperation, tied together with some 
agreed constitutional and institutional arrangements, would seem to 

be a step in the right direction, one with features that go beyond the 
present United Nations Charter25.  Taken further, another option may 
be a comprehensive and just global federal arrangement of all states, 
constituted by some binding treaty in conjunction with a new central 
governmental organisation for the whole planet to deal with matters 
of global concern.  This could be based on some agreed, entrenched 
and binding federal global compact to which all nations accede.  A 
reserve of power and authority in local and national matters could still 
be preservedin such an arrangement under a process of maximum 
decentralization, thus upholding the concept of unity in diversity26.  
                                                             
24 It has been suggested that state sovereignty can only mean absolute sovereignty.  Such comments point to 
the difficulties of defining boundaries should a form of limited state sovereignty be proposed.  But of course 
this is already an issue that has been addressed in framing federal national systems through the use of 
constitutional definition.  That is not to say that it is an easy process to achieve, the greater difficulty being to 
obtain all state agreement. 
25With the fall of the Berlin Wall it seemed that the leaders of the nations might well engage in greater 
international collective action.  Of this the Universal House of Justice recently observed that this has now been 
assailed by resurgent forces of racism, nationalism and factionalism – message of 18 January 2019. 
26In the Turning Point for all Nations, (prepared by Baha’i International Community, United Nations Office, 

N. Y., October, 1995), it is stated: 

“Some fear that international political institutions inevitably evolve toward excessive centralization and 
constitute an unwarranted layer of bureaucracy. It needs to be explicitly and forcefully stated that any new 
structures for global governance must, as a matter of both principle and practicality, ensure that the 
responsibility for decision-making remains at appropriate levels.  

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 11



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

No doubt many other agreed and comprehensive provisions would be 
required in any such negotiations for a new global arrangement to 
ensure the success of such an arrangement and to guarantee its 
permanence.  There is not space in this paper to list the potential 
matters for consideration in this regard in any detail nor to analyse the 
pros and cons of such secular constitutional/international 
arrangements and what they might look like.  Nor am I expressing a 
view as to the likelihood of such a global political arrangement 
coming about in the near future, as this will depend upon the future 
changeable and often volatile relationships and circumstances among 
nations and peoples. 

Whatever the changes that may be envisaged to the present world 
order to create a more united world, clearly it cannot be one that 

opens the door to some new form of global tyranny. It is not 
envisaged that the system of absolute sovereign states will be replaced 
by some form of an absolute, single, all-powerful global state.  Such a 
proposition raises as many questions and concerns as there are with 
the concept of absolute national sovereignty and is most unlikely to be 
endorsed by any reasonable commentator.   It would be seen as being 
avery dangerous concept.The question in this context is not what form 
of absolute global sovereignty could be imposed on the peoples of the 
world, but rather what form of binding constitutional/institutionaljoint 
arrangement could be agreed by the nations of the world in any move 
beyond the primacy of absolute national sovereignty.Whether this 
occurs as a matter of some form of global choice, or is forced on the 
nations and peoples following some terrible world events, is not 
something that need be entered upon in this paper. There is not space 
                                                                                                                                                                                              
Striking the right balance may not always be easy. On the one hand, genuine development and real progress can 
be achieved only by people themselves, acting individually and collectively, in response to the specific concerns 
and needs of their time and place. It can be argued that the decentralization of governance is the sine qua non 
of development. On the other hand, the international order clearly requires a degree of global direction and 
coordination. 

Therefore, in accordance with the principles of decentralization outlined above, international institutions should 
be given the authority to act only on issues of international concern where states cannot act on their own or to 
intervene for the preservation of the rights of peoples and member states. All other matters should be relegated 
to national and local institutions.” 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 12



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

in this paper to analyse the many factors that could precipitate such a 
happening, nor the pros and cons of such a secular 
constitutional/institutional arrangement and what it might look like.  It 
is simply argued that in an increasingly interdependent global order, 
the doctrine of the absolute sovereign nation-state no longer reflects 
the realities on the ground and, further, carries with it many 
undesirable and potentially destructive effects.  This alone should be 
enough to precipitate serious discussion on possible changes to the 
present global order. 

A NewSpiritual Perspective 

Most of the scriptures of the great religions have had no cause to 
consider the role and justification for the concept of the nation-state in 
the contemporary world order for the good reason that those 
scriptures predated the advent of that concept in its more recent 
manifestation.  What has been written by some religious 
commentators representing various sects, denominations and views 
has been deduced for more general scriptural principles and hence it is 
limited by what they authoritatively can say specifically on this topic.  
Islam did have cause to deal with this topic in relation to earlier 
manifestations of the concept dating back many centuries, in 
particular as to matters such as treaties between rival groups.  The one 
religion that has dealt with the more contemporary concept in a 
consistent and consolidated manner is the Baha’i Faith, having 
originated in the 19th century. 

The Baha’i Faith, perhaps alone among the major religions of the 
world, has had cause to consider the place of the “sovereign” nation-
state in the global order in some detail.   It is unique in this respect 
and for that reason alone deserves consideration in the panoply of 
views out there, most of which are secular in nature.  It seems 
appropriate to assess where the perspective of the Baha’i Faithsits in 
that ongoing debate, taking that Faith as revealed through the 
teachings of its primary figures, in particular the writings of the 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 13



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

Prophet/Founder Baha’u’llah, His successor and eldest son Abdu’l-
Baha, and the Guardian of the Faith Shoghi Effendi. 

To understand the Baha’i perspective it is necessary to consider the 
approach of the Baha’i writings to the process of human history.  This 
history is not seen as being merely a process of unrelated, accidental 
facts and circumstances as determined or influenced by the various 
human actors themselves.  Rather it is seen as part of an organic 
process in which the human actors have played a part through their 
own decisions and acts, but which overall is subject to Divine 
guidance and direction. 

Bahá’u’lláh, the Prophet Founder, taught that human history 
throughout its entire length was an intelligible and connected whole, 
centring round a single theme and developing a common purpose.  

In this essay, first published in The Bahá’í World27, the author George 
Townshend28 describes how, from the beginning of history to the 
present day and beyond the present to the cycle’s distant end, one 
master-scheme is disclosed by set degrees. It is a form of historical 
interpretation that includes elements of predestination, but still leave 
room for the exercise of human free will.  Overall the hand of the 
Divine is seen as being at work, guiding and encouraging humans 
through select individuals called Manifestations or prophets, the 
Founders of the great religions.  It has operated on the human 
community from its earliest beginnings as very small groups, through 
various levels of human organisation and forms of unity.  This has 
now reached the limits of this process as separate sovereign nation 
states, often resistant to any greater unity.It is from this position, 
viewed in the light of contemporary global events and circumstances, 
that a wider global unity can now be contemplated.  Many factors 
now point in this direction in the light of many developments such as 
developments in science and technology, global communications and 
connections and the increasing interdependence of all peoples. The 

                                                             
27Volume VI (1934-1936). 
28Anglican Archdeacon from Ireland later Baha’i Hand of the Cause. 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 14



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

basic principle of the Faiththat it seeks to be adopted and applied is 
that of the oneness of all humanity, that all humanity are one race and 
one great human family.  The divisions that have so far existed 
between peoples are part of our inheritance but are to be seen as being 
only stepping stones to a new, much more united global order. 

The Baha’i International Community has expressed the view that the 
current world confusion and calamitous condition in human affairs is 
a natural phase, although accompanied by many trials and suffering, 
in this organic process leading ultimately and irresistibly to the 
unification of the whole human race in a single social order whose 
boundaries are that of the planet itself.   The human race, as a distinct, 
organic unit, has passed through evolutionary stages analogous to the 
stage of infancy and childhood in the lives of its individual members 
and in their forms of social organisation, and is now seen to be in the 
culminating period of its turbulent adolescence approaching its long 
awaited coming of age29.  Thus the goal to which a harassed humanity 
is seen to be heading is its long awaited unity and state of permanent 
peace as one human race on one planetary homeland.  Commenting 
on this, the Universal House of Justice stated: 

“Permanent peace among nations is an essential stage, but not, 
Bahá'u'lláh asserts, the ultimate goal of the social development of 
humanity. Beyond the initial armistice forced upon the world by the 
fear of nuclear holocaust, beyond the political peace reluctantly 
entered into by suspicious rival nations, beyond pragmatic 
arrangements for security and coexistence, beyond even the many 
experiments in co-operation which these steps will make possible lies 
the crowning goal: the unification of all the peoples of the world in 
one universal family.”30 

                                                             
29Turning Point for all Nations, op.cit. 

30The Promise of World Peace, (theUniversal House of Justice, 1995, para 53) 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 15



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

Given this approach, it is not at all surprising that the Faith views the 
concept of the sovereignty of the nation-state with qualifications.  
Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Faith, wrote: 

“Unification of the whole of mankind is the hall-mark of the stage 
which human society is now approaching. Unity of family, of tribe, of 
city-state, and nation have been successively attempted and fully 
established. World unity is the goal towards which a harassed 
humanity is striving. Nation-building has come to an end. The 
anarchy inherent in state sovereignty is moving towards a climax. A 
world, growing to maturity, must abandon this fetish, recognize the 
oneness and wholeness of human relationships, and establish once for 
all the machinery that can best incarnate this fundamental principle 
of its life.”31 

To those who may see this goal as a forlorn hope, the Faith indicates 
that the movement to global unity is inevitable due to the forces, 
spiritual and material, that have been and are already at work in the 
world.  While there are forces favouring disunity and the status quo, 
equally there are forces influencing the global community towards 
ever greaterglobal interdependence and unity.  These forces are a 
mystery to many, but are explained by the Baha’i view.  The interplay 
of these forces is necessarily resulting in many trials and much strife 
and violence, indicating the inability of the system of very divided 
nation-states to effectively deal with them.  Thus: 

“"The winds of despair", Bahá'u'lláh wrote, "are, alas, blowing from 
every direction, and the strife that divides and afflicts the human race 
is daily increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can 
now be discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appears to be 
lamentably defective." This prophetic judgement has been amply 
confirmed by the common experience of humanity. Flaws in the 
prevailing order are conspicuous in the inability of sovereign states 
organized as United Nations to exorcize the spectre of war, the 

                                                             
31The World Order of Baha’u’llah, (Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1974, 202) 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 16



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

threatened collapse of the international economic order, the spread of 
anarchy and terrorism, and the intense suffering which these and 
other afflictions are causing to increasing millions.”32 

The members of the Baha’ Faith, although at this stage relatively 
small in number, are part of these global developments.  They 
recognise that in the early stages of the evolution towards global 
unity, the forces of world politics will dominate. It is stated that: 

“Since sovereignty currently resides with the nation-state, the task of 
determining the exact architecture of the emerging international 
order is an obligation that rests with heads of state and with 
governments”33 

This is therefore not a field for the Baha’is to take an active role, they 
beingnon participants in divisive partisan politics.  Where the Baha’is 
are active is helping to create a wider consciousness of the oneness of 
humanity, a spiritual truth to which they are committed and which in 
the Baha’i view must be the foundation of an effective and lasting 
global unity34.   It is this concept that challenges the peoples of the 
world, from their leaders down, to broaden their horizons beyond the 
limitations of national sovereignty.  Bani Dugal writes of this: 

“Making the transition from nationalistic to global thinking is the 
overriding challenge of our era. It is also one of the most difficult, 
made more so by the degree to which present day leaders are bound 
to the paradigm of “national interest” in all that they do. 

The answer to this conundrum, I believe, lies with a renewed focus on 
what is happening at the grassroots. For, only as people everywhere 

                                                             
32Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, (Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1976, 216) 
33 The Turning Point for all Nations, op cit. 
34It has been said that: ““Conceived of as an end in itself, the national state has come to be a denial of the 
oneness of mankind, the source of general disruption opposed to the true interests of its peoples…” - A Bahá’í 
Declaration of Human Obligations and Rights”, (Bahá’í International Community,February, 1947).   But in the 
writer’s opinion, the Baha’i approach to a reconstructed and more unified global community, in which a form of 
global governance exists alongside continuing nation-states, does not necessarily involve a denial of the oneness 
of humanity. 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 17



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

come to understand their essential oneness will national leaders be 
forced to reflect this new reality in dealings at the international level. 

The fact is that people everywhere are recognizing their common 
identity as global citizens – and, equally importantly, see that the 
pursuit of justice and peace is consistent around the world. 

Ordinary people increasingly understand that humanity is one. The 
signs of this extend from the degree to which popular culture is now a 
global phenomenon – from football to Bollywood – to more urgent 
issues like climate change or attacks on the education of girls, where 
solidarity campaigns now make use of viral technology to organize 
and advocate for change.”35 

Any such global change is by its very nature an enormous challenge.  
Of necessity it must be evolutionary in nature, one step at a time.  It 
has huge implications for the wellbeing of all humanity.  Thus, for 
example, extraordinary care would have to be taken in designing the 
emerging architecture of any new international order so that it does 
not over time degenerate into any form of despotism, of oligarchy or 
of demagogy corrupting the life and machinery of the constitutent 

institutions and undermining the new level of global unity36.  

Likewise the structure must be such that diversity of different peoples 
around the world is preserved as much as possible consistent with 
overall unity. And the principle of decentralisation of decision making 
should be utilised as much as possible, again consistent with overall 
global unity.  From this standpoint it does not mean that the individual 
nation-states would disappear.  Rather they would become the 
constituent units of the new global order, exercising jurisdiction in 
local and national matters but not a form of absolute and unlimited 
sovereignty.  The people of each nation state would still hold dear 
their national citizenship while also viewing themselves as world 
citizens in common with all humanity.  In this sense the Baha’i 

                                                             
35“Is the nation state past its sell-by-date?”, (Perspectives, 2015). 

36Turning Point for all Nations, op.cit. 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 18



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

perspective does not adopt the absolute and unlimited concept of 
national sovereignty: rather it envisages a qualified concept of 
national sovereignty, which would allowthe nation-states to continue 
and to exercise power and authority over national and local matters 
while accepting the need for a form of governance at the global level 
by global institutions in matters that truly require global attention and 
decision-making. At that level the equitable interests of the whole 
planet and of all humanitywould be paramount.  

In the Baha’i view, this plan is not just wishful thinking.  Rather it is a 
plan that is subject to the overall guidance and direction of the Divine 
source,as laid down by the Founder/Prophet of the Faith, Baha’u’llah, 
the essence of which is as follows: 

“The Revelation of Baha’u’llah, whose supreme mission is none other 
but the achievement of this organic and spiritual unity of the whole 
body of nations, should, if we be faithful to its implications, be 
regarded as signalizing through its advent the coming of age of the 
entire human race. It should be viewed not merely as yet another 
spiritual revival in the ever-changing fortunes of mankind, not only as 
a further stage in a chain of progressive Revelations, nor even as the 
culmination of one of a series of recurrent prophetic cycles, but 
rather as marking the last and highest stage in the stupendous 
evolution of man’s collective life on this planet. The emergence of a 
world community, the consciousness of world citizenship, the 
founding of a world civilization and culture… should, by their very 
nature, be regarded, as far as this planetary life is concerned, as the 
furthermost limits in the organization of human society, though man, 
as an individual, will, nay must indeed as a result of such a 
consummation, continue indefinitely to progress and develop.”37 
 
Seen in this perspective, the rise of the doctrine of absolute state 
sovereignty is, it is argued, just an evolving aspect of one phase in the 
ongoing global organisational development of humanity leading in 
time to further global developments.  To those who live the doctrine 
                                                             
37Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, op.cit, 163. 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 19



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

and put much faith in and reliance on it, it will seem a lot more than 
that.  It will be seen by them as the firm, necessary basis of world 
order.Hence there will be serious reluctance to modify or reform it to 
meet changing global circumstances.   They may be content in the 
main to approach the subject from a secular, nationalistic point of 
view But seen from the broader sweep of human history, and 
particularly from the Baha’i perspective of history, that doctrine does 
not have that degree of permanence or importance.  Rather it can be 
seen as part of the transition of the global society towards a more 
united, a more mature form of global governance for all humanity38.  
If the doctrine of state sovereignty no longer meets changing human 
needs, it is argued that it should no longer justifiably hold, in its 
absolute terms at least, our allegiance as members of one 
interdependent human race.  As Shoghi Effendi wrote: 
 
“The call of Bahá'u'lláh is primarily directed against all forms of 
provincialism, all insularities and prejudices. If long-cherished ideals 
and time-honored institutions, if certain social assumptions and 
religious formulae have ceased to promote the welfare of the 
generality of mankind, if they no longer minister to the needs of a 
continually evolving humanity, let them be swept away and relegated 
to the limbo of obsolescent and forgotten doctrines. Why should these, 
in a world subject to the immutable law of change and decay, be 
exempt from the deterioration that must needs overtake every human 
institution? For legal standards, political and economic theories are 
solely designed to safeguard the interests of humanity as a whole, and 
not humanity to be crucified for the preservation of the integrity of 
any particular law or doctrine.”39 
 

The challenge is for world leaders, and for the wider population, in 
the face of rising global pressures and difficulties, to seize the 
opportunities to work gradually towards global order and peace on a 

                                                             
38 Ultimately the Baha’i writings envisage that the term “sovereignty” attaches to the one supreme Deity of all, 
the “the sovereignty of God”. 
” 
39The World Order of Baha’u’llah, op.cit. 42. 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 20



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                    Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                      Volume 08 || Issue 09 || September, 2025 || 

“Future of the “sovereign” Nation-State – A new spiritual perspective 2025" 

 
 

 

united, sustainable, just and effective basis, unimpeded by a doctrine 
which is loosing much of its rationale and effectiveness.  Human 
circumstances have in this contemporary age now changed 
significantly in order to reflect rising global imperatives.  The 
alternatives involving the continuance of the present divided global 
order, it is argued, are not attractive when considered from the point 
of view of the best interests of the one human race and of the planet as 
a whole.  Humans are already sadly experiencing the many 
deficiencies of the present global order, some more than others.  It 
may take some momentous terrible shocks, which as yet cannot be 
fully foreseen, in order to give impetus to the calls for such a change.  
We shouldn’t, it is suggested, allow the forces of the status quo and of 
privilege and prejudice to cloud our minds to the prospects of such a 
change, particularly if, as is argued, that change is seen as being part 
of humanity’s spiritual destiny.  

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17131352 IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 09 | September 2025 |            https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 21


