generate conclusion from following material.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Sovereignty is a fundamental concept in international relations that refers to the supreme authority of a state over its own territory and population (Heywood, 2011). It is generally understood as the legal and political ability of a state to exercise power and control within its own borders without external interference (Krasner, 2001). The concept of sovereignty has been a key feature of the international system since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which established the modern system of nation-states and recognized the principle of territorial integrity.

According to Bull (2002), the principle of sovereignty has been challenged in recent decades by globalization, which has led to increased economic interdependence and the rise of non-state actors with transnational interests. Some scholars argue that sovereignty is no longer an absolute principle and that states must now share some of their authority with other actors.

Despite these challenges, sovereignty remains a central concept in international relations and is considered essential for the stability of the international system. As Heywood (2011) notes, the recognition of state sovereignty is a key factor in the maintenance of international order and the prevention of conflict.

II.	THEORIES OF SOVEREIGNTY
There are basically two theories of sovereignty. These include absolute sovereignty and relative sovereignty.
1.	Absolute Sovereignty 
Absolute sovereignty refers to the complete and unrestricted authority of a state or government over its territory and people, without any external or internal limitations or constraints (Heywood, 2013). In other words, an absolute sovereign entity has the power to make and enforce laws, regulate commerce, conduct foreign affairs, and control the use of force within its borders, without any interference from other states or institutions.

The concept of absolute sovereignty has its roots in the theories of early modern political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin, who argued that the state's power must be absolute and indivisible to ensure social order and stability (Dyzenhaus, 2017). However, the idea of absolute sovereignty has been challenged by liberal and democratic theories that emphasize the importance of individual rights, popular sovereignty, and the rule of law (Laski, 2013).
2.	Relative Sovereignty
Relative sovereignty is a concept that refers to the idea that sovereignty is not an absolute or fixed concept, but rather a relative one that is contingent upon the relationships and interactions between states in the international system. This perspective emphasizes the importance of considering the contextual and relational aspects of sovereignty, rather than viewing it as a static and immutable attribute of states.

III.	SOVEREIGNTY AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Sovereignty refers to the supreme power of a state over its territory and people. The concept of sovereignty is closely linked to the notion of statehood, which emphasizes the independence and autonomy of a political entity in the international system (Krasner, 2001). International organizations, on the other hand, are formal institutions created by states to facilitate cooperation and manage common problems in various areas of international relations, such as security, trade, development, and human rights.

The relationship between sovereignty and international organizations is complex and often contentious. On the one hand, international organizations can be seen as a threat to state sovereignty because they involve delegating some degree of decision-making authority to supranational bodies or multinational coalitions (Nye, 2011). This can be especially challenging for states with authoritarian or illiberal regimes, which may view external interference as a violation of their sovereignty.

On the other hand, international organizations can also enhance state sovereignty by providing a platform for states to coordinate their policies and voice their interests on the global stage (Goldstein et al., 2017). Moreover, international organizations can serve as mediators in conflicts between states, helping to resolve disputes and prevent violence (Galtung, 1969). In this sense, international organizations can be seen as a means of strengthening the rule of law and promoting global governance, rather than as a threat to state sovereignty.

IV.	SOVEREIGNTY AND INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY
Sovereignty and international diplomacy are important concepts in international relations. Sovereignty refers to the supreme authority of a state to govern itself without interference from external forces (Heywood, 2014). It is an essential element of the modern state system and is recognized as a fundamental principle of international law. Sovereignty has been defined as both a legal and political concept (Held, 2008).

International diplomacy, on the other hand, involves the negotiation and management of relations between states. Diplomacy can take many forms, including bilateral or multilateral negotiations, treaties, and international organizations such as the United Nations (UN). The UN is a crucial platform for international diplomacy, providing a forum for states to discuss and resolve disputes peacefully (UN, n.d.).

Sovereignty and international diplomacy are closely intertwined. States must respect each other's sovereignty in order to conduct successful diplomacy. This means that states must not interfere in the internal affairs of other states and must recognize each other as equals (Heywood, 2014). Sovereignty also means that states have the right to pursue their own interests and make their own decisions, including decisions related to foreign policy (Held, 2008).

V.	THE LEGAL POSITION OF NON-SOVEREIGN STATES
The legal position of non-sovereign states is a complex issue that has been the subject of much debate and discussion in international law. According to the United Nations (UN), a non-sovereign state is a "territory that does not possess the full range of attributes of a sovereign state" (UN, n.d.). This can include territories that are governed by other states or territories that have a special relationship with a sovereign state.

One of the key issues surrounding the legal position of non-sovereign states is the question of their status under international law. Some legal scholars argue that non-sovereign states are not fully recognized as subjects of international law, and therefore do not have the same rights and obligations as sovereign states (Crawford, 2012). Others argue that non-sovereign states are recognized as subjects of international law, but that their legal status is limited by their lack of full sovereignty (Shaw, 2017).

Another important issue is the question of the relationship between non-sovereign states and their governing states. In some cases, non-sovereign states may have a high degree of autonomy and self-governance, while in other cases they may be heavily controlled by their governing states (Cassese, 2013).

VI.	THE LEGAL POSITION OF NON-SOVEREIGN STATES
The legal position of non-sovereign states is a complex and contested issue in international law (Christoffersen, 2018). Non-sovereign states are entities that possess a certain degree of autonomy but are not recognized as fully sovereign states under international law (Bartole, 2020). Examples of non-sovereign states include Puerto Rico, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands.

The legal status of non-sovereign states is often determined by the relationship between the non-sovereign state and the sovereign state to which it is subject (Christoffersen, 2018). In some cases, non-sovereign states have entered into agreements with their sovereign states that grant them a significant degree of autonomy, such as in the case of Puerto Rico's Commonwealth status (Bartole, 2020). However, these agreements do not necessarily confer full sovereignty on the non-sovereign state.

The lack of full sovereignty has implications for the legal position of non-sovereign states in international law. For example, non-sovereign states may not have the right to engage in diplomatic relations with other states or to become parties to international treaties (Christoffersen, 2018). However, they may still be subject to international law in certain respects, such as in matters relating to human rights (Bartole, 2020).

VII.	KEY LIMITATIONS ON SOVEREIGNTY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
i.	The Emergence of Democracy
The emergence of democracy is a complex historical phenomenon that has been studied extensively by scholars across various disciplines (Dahl, 1971; Diamond & Plattner, 1993; Huntington, 1991). According to Dahl (1971), democracy emerged in ancient Greece around 508 BCE, where citizens had the right to participate in the government and make decisions collectively. This model of democracy was later revived during the Enlightenment era in Europe, where it became a central idea of modern political theory.

However, the emergence of democracy was not a linear process and faced several setbacks throughout history. Huntington (1991) argues that the emergence of democracy was a result of a combination of factors, including economic development, political institutions, and social values. In some cases, external forces such as colonialism played a significant role in shaping the trajectory of democratization.

     ii.    Principle of Sovereign Equality under the United Nations Charter
The principle of sovereign equality is a fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter, enshrined in Article 2(1), which states that "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." (United Nations, 1945). This principle asserts that all member states of the UN, regardless of their size, wealth, or political influence, have equal rights and duties in international relations.

The principle of sovereign equality means that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state, and that all states are entitled to the same respect and consideration from other states. This principle is essential for maintaining international peace and security, as it promotes cooperation and mutual respect among states.

    iii.    Prohibition of Force under the UN Charter
 Under the United Nations Charter, the prohibition of the use of force is a fundamental principle of international law. Article 2(4) of the Charter provides that:

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

This principle was reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case, where the Court stated that:

"The principle of non-use of force in international relations has acquired the status of jus cogens and as such, it is one of the fundamental principles of the international legal order." (Nicaragua v. United States, 1986, para. 190)

CONCEPT OF NATIONALISM 

I.	INTRODUCTION

Nationalism is a concept that has played a significant role in shaping international relations. It refers to the idea that the nation-state is the primary unit of political and social organization, and that the interests and aspirations of the nation should take precedence over those of other nations or supranational entities. In international relations, nationalism can manifest in various forms, including economic protectionism, territorial claims, and military aggression.

According to Anderson (1991), nationalism is a form of imagined community, in which individuals come to see themselves as part of a larger, shared identity based on common language, culture, and history. This sense of shared identity can create a strong sense of solidarity among members of a nation, but it can also create tensions and conflicts with other nations.

Nationalism can have both positive and negative effects on international relations. On the positive side, nationalism can foster a sense of pride and collective purpose among citizens, which can lead to greater political stability and economic development (Hobsbawm, 1990). However, nationalism can also lead to conflicts between nations, as each seeks to advance its own interests at the expense of others (Gellner, 1983).

In recent years, nationalism has played a growing role in international relations, as evidenced by the rise of populist movements in many countries (Mudde, 2019). These movements often emphasize national identity and seek to promote policies that prioritize the interests of their own nation over those of others.

Overall, nationalism is a complex and multifaceted concept that has both positive and negative implications for international relations. While it can foster a sense of unity and purpose within a nation, it can also lead to conflicts and tensions between nations.

II.	 KEYWORDS
Here are some keywords related to nationalism in international relations:

1.	Sovereignty: The idea that each nation has the right to govern itself and make decisions without interference from other nations.

2.	Self-determination: The principle that nations have the right to determine their own political, economic, and social systems.

3.	Patriotism: A love and loyalty to one's own country, often associated with feelings of pride and attachment to one's national identity.

4.	National identity: The sense of belonging and common purpose shared by members of a nation, often based on shared cultural, historical, or linguistic characteristics.

5.	National interest: The political, economic, and security objectives of a nation, often defined in terms of promoting and protecting the well-being of its citizens.

6.	National security: The protection of a nation's borders, people, and institutions from external threats.

7.	Nationalism: The ideology that emphasizes the importance of national identity and promotes the interests of one's own nation above those of others.

8.	National unity: The idea that members of a nation should work together for the common good, often involving sacrifices for the greater good of the country.

9.	National pride: A sense of satisfaction and accomplishment associated with one's national identity and achievements.

10.	Nationalism and internationalism: The tension between promoting the interests of one's own nation and cooperating with other nations to achieve common goals.

III.	CONTENTS

Nationalism is a complex concept that can be understood in a variety of ways, but in the context of international relations, it typically refers to the belief that the nation-state is the primary unit of political organization and that the interests and goals of the nation-state should be the primary focus of foreign policy. Nationalism can manifest in a variety of ways in international relations, including:

1.	Sovereignty: Nationalism emphasizes the importance of sovereignty, or the ability of a state to govern itself without interference from external actors. Nationalists argue that states should be able to make decisions about their own internal affairs and external relationships without having to defer to outside powers.

2.	Self-determination: Nationalism is often linked to the idea of self-determination, or the right of a people to determine their own political destiny. Nationalists argue that every group of people should be able to govern themselves in their own state and that states should be based on shared culture, language, history, and traditions.

3.	National identity: Nationalism emphasizes the importance of national identity and pride in one's country. Nationalists often argue that the nation-state is the best way to preserve and promote the cultural and historical identity of a people.

4.	Protectionism: Nationalism can also manifest in economic policies that prioritize domestic industries over foreign competition. Nationalists argue that protecting domestic industries is essential for preserving national economic strength and that free trade can threaten domestic jobs and industries.

5.	Militarism: Nationalism can also be linked to militarism, or the belief that military strength is essential for protecting national interests and projecting national power abroad. Nationalists may argue that a strong military is necessary for deterring potential threats and defending against aggression.

Overall, nationalism can have a significant impact on international relations by shaping the foreign policies and actions of nation-states. While nationalism can promote a sense of national unity and pride, it can also lead to conflict and tension between different nations and can make cooperation and diplomacy more difficult.