Sovereign equality is widely recognized as a fundamental principle of modern international law and is explicitly articulated in Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter. The concept of sovereign equality guarantees legal parity among all states, regardless of their size, relative wealth, or political orientation. However, in practice, this principle has often functioned more symbolically than substantively due to structural inequalities embedded within international institutions and systems of global governance. This article re-evaluates the principle of sovereign equality and examines its contemporary relevance in a global order marked by a significant gap between its normative ideal and its uneven application in international law. The methodology combines doctrinal analysis of legal texts and treaties with a critical discourse analysis of key scholarly works referenced in the study. The paper traces the historical evolution of sovereign equality from its Eurocentric origins through its codification within the United Nations system and examines how it has been both constructed and contested through postcolonial hierarchies, asymmetries, and recognition politics. Drawing on critical legal theory and postcolonial thought, the study demonstrates the dual character of sovereign equality as both a legal instrument designed to protect weaker states from domination and a mechanism that may reproduce forms of exclusion and inequality. Accordingly, while sovereign equality retains significant normative value, its meaningful application requires structural reforms, including more pluralistic legal frameworks, greater inclusivity in international institutional practices, and recognition processes that reflect the diverse realities and needs of states.
ASM Mahmudul Hasan (Thu,) studied this question.