am Andrew, a secondary 5 student in Canada and I stand for the capacity of states to take quality and reassuring actions. I dislike dictatorships and believe civilians and other states of power should intervene on political decisions.
Sovereignty states are not efficient in coming to agreements with other countries. In most cases, their is one supreme leader that controls everything that boarders within his country. His country in other terms is a monopoly state meaning their are no opposing opinions and what ever he says goes. This is bad for businesses because the supreme leader can make any price he wants wich can also lead to inflation within the economy. Having a sovereign state is not vigorous because no one can inform the leader if he is doing something wrong and we see that with a lot of leader for example Vladimir and Gadafi. The accumulation of many states to form one agreement has worked before with help from the UN. Having states that unify together to come up with descion can also be beneficial within the court system, for example in Canada we have 3 power of states which is the judicial, executive and legislative; whereas having a sovereign state or a supreme leader means that someone wouldn't be able to be tried under international court system. By letting the capacity of states to take an effective position mean that states must follow whatever government policies are laid out in order to do so but are still in charge of what happens in their country. A good example of this would be would Germany and the policies they must follow with he UN.