State sovereignty can be understood, at its core, as the ability of a state to define and maintain authority within its boundaries. Shirk (2017) offers a helpful way of thinking about this by describing sovereignty as the process through which political authority is created and sustained by drawing boundaries that determine who governs and what falls under that authority. This goes beyond the common idea of sovereignty as simply a state’s right to act freely within its territory. It also includes questions of control, belonging, and decision-making. In other words, sovereignty is not just about land, but about who exercises authority and how that authority is maintained.
Transnational crime directly challenges these core elements of sovereignty. As McCarthy-Jones and Turner (2024) argue, transnational criminal networks have evolved into flexible, global “dark networks” that operate across borders and are difficult for states to control. These networks undermine state stability by weakening legal authority, eroding territorial control, and, in some cases, creating parallel systems of governance that compete with the state itself (McCarthy-Jones and Turner 2024). When criminal organizations begin to provide services, influence local populations, or control territory, they are no longer just breaking laws; they are actively competing with the state’s authority.
A simple example is the global trafficking of illicit goods. When products are sourced in one region, transported through another, and sold in a third, enforcement becomes fragmented. No single state can fully regulate or control the flow. This weakens a state’s ability to enforce its laws within its own borders, which is a core aspect of sovereignty.
A recent U.S. Senate report (2022) on narcotics-related financial networks shows how this plays out in practice. It explains how criminal organizations exploit loopholes in U.S. anti-money laundering systems, using tools like shell companies, trade-based laundering, and global financial networks to move money across borders with limited oversight (United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control 2022). In effect, this undermines the state’s ability to regulate its own financial system. At the same time, illicit drug networks fuel corruption, which weakens institutions and erodes public trust. When corruption takes hold, decision-making is no longer fully controlled by the state, which further compromises sovereignty.
In simple terms, when transnational crime limits a state’s ability to control its borders, enforce its laws, or maintain authority over its own systems, it is directly threatening sovereignty. As Shirk’s framework suggests, when violence or illicit activity challenges the state’s ability to define and maintain its boundaries of authority, it is not just a security issue, it is a challenge to the state itself (Shirk 2017).
References:
McCarthy-Jones, Anthea, and Mark Turner. 2024. “Dark Networks, Transnational Crime and Security: The Critical Role of Brokers.” Journal of Illicit Economies and Development 5 (1): 58–69.
Shirk, Mark. 2017. “How Does Violence Threaten the State? Four Narratives on Piracy.” Terrorism and Political Violence 29 (4): 656–673.
United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control. 2022. Strengthening U.S. Efforts to Attack the Financial Networks of Cartels. Washington, DC: U.S. Senate.