To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Sovereignty.
Journal articles on the topic 'Sovereignty'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Sovereignty.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Chowdhury, Arjun, and Raymond Duvall. "Sovereignty and sovereign power." International Theory 6, no. 2 (June 20, 2014): 191–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1752971914000049.
Full textAbstract:
Can the dissolution or transgression of sovereign authority – ‘failed states’, for example – be understood within a concept of sovereignty? Extant understandings provide a negative answer; approaches to sovereignty in International Relations and Political Theory conceptualize sovereignty as located in stable entities, generally states. Insofar as political societies face crises of authority, those crises arise from exogenous factors, not the structure of sovereignty. We argue that this is a restrictive notion of sovereignty. In its place, we offer a theorization that can account for the dissolution or transgression of sovereign orders, focusing on the possibility that sovereigns may not recognize their subjects as the originary structure of sovereignty. In our understanding, sovereignty is logically and temporally before sovereign power. Consequently, the possibility of dissolution is a structural condition of all sovereign orders. This enables us to theorize the relationship between sovereignty, sovereign power, and the law, and to apply this broader concept to analyze politics in ‘weak’ and ‘failed states’.
2
Johns, Fleur. "The sovereignty deficit: Afterword to the Foreword by Neil Walker." International Journal of Constitutional Law 19, no. 1 (January 1, 2021): 6–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icon/moab004.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The frenzy of sovereign claiming that Neil Walker describes in his enthralling Foreword reveals more about sovereignty’s deficits, and prevailing anxieties about these deficits, than it evinces the expanding range of sovereignty. Sovereignty is clearly not eroding across the board, but it is far more fissured than Walker’s Foreword article suggests, as more and more modes of governmental power perforate, parse and parry it. Sovereignty captures how some things work, some of the time, and a good measure of political rhetoric and aspiration. As a comprehensive or incisive analytic for contemporary power, however, it is inadequate. This Afterword fleshes out this claim by presenting counter-narratives to each of the five dimensions of Walker’s analysis of contemporary mobilizations of sovereignty: decomposition as a counterpoint to Walker’s story of recomposition; routing around in contrast to his account of raising; ransoming rather than rationing; monomania in lieu of reinforcement; and fetishization instead of reduction. Insofar as people are everywhere today grasping for sovereign determinacy, this may reveal more about the exhaustion of sovereignty’s explanatory power than its continuing salience.
3
Rumyantseva, V. G. "The State Interest: the Sovereign’s Power by Default." Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)) 1, no. 11 (April 1, 2024): 165–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2023.111.11.165-170.
Full textAbstract:
Sovereignty is a dialectically developing phenomenon. In the classic sense, sovereignty belongs to the supreme power, for example, represented by the head of state, or if the center of publicity is the people, the sovereignty of the people (the popular sovereignty) is meant then. Nevertheless, in modern history, even just a person, a personality, a citizen has begun to be endowed with sovereignty. One way or another, with all the differences in the perception of sovereignty, the term itself has always been associated with power, and this neither provokes any disputes nor casts any doubts. But the points about the limits of this power and whether it has boundaries in the political and legal space are both debatable and rather painful, because they maximally confront us with reality, where life itself, our existence and vital values turn out to be dependent on the owner of sovereignty. This article attempts to reveal the construct of sovereign power. By the power holder — the sovereign, the author of the article understands the head of state as a single subject of political and legal relations. The nature of the sovereign’s power is elucidated through the state interest determined by the state of emergency.
4
Balke, Friedrich. "Derrida and Foucault On Sovereignty." German Law Journal 6, no. 1 (January 1, 2005): 71–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200013481.
Full textAbstract:
In his final publication Derrida argues for a rather wide notion of the concept of sovereignty. Sovereigns are not only public officers and dignitaries, or those who invest them with sovereign power – we all are sovereigns, without exception, insofar the sovereign function is nothing but the rationale of all metaphysics, anchored in a certain capability, in the ability to do something, in a power or potency that transfers and realizes itself, that shows itself in possession, property, the power or authority of the master, be it the master of the house or in the city or state,despot, be it the master over himself, and thus master over his passions which have to be mastered just like the many-headed mass in the political arena. Derrida thinks the sovereign with Aristotle: theprima causa, the unmoved mover. It has been often remarked that philosophy here openly reveals itself as political theology. Derrida thus refers to the famous lines of theIliad, where Ulysses warns of the sovereignty of the many: “it is not well that there should be many masters; one man must be supreme – one king to whom the son of scheming Saturn has given the scepter of sovereignty over you all.”
5
Bach, Jonathan. "Keep Sovereignty Sovereign!" International Studies Review 9, no. 4 (December 10, 2007): 714–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2007.00733.x.
Full text
6
Bauder, Harald. "Westphalia, Migration, and Feudal Privilege." Migration Letters 15, no. 3 (July 7, 2018): 333–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.33182/ml.v15i3.356.
Full textAbstract:
Most people acquire citizenship at birth; and modern liberal states regulate the migration of non-citizens as a matter of their sovereignty. Do contemporary border and migration controls based on citizenship therefore enforce the continuation of feudal birth privilege? In this paper I interrogate this question by examining the role of migration controls in the Westphalian Treaties, which define a milestone in the development of territorial state sovereign. I find that the Treaties assumed that a sovereign’s subjects are not free to cross territorial borders, and that migration controls continue to enforce birth privilege. However, while feudal sovereigns ruled by bondage, modern liberal states rule by exclusion.
7
Bieberstein, Alice von, and Erdem Evren. "Sovereign extractions, extractive sovereignty." Anthropological Theory 24, no. 3 (August 28, 2024): 225–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14634996241270783.
Full textAbstract:
Within the broader context of a financialised supply-chain capitalism and the international governance of statehood in the wake of decolonisation and European integration, this special issue asks how sovereignty figures in relation to extraction at this conjuncture. In this introduction, we outline the issue's conceptual framework. We argue that sovereignty manifests as a space-making power, across different scales, which delineates and crafts various sites and zones of contemporary processes of extraction as various kinds of ‘outside’. We understand this ‘outside’ not only from the structural point of view of capital accumulation or simply in terms of its function for the stabilisation of capitalism. Rather, we understand it as shaped and saturated by symbolic investments and determinations, through discursive formations, fantasies and patterns of racialisation and dehumanisation, which assist the operations of extractive capital but which may also feature histories and genealogies not reducible to the logics of capital. But we also take distance from an Agambenian take on the ‘outside’, which would figure its sovereign dimension in terms of negativity, as a withdrawal of the law and a form of abandonment. Our interest lies in tracing the mutual articulation and implication of (genocidal, colonial, imperial) violence and capitalist extractions of value and wealth as they intersect, often conjointly, at times in tension, in the crafting and delineation of space.
8
Cohen, Andrew I. ""Retained Liberties and Absolute Hobbesian Authorization"." Hobbes Studies 11, no. 1 (1998): 33–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187502598x00041.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractHobbes claims that the sovereign's absolute authority is consistent with the subjects' retaining liberties to resist certain commands. In this essay, I explore what it means for subject to authorize a sovereign with a right to command. I show how retained rights are compatible with sovereignty. Though any given subject does not authorize the sovereign to do anything, I argue that the sovereign power is absolute. The sovereign has the most power anyone could command.
9
Tóth, Zoltán J. "Theories on Sovereignty." Central European Journal of Comparative Law 4, no. 1 (June 14, 2023): 175–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.47078/2023.1.175-195.
Full textAbstract:
The notion of sovereignty has been invented in the 16th century. This concept is traditionally linked to Jean Bodin, who first used the term to describe modern statehood in his work ‘Six Books of the Commonwealth,’ written in 1576. The concept itself was originally conceived to define the characteristics of the absolute monarchy, but was later used to describe the rule of other sovereigns as well; thus, it was created as one of the most prolific concepts in political theory. Although sovereignty was an object of intense interest to political philosophers mainly until the middle of the 20th century, it is still not an out-of-date concept. While it is true that modern international law, recent political practice, and the chiselled concepts of law and state have diminished the importance of this notion until now, it has not disappeared. In fact, even the recent international policy and the modern constitutional practice are not able to do without the paradigm of state sovereignty. Like all concepts, it has been inflated, yet, its core political theoretical content remained almost the same. In the present paper I am going to attempt to introduce the types of sovereignty, mainly on the basis of who the sovereign can be.
10
Chuiko, Vadym. "SOCIAL EXISTENCE AS A CONDITION FOR THE CREATION AND REPRODUCTION OF A SUBJECT." Politology bulletin, no. 86 (2021): 12–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/2415-881x.2021.86.12-23.
Full textAbstract:
When we state the existence of a reality that affects a person’s existence and demonstrates his inability to influence this reality in a positive way, we find a lack of subjectivity. In our instance, however, we are not discussing the concept of «death of the subject,» but rather the recognition of the loss of subjectivity and the search for means to reproduce it. Thus, by recalling the concept of «actor,» the concept of «man as Sovereign» is substantiated. In contrast to the juristic interpretation found in international law, I propose to enter a definition of sovereignty as an entity without which existence is impossible. In particular, the Indo-European essence of human existence represents the sovereignty of the individual, while others represent the family, group, tribe, ethnic group, state, supreme hierarch, and so on. Substantially, sovereignty implies knowledge of the properties of other (real knowledge of existence). This study allowed us to substantiate that the ability to form responsible agreements reveals a person who has the will and can be defined by the term «sovereign». In turn, agreements are mostly made with those who cannot be ignored. Therefore, a complementary connection with objective circumstances is realized, in which culture, knowledge, science and intellect are components of increasing sovereignty. Because sovereignty manifests itself in society in the form of will, it is a necessary component of the sovereign’s integrity, which manifests itself in an act of trust or distrust.
11
Curran, Eleanor. "Hobbesian Sovereignty and the Rights of Subjects." Hobbes Studies 32, no. 2 (October 4, 2019): 209–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18750257-03202003.
Full textAbstract:
Hobbes, in his political writing, is generally understood to be arguing for absolutism. I argue that despite apparently supporting absolutism, Hobbes, in Leviathan, also undermines that absolutism in at least two and possibly three ways. First, he makes sovereignty conditional upon the sovereign’s ability to ensure the safety of the people. Second and crucially, he argues that subjects have inalienable rights, rights that are held even against the sovereign. When the subjects’ preservation is threatened they are no longer obliged to obey the sovereign. Third, there is also a possible limitation on the absolute power of the sovereign in the form of restrictions Hobbes puts in place on what laws he may legitimately make. Finally, Hobbesian absolutism is compared to the absolutism of Carl Schmitt. This exercise demonstrates the limitations that Hobbes places on the power and authority of the sovereign.
12
Philpott, Daniel. "Usurping the Sovereignty of Sovereignty?" World Politics 53, no. 2 (January 2001): 297–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/wp.2001.0006.
Full textAbstract:
Stephen Krasner's Sovereignty and Michael Ross Fowler and Julie Marie Bunck's Law, Power, and the Sovereign State together pose the deepest challenge yet to the assumption of sovereignty in international relations scholarship. Both claim not merely that state sovereignty is now compromised but also that it has always been severely truncated, violated, and curtailed. Both works contribute importantly to the field by amassing and cataloging formidable evidence of compromises of sovereignty. Yet by failing to provide a yardstick by which to compare these compromises with states' comparative respect for sovereignty, both works ultimately fail to sustain their thesis. Both also overlook the constitutive dimension of sovereignty, a dimension whose acknowledgment would render sovereignty far more stable than either admits. By contrast, a third work, Rodney Bruce Hall's National Collective Identity, commendably explores the constitutive role of sovereignty and applies it to the development of the nation-state system. The strengths and weaknesses of all three works help set an agenda for future scholarship on sovereignty.
13
Zeiher, Cindy Lee. "The Conjecture of Sovereignty: New Anxieties for the Subject." Journal of Extreme Anthropology 2, no. 2 (August 20, 2018): 92–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.5617/jea.6247.
Full textAbstract:
Sovereignty continues to be an issue for political theorisation of its adherence to and resistance against specific ideological forms and interventions. Many of these political deliberations have assumed the constitution and contours of sovereignty to be a sovereign moment wherein in retrospect, there appears to be an act of sovereignty by the subject as part of a wider collective movement. Although Agamben and Santner seek ways to escape sovereignty framed as necessarily oppressive, nevertheless there are moments in which sovereignty still appears a desirable exception. This conundrum is considered in two scenarios: Pfaller’s exposition of the smoker as mundane, independent sovereign pleasure, and the recent #metoo movement as collective sovereign suffering. It is argued that in order to situate a discussion of sovereignty which departs from complete resistance to or escape from it, a recourse to Lacan’s concept of extimacy informed by Schmitt’s public interest as rule of law, is vital. Here we find that sovereignty is a concept and practice very much caught up with jouissance of the foreignness of extimacy which itself relies on the invisible other for cogency. It is both upon recognition of this sovereignty and in anticipation of it that jouissance and anxiety are harnessed in a process which, crucially, demands acting against the law. It appears that sovereignty is necessarily grounded in extimacy, a principle which although separating the subject from its context also apprehends it as obedient to the law. In staging the sovereign moment as one of anxiety and joussiance this paper claims that although the concept of sovereignty may today be little more than an illusion, we nevertheless continue to pursue it.
14
Nguyen, Cassandra J., Rachel E. Wilbur, Austin Henderson, Jennifer Sowerwine, Megan Mucioki, Daniel Sarna-Wojcicki, Gary L. Ferguson, et al. "Framing an Indigenous Food Sovereignty Research Agenda." Health Promotion Practice 24, no. 6 (October 25, 2023): 1117–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15248399231190362.
Full textAbstract:
Access to healthy and appealing food is essential for individuals to be able to live a healthy and quality life. For decades, food security has been a priority issue for public health professionals. Food sovereignty expands upon the concept of food insecurity (i.e., having access to nutritious and culturally relevant food) by incorporating people’s rights to define their own food system. The expanded focus of food sovereignty on food systems prioritizes public health professionals’ role in supporting environmental- and systems-level initiatives and evaluating their implications for health, economics, and the natural environment. Food sovereignty is of particular importance for Indigenous peoples (i.e., American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities). Colonization had demonstrable consequences, with many Indigenous communities being forcibly relocated from traditional lands, alongside the destruction of traditional food sources. Indigenous food sovereignty aligns with the sovereign nation status that American Indian tribes and Alaska Native communities have with the United States. Furthermore, the worldviews that incorporate Indigenous communities’ relational responsibilities to care for their food systems, according to their traditional practices and beliefs (Coté, 2016; Morrison, 2011), uniquely positions Indigenous peoples to lead food sovereignty initiatives. In this article, we explore what is currently known regarding food sovereignty and health. We then discuss opportunities to expand the evidence on Indigenous food sovereignty’s relationships with (1) health and well being, (2) economics, (3) the natural environment, and (4) programming facilitators and barriers.
15
Smith, Helmut Walser. "The Long Shadow of Jean Bodin." Central European History 55, no. 1 (March 2022): 109–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008938921001795.
Full textAbstract:
Neither the historiographical focus on sovereignty nor the concept of sovereignty is new. What is new is the stress on it as a negotiated concept, as a field for claims, and as a gray zone between the public and the private, the state and the individual. This new approach locates sovereignty not only with the sovereign, but also with the people over whom the sovereign rules; more precisely, it locates it in a field of force betwixt and between the two. Sovereignty is less a thing to be measured than it is a dynamic to be followed, a question to be asked, even a rhetorical device. Focusing on different kinds of actors, from colonial profiteers to NGO officials, this new lens allows one to see sovereign power from above as only one locus of sovereignty. Another is the individual. For her, protracted negotiations and staking of claims often define the general contours and limits of sovereignty.
16
GÜMPLOVÁ, PETRA. "Popular sovereignty over natural resources: A critical reappraisal of Leif Wenar’sBlood Oilfrom the perspective of international law and justice." Global Constitutionalism 7, no. 2 (June 11, 2018): 173–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2045381718000114.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract:The article discusses the concept of popular sovereignty over natural resources and its possible applicability to a broader account of natural resource justice based on a moral interpretation of international law. Leif Wenar’s recent proposal to entrench popular resource sovereignty as a counterclaim to illegitimate uses of natural resources by corrupt and authoritarian regimes serves as the starting point for the discussion of the possible meaning of popular resource sovereignty and its role in an account of natural resource justice. Three key aspects of Wenar’s conception are in focus: 1) the framing of popular resource sovereignty within the current system of sovereign territoriality, 2) the notion of collective ownership of natural resources as the content of popular resource sovereignty, and 3) civil and political rights as the key set of norms determining the conditions of legitimate exercise of resource sovereignty. The article argues that collective sovereignty claims over natural resources can neither be framed exclusively through boundaries of current sovereign states, nor understood in terms of full and unlimited property rights. Concerning civil and political rights, I argue we need to move past the liberal conception of legitimacy toward a more comprehensive human rights-based conception of justice serving as a standard for assessment of legitimacy of both sovereign and non-sovereign entities which have rights over natural resources.
17
Barus, Yan Jefri. "Jurisdiction Of A Country’s Air Territorry In International Law Perspective." Journal of Law Science 3, no. 3 (July 30, 2021): 102–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.35335/jls.v3i3.1673.
Full textAbstract:
The sovereignty of a country is no longer absolute or absolute, but at certain limits it must respect the sovereignty of other countries, which are regulated through international law. This is what became known as the relative sovereignty of the state. In the context of international law, a sovereign state must essentially obey and respect international law, as well as the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries. The problem in this research is How is the JURISDICTION of a country's airspace? What are the principles of air law adopted by nations in the world (internationally)? How is the JURISDICTION of a country's airspace in the perspective of international law? Its basic function is to show the way to solve research problems. The airspace contained above the land area, inland waters, and territorial sea is included in the jurisdiction of a country. This can be seen from article 1 of the Chicago Convention 1944 concerning International Civil Aviation: "State sovereignty in the air space above its territorial area is complete and exclusive sovereignity". This provision is one of the main pillars of international law governing air space. The principles of international air law include the principle of airspace sovereignty, the principle of JURISDICTION of air space, and the principle of responsibility. The principles in jurisdiction are the principle of territorial, national, passive personality, protection or security, universality, and crime according to applicable legal criteria. In relation to state jurisdiction in airspace, very closely related to law enforcement in the airspace. With jurisdiction, the country concerned has the authority and responsibility in the air to carry out law enforcement in air space.
18
Mayer, Thomas F., John Michael Archer, J. H. Burns, and Kenneth Pennington. "Sovereignty, Sovereignty, Who's Got the Sovereignty?" Sixteenth Century Journal 25, no. 2 (1994): 399. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2542889.
Full text
19
Cooper, Julie E. "Spinoza vs. the Kahal: The Zionist Critique of Spinoza’s Politics." Jewish Social Studies 29, no. 2 (March 2024): 94–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.2979/jss.00010.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract: The 1920s and 30s witnessed an explosion of interest in Spinoza among Zionist intellectuals. The reflexive equation of nation and state has led scholars to conclude that Zionists were drawn to Spinoza because he justified state sovereignty. This assumption is mistaken. Eastern European Zionists rejected Spinoza’s sovereignty-centered political thought—precisely because it denies political standing to non-sovereign bodies such as the kahal. Drawing on diasporic history, Spinoza’s Zionist critics elaborated a distinctive political vision that prized national autonomy but did not equate self-rule with sovereign power. I foreground Zionist repudiation of Spinozist sovereignty to challenge reigning assumptions about the ideological sources of non-sovereign politics. Theorists influenced by German Jewish thought have predicated the cultivation of non-sovereign political imagination on a disavowal of nationalism. This opposition—between diaspora and nation, between nationalism and non-sovereignty—is false. In eastern Europe, nationalist figurations of galut (exile) have long inspired non-sovereign, non-Spinozist political imaginaries.
20
Eudaily, Seán Patrick, and Steve Smith. "Sovereign Geopolitics? – Uncovering the “Sovereignty Paradox”." Geopolitics 13, no. 2 (May 20, 2008): 309–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14650040801991621.
Full text
21
Bellamy, Richard. "A European Republic of Sovereign States: Sovereignty, republicanism and the European Union." European Journal of Political Theory 16, no. 2 (June 29, 2016): 188–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474885116654389.
Full textAbstract:
This article defends state sovereignty as necessary for a form of popular sovereignty capable of realising the republican value of non-domination and argues it remains achievable and normatively warranted in an interconnected world. Many scholars, including certain republicans, contend that the external sovereignty of states can no longer be maintained or justified in such circumstances. Consequently, we must abandon the sovereignty of states and reconceive popular sovereignty on a different basis. Some argue sovereignty must be displaced upwards to a more global state, while others advocate it be vertically and horizontally dispersed to units below, across and above the state. Each group offers a related vision of the European Union to illustrate their proposals. Both these arguments are criticised as more likely to produce than reduce domination because neither can sustain a form of popular sovereignty capable of instantiating relations of non-domination. This article proposes the alternative of a republican association of sovereign states that allows sovereign states and their peoples to mutually regulate their external sovereignty in non-dominating ways. This alternative proposal provides a more plausible and defensible means for sustaining the requisite kind of popular sovereignty in contemporary conditions and a more appropriate vision of the European Union.
22
Hasberg Zirak-Schmidt, David. "Kongebilleder." K&K - Kultur og Klasse 50, no. 133 (June 6, 2022): 11–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/kok.v50i133.132739.
Full textAbstract:
This article analyses a conflict between royalist iconography and republican iconoclasm in the visual strategies of the frontispieces to Eikon Basilike and Eikon Alethine, two works that react to the execution of Charles I in 1649. The article argues that the clash between these two visual strategies is emblematic of a clash between a republican and an absolutist notion of sovereignty current in Caroline England. The absolutist notion of sovereignty may be meaningfully approached through Walter Benjamin’s theory of the ambiguous nature of early modern sovereignty. For Benjamin, the early modern sovereign is simultaneously a tyrant and a martyr. This double nature of the figure of the sovereign is the result of early modern political theology. The republican notion of sovereignty, which develops in the 1640s, is characterized by its emphasis on popular sovereignty. According to this view, only parliament could legitimately represent the interests of the commonwealth. However, the republican conceptualization of sovereignty ultimately fails because it fails to visually represent the abstract notion of popular sovereignty.
23
Munir, Bakht, Jawwad Riaz, and Ali Nawaz Khan. "The Nature and Philosophy of Sovereignty: A Comparative Analysis of Western and Islamic Notions of Sovereignty." Global Legal Studies Review V, no. III (September 30, 2020): 13–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/glsr.2020(v-iii).02.
Full textAbstract:
Sovereignty is one of the most appreciated attributes of a political system. However, there are certain issues to which political thinkers share competing views: the original presenters of the concept of sovereignty, how the concept of sovereignty evolved, how a sovereign represents the will of people, and what are the common and differentiating features of sovereignty between the western and the Islamic political thinkers. With qualitative research methodology, this work aimed to investigate historical roots of sovereignty and it explicated by whom the legal exposition of sovereignty was initially given. The research at hand critically investigated the notion of sovereignty and highlighted the contribution of western and Islamic philosophers in the conceptualization of the idea of sovereignty and its relation with other attributes such as government and democracy are comparatively examined
24
Shindo, Reiko. "Resistance beyond sovereign politics: Petty sovereigns’ disappearance into the world of fiction in post-Fukushima Japan." Security Dialogue 49, no. 3 (January 24, 2018): 183–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0967010617751994.
Full textAbstract:
What happens to sovereign power when petty sovereigns refuse to exploit discretionary power to suspend the rule of law, the very power that is delegated to them and makes them who they are? How might such a refusal contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between resistance and sovereign power? This article revisits Judith Butler’s notion of petty sovereigns to explore the possibility that petty sovereigns establish a distinctive relationship with law. This article draws on a case involving one nameless petty sovereign and his published writings. He writes novels to expose how law is used by some officials to realize a particular policy goal with regards to nuclear energy. His novels blur the line between fiction and non-fiction: it contains classified information only available to bureaucrats, discusses actual energy policies and related laws, and introduces fictional characters who resemble non-fictional characters. I argue that this example suggests that petty sovereigns are not necessarily tied to the node between governmentality and sovereignty. Shifting between the worlds of fiction and non-fiction, petty sovereigns slip away from sovereign power, which controls the subject-making process, and quietly resist sovereign politics through the contingency of subjectivity.
25
Salihu, Salihe. "The Post-Communist State Era and Its Impact on Sovereignty: A Case Study of Kosovo." Studia Europejskie - Studies in European Affairs 26, no. 1 (April 29, 2022): 135–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.33067/se.1.2022.8.
Full textAbstract:
Many theoretical perspectives have touched on the concept of sovereignty, but the need for more sovereignty-based discussion in relation to the postcommunist era still exists. The question of sovereignty and its survival in the post-communist era touches on some general features such as the attributes, signs, properties, and conditions of the concept of sovereignty that have evolved. In the case of Kosovo, the issue of sovereignty can be linked to two distinct features, namely democracy and human rights. For Kosovo to be a sovereign state, it had a mandatory prerequisite to fulfil these two features. These features implied the fulfi lment of two criteria, in the forms of legality and legitimacy and, in reality, these two criteria stem from the will of the people. This refl ection shows that sovereignty in the post-communist era had to be in line with respect for human rights as a feature of the principles of democracy. However, the transition from the communist system to democracy was not an easy one. In this regard, Kosovo has come a long way in achieving sovereignty and managed to be declared a sovereign state in 2008. The conditioning of Kosovo’s sovereignty by the above criteria represents the influence of the post-communist era, and its earlier form differs from the prevailing form of absolute sovereignty as it existed, for example, in the former federations of Russia and Yugoslavia. Kosovo’s sovereignty is reflected in accordance with the will of the majority of over ninety-five percent of the country’s population. Moreover, in Kosovo, minorities have privileges, such as positive discrimination and the special right that constitutional changes on vital issues pertaining to those minorities cannot be made without their vote. However, in the post-communist era, it was not possible to democratise all sovereign states. Some states focused on the power and manner of expanding power in their respective territories and fought for the recognition of reconfigured sovereignty at the expense of justice and rights. Therefore, since the post-communist period, the defi nition, content, and character of sovereignty has been in debate, with a new dimension of respect for human rights as a major talking point and as an essential mark of the principle of democracy.
26
Hamuľák, Ondrej. "Lessons from the “Constitutional Mythology” or How to Reconcile the Concept of State Sovereignty with European Intagration." DANUBE: Law and Economics Review 6, no. 2 (June 1, 2015): 75–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/danb-2015-0005.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This paper analyses the question of how to perceive the traditional theoretical concept of state sovereignty vis-á-vis European integration. Within the European project we face the paradox of having two authorities claiming autonomy and dominance. It is undisputable that the European Union is behaving like an autonomous public power - the new sovereign of its kind. But at the same time the Member States also maintain their sovereign statehood. This duality cannot be comprehended together with the old characteristics of sovereignty, which accepts only one holder of this feature. To reconcile the phenomena of European integration and the concept of sovereignty, we must shift into new definitions of the latter. This paper argues in favour of the acceptation of a shared sovereignty concept.
27
Vodolaskova, Kateryna, and Svitlana Holovko. "HISTORICAL ASPECTS AND OVERVIEW OF LEGAL UNDERSTANDING OF AIRSPACE SOVEREIGNTY CONCEPT." Scientific works of National Aviation University. Series: Law Journal "Air and Space Law" 1, no. 66 (March 31, 2023): 9–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.18372/2307-9061.66.17411.
Full textAbstract:
Goal: define different ideas of the concept of "sovereignty in aviation space" and consider the stages of development of the concept of airspace sovereignty in the context of the airspace bordering the territory of the state. Research methods: documentary analysis and synthesis, comparative analysis, cognitive and analytical, as well as methods of systematization and generalizations. Results: the analysis of legal acts of international significance in the field of aviation law, which determined the modern understanding of the concept of sovereignty in airspace, was carried out. Discussion: deep analysis made it possible to determine that the official recognition of airspace sovereignty under international law gave all states the right to establish rules and exercise sovereign control of any power over their sovereign airspace.
28
Eleftheriadis, Pavlos. "Austin and the Electors." Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 24, no. 2 (July 2011): 441–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0841820900005269.
Full textAbstract:
Austin’s theory of theory of law is simple: the law follows the pattern of power; the sovereign gives commands and obeys none; the subject obeys commands; the law consists in only those commands that directly or indirectly emanate from the sovereign. Nevertheless, Austin’s theory of sovereignty is not simple at all. When we look at the relevant chapters closely, it becomes evident that Austin has two rival theories of sovereignty, one for a single person and one for a ‘determinate body’. It is only the latter that allows him to say that sovereignty lies, ultimately, with the electors, the strange conclusion of his book. But Austin’s second theory of sovereignty is not consistent with his own theory of law. Austin’s faces a dilemma. Is law - as most people take it to be - a public order of standards of conduct aiming to guide behaviour? If so, sovereignty ought to be public and intelligible. If not, sovereignty can remain a mystery to those living under it (accessible only after the event by the expert legal philosopher). For the latter reading, law and sovereignty are ‘normatively inert,’ as some of Austin’s followers claim today. But Austin does not agree with his modern followers. Austin’s second theory of sovereignty is aimed at satisfying a practical requirement of law and jurisprudence, i.e. to be in the position of publicly guiding conduct.
29
Λάμπρου (Eleni Lamprou), Ελένη. "Carl Schmitt: Μια θεωρία περί την πολιτική και τη θεολογία." Conatus 1, no. 1 (April 5, 2017): 49. http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/conatus.11845.
Full textAbstract:
Carl Schmitt in his book Political Theology: Four Chapters on the concept of sovereignty deals with the issue of sovereignty and furthermore in which cases the sovereign is likely to emerge. Initially, he tries to define what sovereignty is. He claims that sovereignty has to do with a ‘situation of extraordinary emergency’. In such a case, the sovereign ought to concede the existence of the exception of the current legal status and in the end, he should defend the public security, the order of the state and furthermore he has to aim at the salut public. Schmitt speaks for the suspension of the current order and the existence of a state but not a state of justice. He maintains that there is no anarchy or iniquity since the sovereign has legislated and no law can exist or be implemented in chaos. The law has been sited by the sovereign arbitrarily. Thereafter, a genealogical approximation for the term of sovereignty has been attempted, which has been based on claims of Bodin, Kelsen (whose theory has been counterfeited by Schmitt), Krabbe and Thomas Hobbes. The most important part in his book is the analysis of the term of political theology, the way in which religion interferes with the legal state of law, through one sovereign that creates the law and his decisions are vicious. Science and theology are mixed as a social phenomenon. Schmitt believes that sovereignty must in no way be hidden behind religion but it must be seated in science. He thinks that monarchy has found the power to create a state of law and this has been maintained through religion.
30
Antonov, B. A. "Sovereign and Sovereignty Within the Framework of Carl Schmitt’s Juridical Decisionism." LENINGRAD LEGAL JOURNAL 4, no. 78 (2024): 8–27. https://doi.org/10.35231/18136230_2024_4_8.
Full textAbstract:
The author of the article attempts to analyze the concepts of sovereign and sovereignty in their retrospective and current interpretation. A retrospective analysis of both concepts involves an appeal to European medieval history (and in particular to the Holy Roman Empire), considered by the author from the position of legal decisionism of Carl Schmitt (1888-1985). The current interpretation comes down to the need to rethink the concept of sovereignty and problematize the consideration of this phenomenon from the point of view of its completeness. The purpose of the article is to analyze the concepts of sovereign and sovereignty in relation to the medieval history of the First Reich and to substantiate the relevance of these concepts within the framework of the theory of decisionism created by Schmitt. The article provides a brief excursion into the history of the struggle for the power of an absolute sovereign (using the example of the First Reich); the assessment of the concepts of sovereign and sovereignty given by Schmitt within the framework of his theory of decisionism is analyzed; The reasons for rethinking the traditiona
31
Prinsen, Gerard, and Séverine Blaise. "An emerging “Islandian” sovereignty of non-self-governing islands." International Journal: Canada's Journal of Global Policy Analysis 72, no. 1 (February 16, 2017): 56–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0020702017693260.
Full textAbstract:
Comparative analyses have found that non-self-governing islands tend to have much better development indicators than sovereign islands. Perhaps unsurprisingly, since 1983 no non-self-governing island has acquired political independence. This paper argues that rather than merely maintaining the status quo with their colonial metropoles, non-self-governing islands are actively creating a new form of sovereignty. This creation of an “Islandian” sovereignty takes place against the backdrop of debates on the relevance of classic Westphalian sovereignty and emerging practices of Indigenous sovereignty. This paper reviews global research on the sovereignty of islands and from this review, develops an analytical framework of five mechanisms that drive the emerging Islandian sovereignty. This framework is tested and illustrated with a case study of the negotiations about sovereignty between New Caledonia and its colonial metropole, France.
32
Yakoviyk, Ivan, Yevhen Bilousov, and Kateryna Yefremova. "EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AS A CHALLENGE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ECONOMIC STATE SOVEREIGNTY." Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 5, no. 3 (August 13, 2022): 8–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.33327/ajee-18-5.2-a000330.
Full textAbstract:
One of the most significant modern examples of political and economic integration for Ukraine is the EU, given the plan for European integration. In gaining membership in this integration entity, states face the issue of delegating their powers to the Union. The issue of modification of state sovereignty in the context of the EU’s relations with member states and candidate countries for EU membership is acute, which raises concerns about the forced restrictions on their state economic sovereignty. The methodological basis of the study are such general-science and special methods as historical-legal, dialectical, comparative-legal, and others. The historical-legal method was used to study the genesis of the content of the legal categories of ‘economic sovereignty’, ‘sovereign debt’, and the stages of European integration. The usage of the dialectical method provided a comprehensive study of the process of forming EU economic policy, as well as defining the ratio between the categories of ‘economic sovereignty restriction’ and ‘restriction of sovereign economic rights of the state’. By using the comparative-legal method, the paper reveals the specifics of the approaches of individual states to the legal regulation of relations to ensure economic sovereignty and economic security of the state. The study, based on the experience of the new EU member states, has shown that European integration as a whole contributes to changing the volume of sovereign powers of states during the implementation of economic state sovereignty. However, the authors conclude that such a process is twofold: on the one hand, factors that objectively reduce the economic sovereignty of countries through the delegation of their sovereign rights are increasing, and, on the other, most states voluntarily and consciously accept such restrictions to obtain economic, political, and social benefits.
33
Molis, Arūnas, and Sara Pastorello. "Belarus’ Sovereignty in Question: Assessing its de facto Sovereign Status in the Shadow of Russia." Politologija 114, no. 2 (June 17, 2024): 130–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/polit.2024.114.4.
Full textAbstract:
The paper explores state sovereignty by developing a systematic framework for categorising states based on their sovereignty status. At the heart of our analysis lies the distinction between sovereign states and satellite states – a distinction that has significant implications for global security, stability, and the balance of power. While sovereign states exercise full autonomy and control over their affairs, satellite states often find themselves in a subordinate position, heavily influenced or even dominated by external powers. A theoretical framework deconstructs the concept of sovereignty into four crucial elements: authority, legitimacy, independence, and territoriality, which provide a structured assessment of the level of sovereignty in a state and serve as the basis for our analysis. To illustrate the application of our framework, we adopt a case study approach focused on Belarus. As a nation situated at the crossroads of Eastern Europe with a history marked by geopolitical contestation and strategic manoeuvring, Belarus provides a compelling context for examining sovereignty dynamics. Through a systematic analysis of Belarus’ political, economic, and military landscape, we seek to assess its sovereignty status within the framework of our analysis. While the topic of Belarus’ sovereignty and integration within Russia has been extensively explored over the years, the innovative contribution of this paper lies in purposefully designed methodology for sovereignty assessment and the use of the latest empirical data while practically applying the model for the case of Belarus.
34
Wu, Chien-Huei. "Sovereignty Fever: The Territorial Turn of Global Cyber Order." Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht / Heidelberg Journal of International Law 81, no. 3 (2021): 651–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.17104/0044-2348-2021-3-651.
Full textAbstract:
This paper argues that the utopia of a borderless and interconnected cyberspace loses its charm and the global cyber order is witnessing a territorial turn. The proliferation of the notion of cyber sovereignty and its variances is a symptom reflecting sovereign states' attempt to retain autonomy and control gradually eroded with the digitalisation of societies and economies. The sovereignty fever can be attributed to four reasons: political ambition, economic value, security concerns, and human rights. However, sovereignty is not the last word in debates concerning the future of digital society, for even liberal democracies have advanced ideas of technological or digital sovereignty, and data sovereignty, for their own very different purposes.
35
Islekel, Selin. "Decolonizing Damiens." Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 44, no. 1 (2023): 29–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/gfpj2023441/22.
Full textAbstract:
This paper works on the relation between spectacles and death. I present a decolonial genealogy, of the relation between sovereignty and spectacle, and specifically what coloniality does to this relation, how it shifts the very core of sovereign punishment. I demonstrate the formation of what I call “colonial sovereignty” as the emergence of a new relation between sovereignty and terror: in colonial sovereignty, terror is an inseparable element of sovereignty, formed through not the uniqueness but rather the repetition and proliferation of spectacles of death. The colonial/modern nation-state functions as a government by terror, where death becomes meaningless, and the spectacles of dead bodies outlive death.
36
Robles-Carrillo, M. "Sovereignty vs. Digital Sovereignty." Journal of Digital Technologies and Law 1, no. 3 (August 20, 2023): 673–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2023.29.
Full textAbstract:
Objective: the aim of this paper is to analyze the relationship between sovereignty and digital sovereignty in order to determine whether they are linked or autonomous concepts and in which cases and to what extent there is or is not a connection between the two categories.Methods: the methodology is based on the analysis of international, European and national practice and scientific discourse, taking into account sovereignty and digital sovereignty from a threefold perspective: contextual, conceptual and functional.Results: 1) analysis of the correlation between sovereignty and digital sovereignty showed that both are related concepts; 2) important consequences that digital sovereignty has in the case of States and the European Union are defined: a) there is a substantial difference between sovereignty and digital sovereignty because the former is only applied to States, while the latter is also used in reference to the EU; b) digital sovereignty is not necessarily a consequence or an extension of sovereignty; c) while in the case of States, digital sovereignty is justified as a safeguard of traditional sovereignty, in case of European Union its function must necessarily be different, since the European Union lacks sovereignty.Scientific novelty: the analysis of this relationship provides an objective scientific premise for a comprehensive understanding of the idea of digital sovereignty. From the perspective of the context where they operate, as well as their concept and functions, sovereignty and digital sovereignty seem to be autonomous and, in some cases, complementary categories.Practical significance: the dual functionality of digital sovereignty as a concept attached to national sovereignty and as an autonomous concept helps to explain the use of this category in the case of states and in the case of an organization such as the European Union, as well as the differences in its scope and meaning in each scenario.
37
Grimshaw, Mike. "The necessity of impure sovereignty." Journal of Extreme Anthropology 2, no. 2 (July 29, 2018): 78–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.5617/jea.6271.
Full textAbstract:
This essay arises from an engagement with the reflections and letters of Jacob Taubes to Carl Schmitt (Taubes 2013); central to these writings is the question of the sovereign. If the sovereign is the one who decides the exception, then sovereignty is focused on this decision of what is/is not the exception – and who gets to decide. An engagement with these writings of Taubes as a Jew and friend-enemy of the Nazi jurist offers a way toward what I term the necessity of impure sovereignty. For Taubes the central question is what does pure mean and thus, dialectically, what does impure mean? To engage with this question, I begin with a discussion of Weimar and the situation that gave rise to Schmitt’s work on sovereignty. I make use of the diaries of Count Harry Kessler and also of an essay of Schmitt’s from 1926. I then turn to the writings of Taubes to Schmitt. In my view, sovereignty as understood by both Schmitt and Taubes is problematic because of its central decision for homogeneity and dictatorial democracy. Therefore, I argue for three counter-decisions. Firstly, for the necessity of the impure sovereign-decision for heterogeneity. Secondly, against the Schmittean katechon, I argue for identification with the chaotic, impure Antichrist. Finally, against history, I argue for hope and so we must make the alternative sovereign-decision to remain impure.
38
Abegunde, Babalola, Zacheaus Femi Ogunlade, and Kayode Adetifa. "Operation of the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity in Contemporary World: Nigeria in Focus." International Journal of Law and Society 6, no. 2 (June 15, 2023): 161–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20230602.17.
Full textAbstract:
In Nigeria, the sovereign power resides in the people, hence, Section 14 (2) (a) of 1999 Constitution provides that: “Sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom the government through this Constitution derives all its power and authority.” In Nigeria, the people are the sovereign and the people exercise sovereignty through their electoral vote, and by way of constitutional government in accordance with the Constitution which is the express will of the people for the regulation of government and national life. The provisions of the Constitution are binding on all authorities and persons throughout Nigeria. The sovereignty of the people is called constitutional sovereignty. However, people usually confer upon an elected sovereign all the rights necessary to ensure peace and protection for each member of the society. Immunity is the exemption of a person or body from legal proceedings or liability. This paper examined inter-alia, the concept of sovereign immunity, which shields the actions of state in respect of its domestic affairs. This is deskbased research which relies on both primary and secondary sources of data. This paper reveals that the concept is no longer immutable in the contemporary time. The paper rounds up with concluding remarks.
39
Holm, Minda, and Ole Jacob Sending. "States before relations: On misrecognition and the bifurcated regime of sovereignty." Review of International Studies 44, no. 5 (November 20, 2018): 829–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0260210518000372.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe symbolic structure of the international system, organised around sovereignty, is sustained by an institutional infrastructure that shapes how states seek sovereign agency. We investigate how the modern legal category of the state is an institutional expression of the idea of the state as a liberal person, dependent on a one-off recognition in establishing the sovereign state. We then discuss how this institutional rule coexists with the ongoing frustrated search for recognition in terms of sociopolitical registers. While the first set of rules establishes a protective shield against others, regardless of behaviour, the second set of rules specify rules for behaviour of statehood, which produces a distinct form of misrecognition. States are, at one level, already recognised as sovereign and are granted rights akin to individuals in liberal thought, and yet they are continually misrecognised in their quest to actualise the sovereign agency they associate with statehood. We draw on examples from two contemporary phenomena – fragile states, and assertions of non-interference and sovereignty from the populist right and non-Western great powers, to discuss the misrecognition processes embedded in the bifurcated symbolic structure of sovereignty, and its implications for debates about hierarchy and sovereignty in world affairs.
40
Kubalskiy, V. "CONCEPT OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW." ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, no. 132 (2017): 85–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/apmv.2017.132.0.85-96.
Full textAbstract:
In the article is studied of concept ≪state sovereignty≫, his international legal properties and features of conception of state sovereignty in an international law on the modern stage. The special value undertaken a study acquires in connection with a loss Ukraine of sovereignty above separate parts of territory of Ukraine. Given the international legal acts, which contain legal opinion of the events of 2014 in Crimea. The legal envisaged concept of state sovereignty is absent in an international law formally. The analysis of doctrine approaches of lawyers-specialists in international law is conducted to the concept ≪state sovereignty≫. The analysis of legal literature witnessed, that a concept ≪state sovereignty≫ in an international law is characterized by next signs: political and legal independence, value as primary international legal subject; needed for exceptional supremacy of state power and envisages insubordination of power of other state; conditioned by legal equality of the independent states and is in basis of modern international law. State sovereignty is characterized international legaland internal aspects. Under the external aspect of sovereignty is understood independent of other subjects of international law. The internal aspect of territorial supremacy means the right of the state exercise its authority within its territory Sovereign equality is a concept, what derivant from a concept ≪sovereignty≫. But in most international legal acts, the concept of ≪state sovereignty≫ is used primarily in combination with the principle of territorial integrity of states. Principle of territorial integrity essentially comes forward as a major backer-up of state sovereignty, as exactly territory is an obligatory sign of any state, sphere of action of his sovereignty. The concept of state sovereignty in international law is based on the principles of international law, primarily the non-use of force and threat of force in international relations, the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, inviolability of borders and territorial integrity of states. At the national level, appropriate to speak of sovereignty as a property of the state, and at the international level, the principle of respect for state sovereignty. Thus, state sovereignty remains the base of the international legal system. The most serious crime against state sovereignty in an international criminal law is a crime of aggression. In the framework of international law, it is expedient to develop more effective mechanisms for the protection of state sovereignty, taking into account the need to protect it from contemporary forms of manifestation of an international crime ≪aggression≫, which is accompanied by information, trade, as well as ≪hybrid≫ wars.
41
Dodds, Klaus J. "Sovereignty watch: claimant states, resources, and territory in contemporary Antarctica." Polar Record 47, no. 3 (December 2, 2010): 231–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0032247410000458.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTThis article is concerned with the contemporary Antarctic and the kinds of sovereignty performances undertaken by claimant states such as Australia. Notwithstanding the entry into force of the Antarctic Treaty, claimant states have used, what this article terms, ‘treaty sovereignty’ further to entrench their sovereign rights, especially within public culture. Using Australia as a detailed example, the article considers how a range of activities including anti-whaling developments alongside contemporary public commentary has on the one hand stressed ‘sovereign rights’ and yet on the other hand, revealed a sense of anxiety and fear regarding the role of others; what one might term overall a form of ‘sovereignty watch’. In conclusion, the paper speculates on whether the treaty parties are entering an unstable phase of Antarctic co-existence precisely because of the kinds of behaviours that ‘treaty sovereignty’ encourages.
42
Bradley, Arthur. "In the sovereign machine: sovereignty, governmentality, automaticity." Journal for Cultural Research 22, no. 3 (May 3, 2018): 209–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14797585.2018.1461359.
Full text
43
Loh, Dylan MH, and Jaakko Heiskanen. "Liminal sovereignty practices: Rethinking the inside/outside dichotomy." Cooperation and Conflict 55, no. 3 (March 9, 2020): 284–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010836720911391.
Full textAbstract:
Sovereignty is the core concept of international relations. Almost without exception, approaches to sovereignty in IR have followed a binary framing where sovereignty is seen to consist of two components: ‘internal’ versus ‘external’ sovereignty, ‘positive’ versus ‘negative’ sovereignty, and so on. These dichotomies stem from the prevailing understanding of sovereignty as the boundary between the inside and the outside of the state. This article builds on and expands these existing approaches by reconceptualizing the sovereign border line as a liminal border space. Relatedly, we theorize the concept of liminality in greater depth by distinguishing between four distinct kinds of liminality: marginal, hybrid, interstitial, and external. Each of these problematizes the dividing line of sovereignty in unique but comparable ways. We empirically illustrate these four kinds of liminality with reference to contested states, ‘tribal’ or ‘indigenous’ groups, NGOs such as Amnesty International, and extremist groups such as ISIS, respectively. Each of these types of liminality entails unique actors, practices, and consequences for the concept of sovereignty. We suggest that liminal sovereignty practices represent the most radical source of change for the concept of sovereignty, yet at the same time, somewhat counterintuitively, they also serve as the best means of clarifying existing, established meanings and practices of sovereignty.
44
Pramono, Agus. "AIR SOVEREIGNTY AND NO-FLY ZONES." Diponegoro Law Review 1, no. 1 (October 7, 2016): 99. http://dx.doi.org/10.14710/dilrev.1.1.2016.99-112.
Full textAbstract:
Sovereignty of a state in essence is an embedded, basic element of a state as a supreme power. However, the sovereignty of a state can only be applied within its own borders, where outside of its own territory the sovereignty of another country takes over. This research was carried out based on the approach of current legal regulations and review of literature. The study showed that airspace sovereignty is, in principle, embedded to a state of which ownership is exclusive in nature. No-fly zones are airspace in which a sovereign state determines to be restricted for flight traffic based on the existing international and national regulations. Keywords: State sovereignty, No-fly zone, International law
45
Shoker, Ali. "Digital Sovereignty Strategies for Every Nation." Applied Cybersecurity & Internet Governance 1, no. 1 (November 17, 2022): 56–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0016.0943.
Full textAbstract:
Digital Sovereignty must be on the agenda of every modern nation. Digital technology is becoming part of our life details, from the vital essentials, like food and water management, to transcendence in the Metaverse and Space. Protecting these digital assets will, therefore, be inevitable for a modern country to live, excel and lead. Digital Sovereignty is a strategic necessity to protect these digital assets from the monopoly of friendly rational states, and the threats of unfriendly Malicious states and behaviors. In this work, we revisit the definition and scope of digital sovereignty through extending it to cover the entire value chain of using, owning, and producing digital assets. We emphasize the importance of protecting the operational resources, both raw materials and human expertise, in addition to research and innovation necessary to achieve sustainable sovereignty. We also show that digital sovereignty by autonomy is often impossible, and by mutual cooperation is not always sustainable. To this end, we propose implementing digital sovereignty using Nash Equilibrium, often studied in Game Theory, to govern the relation with Rational states. Finally, we propose a digital sovereignty agenda for different country’s digital profiles, based on their status quo, priorities, and capabilities. We survey state-of-the-art digital technology that is useful to make the current digital assets sovereign. Additionally, we propose a roadmap that aims to develop a sovereign digital nation, as close as possible to autonomy. Finally, we draw attention to the need of more research to better understand and implement digital sovereignty from different perspectives: technological, economic, and geopolitical.
46
Amjad, Junaid. "Nation-state and Sovereignty in Contemporary Political Discourse." Australian Journal of Islamic Studies 7, no. 3 (December 31, 2022): 60–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.55831/ajis.v7i3.581.
Full textAbstract:
Sovereignty has had a fundamental importance in modern political discourse. Politically, the term ‘sovereignty’ is used as ‘absolute overlordship or complete suzerainty’. Sovereignty is associated with the rise of the modern system of sovereign states, usually dated to the Westphalia treaty (1648). “The fundamental norm of Westphalian sovereignty is that states exist in specific territories, within which domestic political authorities are the sole arbiters of legitimate behaviour”. Hence, Modern nation-states embrace sovereignty limited outside a specific territory but absolute inside the territory itself. In the Muslim world, after experiencing modern nation-states, the question arises whether sovereignty belongs to a single authority, a political body—the state’s ‘artificial person’ or sovereignty entirely belongs to God alone. This question has been discussed in the Muslim world since the twentieth century. Syed Mawdudi is branded by his intense efforts to discuss the concept of political legitimacy, authority and ‘divine sovereignty’ in the nation-state context. Mawdudi’s innovative interpretation of God’s sovereignty (Hakimiyat-ilahiya) contextualised it in modern political discourse, which implies that sovereignty belongs to God alone, the Law-giver. The idea of God’s sovereignty has been a fundamental debate in the political dialogue of the Muslim world. Therefore, focusing on God’s sovereignty, this paper sheds new light on the attribution of this idea and how it has been developed as a political concept in modern nation-states.
47
Langenohl, Andreas. "Modular sovereignty, security and debt: The Excessive Deficit Procedure of the European Union." Finance and Society 3, no. 2 (December 19, 2017): 124–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/finsoc.v3i2.2573.
Full textAbstract:
The Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) is a political mechanism that aims at ‘multilevel governance’ of state indebtedness in the European Union. As such, it has become the concern of research that asks how sovereignty becomes articulated in this process. This article approaches this question through the conceptualization of a modular notion of sovereignty elaborated through a discussion of work on the finance-security nexus. The article argues that existing accounts of the formation of sovereign power in relation to state debt can be combined into a notion of modular sovereignty when seen through the prism of critiques of contractualism that take issue with liberal notions of state sovereignty and credit security. This way, the indebted state becomes visible as the referent object of multiple, and potentially contradictory, invocations of sovereignty as exercised in the EDP. First, it figures as the seat of budget sovereignty, holding its social substrate liable for its debts while ignoring inequalities in that substrate. Second, it is appealed to, within a biopolitical rationality, as the sovereign guarantor of the financial wellbeing of its population. Third, it is seen as the executor of financial wisdom that is mobilized in struggles between different levels of financial governance in the EDP.
48
Hont, Istvan. "The Permanent Crisis of a Divided Mankind: ‘Contemporary Crisis of the Nation State’ in Historical Perspective." Political Studies 42, no. 1_suppl (August 1994): 166–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1994.tb00011.x.
Full textAbstract:
It is said that the people are sovereign; but over whom? – over themselves, apparently. The people are thus subject. There is surely something equivocal if not erroneous here, for the people which command are not the people which obey. It is enough, then, to put the general proposition, ‘The people are sovereign’, to feel that it needs an exegesis…. The people, it will be said, exercise their sovereignty by means of their representatives. This begins to make sense. The people are the sovereign which cannot exercise sovereignty… (Joseph De Maistre, Study on Sovereignty) Someone was speaking to Sieyès of the scorn that his detractors continually affect for what they call ‘grand theories’. ‘Theories’, he said, ‘are the practice of centuries; all their practices are the theory of the passing moment! (Pierre Louis Roederer)1
49
Weber, Cynthia. "Reconsidering statehood: examining the sovereignty/intervention boundary." Review of International Studies 18, no. 3 (July 1992): 199–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0260210500117231.
Full textAbstract:
R. B. J. Walker recently noted that far from its largely accepted status as an ‘essentially contested’ concept, state sovereignty is instead an essentiallyuncontested concept. This is a seemingly paradoxical comment for an international relations theorist to make in light of the recent revival of academic scrutiny concerning sovereign statehood. Rather than marking an inattention to recent trends in the sovereignty literature, Walker's statement is a commentary on the way sovereign statehood has been studied. Walker writes of sovereign statehood:
50
Walker, Neil. "The sovereignty surplus." International Journal of Constitutional Law 18, no. 2 (July 2020): 370–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icon/moaa051.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This Foreword article aims to rescue the sovereignty concept from the conflicted center of irresoluble debates about the resilience and value of the state form. The idea of a “sovereignty surplus” shifts the focus of inquiry towards sovereignty as a deep frame of legal and political thought and action. It evokes how sovereigntist thinking, in tandem with the techniques of modern constitutionalism, spills over beyond its threshold modern achievement of imagining and securing the paramount authority of the state system. The sovereignty surplus manifests itself in part as a “surfeit” of sovereignty—an overabundance of new sovereignty claims emerging in new sub-state and supra-state contexts—but it also captures sovereignty’s augmented reworking in existing contexts. The sovereignty frame, then, while resilient in its general form and settled in its statist locus, is capable of and susceptible to adjustment and redeployment in the face of new internal and external pressures. It harbors an excess that allows its component elements to be fleshed out, modified, and diversified so as both to absorb and reshape shifting sources and assertions of political authority. These movements are captured by examining the contemporary interaction amongst the five “R”s: the recomposition, raising, rationing, reinforcement, and reduction of sovereignty.