Search results

Abstract
Don Herzog's book Sovereignty RIP offers a tour d'horizon of one strand of sovereignty's conceptual history and its changing meanings over time. It culminates in a ferocious call to bury the notion of sovereignty and replace it with concepts such as jurisdiction, authority and state. Based on insights from conceptual history, in particular about basic concepts, the review essay criticizes Herzog's approach. It questions whether one can convincingly denounce the concept of sovereignty by relying predominantly on episodes from Anglo-American history as Herzog does. Instead, the essay tells two alternative stories in order to first argue that ignoring other narratives risks misunderstanding and misinterpreting the current re-rise of sovereignty-related discourses and that, second, sovereignty remains an important tool to understand how both the constitutional state and multilevel governance work. Eventually it would be more pernicious to discard the concept of sovereignty instead of engaging with it and confronting its diverging conceptions.

Abstract
The worldwide populist wave has contributed to a perception that international law is currently in a state of crisis. This article examines how far populist governments have challenged prevailing interpretations of international law. The article links structural features of populism with an analysis of populist governmental strategies and argumentative practices. It demonstrates that, in their rhetoric, populist governments promote an understanding of international law as a mere law of coordination. However, this is not entirely reflected in their legal practices where an instrumental, cherry-picking approach prevails. The article concludes that policies of populist governments affect the current state of international law on two different levels: in the political sphere, their practices alter the general environment in which legal rules are interpreted and, in the legal sphere, populist governments push for changes in the interpretation of established international legal rules. The article substantiates these propositions by focusing on the principle of non-intervention and foreign funding for non-governmental organizations.

The worldwide populist wave has contributed to a perception that international law is currently in a state of crisis. This article examines in how far populist governments have challenged prevailing interpretations of international law. The article links structural features of populism with an analysis of populist governmental strategies and argumentative practices. It demonstrates that, in their rhetoric, populist governments promote an understanding of international law as a mere law of coordination. This is, however, not entirely reflected in their legal practices where an instrumental, cherry-picking approach prevails. The article concludes that policies of populist governments affect the current state of international law on two different levels: In the political sphere their practices alter the general environment in which legal rules are interpreted. In the legal sphere populist governments push for changes in the interpretation of established international legal rules. The article substantiates these propositions by focusing on the principle of non-intervention and foreign funding for NGOs.

The worldwide populist wave has contributed to a perception that international law is currently in a state of crisis. This article examines in how far populist governments have challenged prevailing interpretations of international law. The article links structural features of populism with an analysis of populist governmental strategies and argumentative practices. It demonstrates that, in their rhetoric, populist governments promote an understanding of international law as a mere law of coordination. This is, however, not entirely reflected in their legal practices where an instrumental, cherry-picking approach prevails. The article concludes that policies of populist governments affect the current state of international law on two different levels: In the political sphere their practices alter the general environment in which legal rules are interpreted. In the legal sphere populist governments push for changes in the interpretation of established international legal rules. The article substantiates these propositions by focusing on the principle of nonintervention and foreign funding for NGOs.