Search results

A review essay on books by (1) Michael Ross Fowler & Julie Marie Bunck, Law, Power, and the Sovereign State: The Evolution and Application of the Concept of Sovereignty (University Park: Pennsylvania State U Press, 1995); (2) Rodney Bruce Hall, National Collective Identity: Social Constructs and International Systems (New York, NY: Columbia U Press, 1999); & (3) Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton U Press, 1999). Krasner, & Ross Fowler & Bunck 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, & curtailed. Both works contribute importantly to the field by amassing & 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 & applies it to the development of the nation-state system. The strengths & weaknesses of all three works help set an agenda for future scholarship on sovereignty. Adapted from the source document.

Stephen Krasner'sSovereigntyand Michael Ross Fowler and Julie Marie Bunck'sLaw, Power, and the Sovereign Statetogether 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'sNational 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.

The article argues that sovereignty in Australia is as yet incomplete, but that full sovereignty could be achieved through engagement with the indigenous Aboriginal 'first nations'. First, the inter-constitution of the concepts of sovereignty and politics is outlined. Then the unfinished character of sovereignty since white settlement is examined, indicating the default nature of the sovereignty settlement. The challenge arising from complex indigenous claims to sovereignty is then explored through two elements of a differend, or power differential, which has excluded indigenous peoples from meaningful recognition as political actors. The meaning of sovereignty in the broad field of indigenous claims is then analysed. Finally, a proposal for constitutional amendment is outlined, building both upon Aboriginal self-understandings as belonging to specific nations and groups and upon the logic of the history of white settlement. Constitutional revision which takes account of these histories provides an opportunity to extend the scope of the parties who are federated. Such a process could stimulate debate that generates a meaningful Australian sovereignty settlement identity for both indigenous and non-indigenous communities. Adapted from the source document.

The article argues that sovereignty in Australia is as yet incomplete, but that full sovereignty could be achieved through engagement with the indigenous Aboriginal 'first nations'. First, the inter-constitution of the concepts of sovereignty and politics is outlined. Then the unfinished character of sovereignty since white settlement is examined, indicating the default nature of the sovereignty settlement. The challenge arising from complex indigenous claims to sovereignty is then explored through two elements of a differend, or power differential, which has excluded indigenous peoples from meaningful recognition as political actors. The meaning of sovereignty in the broad field of indigenous claims is then analysed. Finally, a proposal for constitutional amendment is outlined, building both upon Aboriginal self-understandings as belonging to specific nations and groups and upon the logic of the history of white settlement. Constitutional revision which takes account of these histories provides an opportunity to extend the scope of the parties who are federated. Such a process could stimulate debate that generates a meaningful Australian sovereignty settlement identity for both indigenous and non-indigenous communities.

Examines the evolving concept of sovereignty of nations in relation to international environmental policy, NATO, UN humanitarian intervention, international organized crime, the global information infrastructure, and the case of Chechnya; 7 articles.