Search results

One of the oldest distinctions in philosophical discourse is that between "words about words" and "words about things."' Much scholarship among international lawyers and political scientists, as well as table-talk of diplomats and other practitioners concerning the somewhat airy concept of sovereignty, has suffered all too much from a failure to appreciate the confusion that flows from treating a word as though it were a fact. Now come to the table two pairs of scholars with contrasting interpretations of the central word of international law, sovereinty: at one end, international lawyers Abram and Antonia Handler Chayes; and at the other, political scientists Michael Ross Fowler and Julie Marie Bunck. Ironically, however, the lawyers unveil a "new sovereignty" by employing a variety of social science methodologies to explicate a nonlegal, "managerial" approach to the study of the transfer of state authority to international institutions. In a converse irony, the political scientists have appropriated the international lawyer's interpretive canon, parsing international judicial and arbitral decisions and combing state practice as evidence of customary international law, to advance an essentially traditional conception of sovereignty as state sovereignty.

The recent proliferation of referendums on sovereignty matters has fuelled growing scholarly interest. However, comparative research is hindered by the weaknesses of current compilations, which tend to suffer from conceptual vagueness, varied coding decisions, incomplete coverage and ad hoc categorizations. Based on an improved conceptualization and theory-driven typology, this article presents a new dataset of 602 sovereignty referendums from 1776–2012, more than double the number in existing lists. In an exploratory analysis, it uncovers eight distinctive clusters of sovereignty referendums and identifies patterns of activity over time and space as well as outcomes produced.

J. Bartelson (1995) & C. Weber (1995) have argued that, because the link between sovereignty & the state is problematic, the concept of sovereignty itself cannot be defined. Bartelson & Weber are thus content to examine the definitions of sovereignty proposed by others. An alternative escape from this dilemma is proposed here, one that detaches the idea of sovereignty from the institution of the state by identifying a stateless world in which diversity is accepted, pluralism is explicitly recognized, & difference is understood as the essence of individual identity. In this poststatist view of individual sovereignty, a historically sensitive definition of the term is indeed possible. 9 References. Adapted from the source document.

"This book is a critical inquiry into the meaning and function of sovereignty in the present and argues that the meaning and functions performed by this concept have changed significantly during the past decades, with profound implications for the ontological status of the state and the modus operandi of the international system as a whole. Although we have grown accustomed to regard sovereignty both as a defining characteristic of the modern state and a constitutive principle of the international system, this book argues that recent changes indicate that sovereignty has been turned into a grant contingent upon its responsible exercise in accordance with the norms and values of an imagined international community. This book has grown out the dissatisfaction with the author's previous work on sovereignty and the state, and argues that a new concept of sovereignty is needed today in order to clarify the logic of its current usage in theory and practice alike and its connection to broader concerns of social ontology: what kind of world do we inhabit, and of what kind of entities is this world composed? This book will be of interest to students of International Relations, Critical Security and International Politics"--

This study is dedicated to the interdependencies between digital sovereignty and sustainable digitalization, which need to be explicitly linked to an increasing degree in political discourse, academia, and societal debates. Digital skills are the prerequisites for shaping digitalization in the interest of society and sustainable development.

This innovative research monograph on sovereignty argues that the historical examination of the concept and the conceptual analysis of sovereignty are interdependent. The book engages with and makes a significant contribution to the literatures on sovereignty from the history of political thought and political theory. It offers a clear survey and evaluation of interlinked debates within these literatures, and provides lively and scholarly interpretations of thinkers including Bodin, Hobbes ...

1. Introduction; 2. The myth of the common law constitution; 3. Legislative sovereignty and the rule of law; 4. Homogenising constitutions; 5. Abdicating and limiting Parliament's sovereignty; 6. Trethowan's case; 7. Requirements as to procedure or form for legislating; 8. Judicial review, legislative override, and democracy; 9. Parliamentary sovereignty and statutory interpretation; 10. Challenging parliamentary sovereignty: past, present and future

The article attempts to establish a causal mechanism that explains why the belief in popular sovereignty leads to the political assertion of national loyalties. Being liberated does not necessarily mean that people will assert their nationality as demonstrated by the medieval citizens of Greek & Italy. Popular sovereignty seems to promote the discovery of national loyalties showing a deeper relationship between popular sovereignty & nationalism then previously thought. Instead, the idea of an "indirect sovereignty," where no one set of people has a final say in government, has made the most important contribution to the rise of nationalism. To argue this point, the article clearly defines the difference between the nation & its people, asserts the connection between popular sovereignty & nationalism, & discusses some practical implications, mainly that nationalism is not easily dispensed with since it is so interconnected with popular sovereignty. R. Larsen

Non-state entities that aspire to statehood are increasingly developing democratic norms and practices, in part to enhance their claims for independence. However, the prospects for democracy in cases of 'problematic sovereignty' are little understood. This article seeks to explore the important but under-explored relationship between sovereignty and democracy, and in particular to assess the extent to which sovereignty is, or is not, a prerequisite for democracy. The article advances two arguments. First, it argues that there is no clear-cut relationship between sovereignty and democracy, as sovereignty is a complex concept that is comprised of several important, and distinct, constituent elements. Second, the article argues that the legal recognition of statehood (international legal sovereignty) is of marginal importance in this area, and should not be seen as a necessary condition for democratic rule. The article examines the process of democratic transition in the non-state entity of Somaliland to provide empirical support. Adapted from the source document.

Non-state entities that aspire to statehood are increasingly developing democratic norms and practices, in part to enhance their claims for independence. However, the prospects for democracy in cases of 'problematic sovereignty' are little understood. This article seeks to explore the important but under-explored relationship between sovereignty and democracy, and in particular to assess the extent to which sovereignty is, or is not, a prerequisite for democracy. The article advances two arguments. First, it argues that there is no clear-cut relationship between sovereignty and democracy, as sovereignty is a complex concept that is comprised of several important, and distinct, constituent elements. Second, the article argues that the legal recognition of statehood (international legal sovereignty) is of marginal importance in this area, and should not be seen as a necessary condition for democratic rule. The article examines the process of democratic transition in the non-state entity of Somaliland to provide empirical support.

The main purpose of this study was to analyze how the concept of state sovereignty is experiencing a crisis due to a major natural disaster. By using the illustration of the 2004 Aceh earthquake and tsunami, the concept of state sovereignty has been explored in the abnormal situation arising from the disaster as the state was unable to carry out its functions and authorities properly. This article used qualitative approach to explore the dynamic relations or network between agency (material or non-material, such as state, NGO, International organization, media, norms, military equipment, army, natural resources etc); which construct sovereignty assemblage. The territorialization and deterritorialization of sovereignty is investigated by seeing four dimensions proposed by Baker and McGuirk. This article demonstrates that sovereignty is very dynamic, and its definition is constructed and continuously through mechanisms engaging multiple actors and specific processes. This research found that the state conception of sovereignty before and after the disaster has been so dynamic, constructed and reconstructed overtime, which is influenced by the dimension of multiplicity, processualism, labor, and uncertainty.

The main purpose of this study was to analyze how the concept of state sovereignty is experiencing a crisis due to a major natural disaster. By using the illustration of the 2004 Aceh earthquake and tsunami, the concept of state sovereignty has been explored in the abnormal situation arising from the disaster as the state was unable to carry out its functions and authorities properly. This article used qualitative approach to explore the dynamic relations or network between agency (material or non-material, such as state, NGO, International organization, media, norms, military equipment, army, natural resources etc); which construct sovereignty assemblage. The territorialization and deterritorialization of sovereignty is investigated by seeing four dimensions proposed by Baker and McGuirk. This article demonstrates that sovereignty is very dynamic, and its definition is constructed and continuously through mechanisms engaging multiple actors and specific processes. This research found that the state conception of sovereignty before and after the disaster has been so dynamic, constructed and reconstructed overtime, which is influenced by the dimension of multiplicity, processualism, labor, and uncertainty.