Suchergebnisse

In an era of greater awareness of Canada's history of colonization, the notion of sovereignty still seems unattainable for many First Nations. Is it possible for both Canada and First Nations to simultaneously have sovereignty? This paper explores the various concepts of sovereignty and examines the limitations and barriers for First Nations to achieve autonomy and self-governance. The starting point considers the various manifestations of sovereignty and identifying which version of sovereignty is most realistic for co-existing nations. The Indian Act has played a critical role in hampering self-governance negotiations between First Nations and the Government of Canada. Looking further at the factors that hinder First Nations sovereignty, including the federal government's historic, political, and systemic obstacles, this paper seeks to answer the question of whether or not First Nations sovereignty can coexist with Canadian sovereignty. ; Peer reviewed

18 November 2019CH: Thank you for agreeing to do this. The prompt for the interview was to talk about your recently published book, Territorial Sovereignty, but I thought before we got into that you could say something about your earlier work and how that led you to be interested in this particular project that you deal with in the book.

In the mid-2000s, Indonesia became 'ground zero' for an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza, the H5N1 strain, which global health experts feared would cause a devastating pandemic. When asked to participate in global health measures, Indonesia's minister of health argued that the country had 'viral sovereignty' and refused to share samples with the World Health Organization's Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System. The global health community claimed, in response, that such refusal put all humanity at risk. Both sides of the debate expressed paranoia, resentment, and mistrust as their different ideas of security came into play. In the midst of these accusations and counteraccusations, little attention was paid to the larger social and ecological context in which the virus had emerged and flourished. I argue that when vital matter gets taken up within frameworks of security, human and animal bodies, narratives, and politics get scripted through concerns for biological and political vulnerability. Paranoia, resentment, and mistrust resonate as the multiple vulnerabilities of bodies and their social positioning frame uncertain futures.

Sovereignty has become such a key concept in critical thought that it can hardly be avoided by any critique of control. Reviewing the genealogy of sovereignty established in the work of Carl Schmitt, Walter Benjamin and Giorgio Agamben, this article discusses paradoxes and political implications that emerge from what should be called the "critical sovereignty discourse." A close reading of Kant shows that a crucial stage of the genealogy of this discourse is Kant's attempt to subtract the element of personal force, traditionally the hallmark of sovereignty, in favor of the law. I do not argue for a dismissal of the concept of sovereignty from critical thought, but for its modification. The point of departure for any critical analysis should be the ontological impossibility of sovereign power; sovereignty needs to be theorized as inherently divisible. Drawing on Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault's later lectures and seminars, I employ this premise for the analysis of two prominent features of the US criminal justice system: prosecutorial discretion and mandatory sentencing.

Over the several hundred years during which the rules of sovereignty including non-intervention and the exclusion of external authority have been widely understood, state control could never be taken for granted. States could never isolate themselves from the external environment. Globalization and intrusive international norms are old, not new, phenomena. Some aspects of the contemporary environment are unique—the number of transnational nongovernmental organizations has grown dramatically, international organizations are more prominent; cyber crime could not exist without cyber space. These developments challenge state control. A loss of control can precipitate a crisis of authority, but even a crisis of authority is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition for developing new authority structures. New rules could emerge in an evolutionary way as a result of trial and error by rational but myopic actors. But these arrangements, for instance international policing, are likely to coexist with rather than to supplant conventional sovereign structures. Sovereignty's resilience is, if nothing else, a reflection of its tolerance for alternatives.

Sometimes acts of the federal government cause harm; sometimes acts of contractors hired by the federal government cause harm. In cases involving the latter, federal contractors often invoke the sovereign's constitutionally granted and doctrinally expanded supremacy to restrict avenues for the injured to recover even from private actors. In prior work, we analyzed how federal contractors exploit three "sovereign shield" defenses—preemption, derivative sovereign immunity, and derivative intergovernmental immunity—to evade liability, accountability, and oversight. This Article considers whether, when, and how private federal contractors should be held accountable in a court of law. We argue that a contractor should be required to qualify before it can derive the immunity enjoyed by its sovereign partner. This Article proposes that a private contractor be entitled to such "qualified sovereignty" contingent on satisfying three conditions: (1) it was acting as the government's agent, (2) it complied with any guidelines established by the government, and (3) it was reasonable for the contractor to believe that its conduct would not violate rights protected by law. Adopting scaffolding from two embattled doctrinal constructs—derivative sovereign immunity and qualified immunity—qualified sovereignty balances the rights of victims to recover for harms with protection for private entities

Sovereignties of Food: Political Struggle and Life-World Encounters in Southeast Asia - Christiane Voßemer, Judith Ehlert, Michelle Proyer, & Ralph Guth. - Food Sovereignty and Conceptualization of Agency: A Methodological Discussion - Judith Ehlert & Christiane Voßemer, S. 7-26, Abstract: The latest food crisis hit food producers and consumers - mainly in the Global South - hard and refocused attention to the question of global food security. The food sovereignty movement contributes to the growing re-politicization of the debate on 'how to feed the world'. From an actor-oriented perspective, the article presents a methodological reflection of the concept of food sovereignty in opposition to the concept of food security, both agendas highly relevant in terms of food policies in Southeast Asia. After framing the two concepts against the development politics and emergence of global agriculture following World War II, this paper elaborates on how actors and agency are conceptualized under the food security regime as well as by the food sovereignty movement itself. With reference to these two concepts, we discuss in which ways an actor-oriented methodological approach is useful to overcome the observed essentialization of the peasantry as well as the neglect of individual peasants and consumers as food-sovereign actors. (ASEAS/GIGA). - Where Peasants Are Kings: Food Sovereignty in the Tagbanua Traditional Subsistence System - Sophia M. M. Cuevas, Juan E. C. Fernandez, & Imelda DG. Olvida, S. 27-44, Abstract: Food sovereignty is predicated upon the rights of communities to determine culturally meaningful methods of agricultural cultivation in order to ensure the security of their diets and their lifeworld. The article provides an ethnographic study of two Tagbanua indigenous communities in the province of Palawan, Philippines, and analyzes the relation between swidden agriculture and food sovereignty. Traditional swidden farming is an integrative system that defines social relationships, structures a spiritual belief system, and builds a fundament of the Tagbanua identity. As a cultural praxis, it is also central to the manifestation of food sovereignty within the market system, constantly being challenged by internal exigencies - as opportunities for cultural reproduction are limited by changing lifestyles - and external interventions from both private and public sectors. The article discusses how the Tagbanua subsistence cultivation system serves as the main mechanism through which indigenous cultural communities assert their independence from the market system, thus establishing local control over food and food production systems. (ASEAS/GIGA)