Suchergebnisse

The late Professor William A. Dunning is reported to have said of the recent political theories which attempt to replace the conception of state sovereignty by some pluralistic grouping of social forces, that they were "radically unintelligible." It is hard for political theorists who have been accustomed to regard the conception of sovereignty as a foundation stone and a sort of "rock of ages" for their faith to be told (as one is every day, more or less) that the anti-intellectualistic type of a sociological basis is the only valid one for juristic structure. For that, according to the old rationalistic conceptions of analytical jurisprudence, is indeed to base sovereignty upon shifting sands and to deprive law of any special significance of its own by equating it with social reactions of the most indeterminate character. But the anti-intellectualistic trend of modern political theory indignantly denies this charge. The assumption, it counters, that any legal center of reference can be final in its authority or in its right to command is an outworn Hegelianism, discredited by practice and theory alike. Law is too much a thing of fictions to be taken seriously in its claims, when it pretends to be giving an accurate description of facts in the abstract terms of a pretended right on the part of the state to be the sole author of enforceable commands and the only rightful claimant of men's ultimate loyalty.

THIS PAPER EXPLORES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARKETS AND STATES IN THE POSTINTERNATIONAL WORLD. IT ASSESSES THE DISCIPLINARY, CONCEPTUAL, AND NORMATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF STATE-MARKET RELATIONS IN A WORLD OF "FAILED," "VIRTUAL," "COMPETITION," AND "QUASI-STATES" CONFRONTING INCREASINGLY GLOBALIZED ECONOMIC FORCES. ULTIMATELY, IT PRESENTS EVIDENCE FOR THE EMERGENCE OF WHAT THE AUTHORS CALL THE SOVERIGN MARKET.

Argues that the Westphalian sovereign state model from 1648, a system of political authority based on territory, mutual recognition, autonomy, & control, has never accurately described the entities regarded as states. Violations of the sovereign state model have occurred continually in the international community. The article discusses the organized hypocrisy present in all international systems & the four ways that violations of Westphalia have occurred through conventions, contracts, coercion, & imposition. Also, the term sovereignty falls into four different categories: interdependence, domestic, Vattelian, & international legal. It is argued that states can violate their sovereignty mainly by saying one thing & doing another such as signing international agreements on human rights knowing that these will not be implemented in the domestic realm. No single set of norms provide optimal outcomes for rulers confronting situations in the international community. Rather than being considered a political system of norms, the sovereign state model is better understood as an example of organized hypocrisy especially in the international environment. J. Moses