Article

Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... This is because the English School questions the nature of state sovereignty in the contemporary world and implies that the division of states into varying categories is based on their ability to influence the international relations discourse. At the international level, the English School views sovereignty as the ability to pursue an independent course of action within the given social environment of a state's interaction (Manning 1975;James 1986). English School advocates claim that order among sovereign states is sustained via international institutions that involve established social practices of interaction and a variety of nonstate and nonterritorial actors (Manning 1975, 177, 201;James 1986;Bull 2000, 242). ...
... At the international level, the English School views sovereignty as the ability to pursue an independent course of action within the given social environment of a state's interaction (Manning 1975;James 1986). English School advocates claim that order among sovereign states is sustained via international institutions that involve established social practices of interaction and a variety of nonstate and nonterritorial actors (Manning 1975, 177, 201;James 1986;Bull 2000, 242). This process is closely intertwined with the thickening of international rules in the economic sphere and the de facto division of countries into rich industrialized states that determine the parameters of interactive practice and poorer peripheral areas that have to follow the established rules (Suganami 2010). ...
... This is because the English School questions the nature of state sovereignty in the contemporary world and implies that the division of states into varying categories is based on their ability to influence the international relations discourse. At the international level, the English School views sovereignty as the ability to pursue an independent course of action within the given social environment of a state's interaction ( Manning 1975;James 1986). English School advocates claim that order among sovereign states is sustained via international institutions that involve established social practices of interaction and a variety of nonstate and nonterritorial actors ( Manning 1975, 177, 201;James 1986;Bull 2000, 242). ...
Article
Full-text available
Contemporary international relations are rife with the ideological struggle over the potential nature of the rapidly changing world order. Two distinct paradigmatic positions have surfaced. One champions economic, cultural, and political globalization conducted under the leadership of the Western world. The other advocates a more particularistic approach that fends for a balance of interests, multiplicity of politico-cultural forms and multiple centers of international influence. The latter doctrine, often referred to as the multipolar world theory, is the subject of this paper. The discussion argues that the idea of a multipolar world order has emerged as Russia's main ethical and ideological position advanced in the international arena. Its philosophical tenets buttress Russian society intellectually at home, providing the expedients to pursue the country's foreign policy goals abroad. The paper examines a substantial value package with roots in both Russian and Western philosophy that sustains the multipolar world order theory.
... Many Different Usages of Sovereignty (see Krasner 1999) Sovereignty = Constitutional Independence " A state is in ultimate overall control of its own affairs " (James 1986: 30) ...
... === criterion for admission to inter-state affairs is solely legal (not population size, GDP, etc.) === sovereignty is absolute (James 1986: 48) === sovereignty is qualitative (James 1986: 55) === by signing a treaty a state does not diminish its sovereignty Sovereignty NOT to be Confused With:  Formal Power  Legal Freedom  Political Independence  Freedom of Action For the most part, these are quantitative measures, whereas sovereignty is qualitative. EU's Approach to Tackling NTS Challenges:  No reason to insist on political independence & noninterference , as long as constitutional independence not threatened  State may elect to curtail freedom of action, if benefits  In 1990s, EU began to conceptualize ESDP to engage in crisis management, rescue & humanitarian missions (Howorth 2007)  Since 1999, EU involved in more than 23 missions in over a dozen countries on 3 continents (Grevi et. ...
... === criterion for admission to inter-state affairs is solely legal (not population size, GDP, etc.) === sovereignty is absolute (James 1986: 48) === sovereignty is qualitative (James 1986: 55) === by signing a treaty a state does not diminish its sovereignty Sovereignty NOT to be Confused With:  Formal Power  Legal Freedom  Political Independence  Freedom of Action For the most part, these are quantitative measures, whereas sovereignty is qualitative. EU's Approach to Tackling NTS Challenges:  No reason to insist on political independence & noninterference , as long as constitutional independence not threatened  State may elect to curtail freedom of action, if benefits  In 1990s, EU began to conceptualize ESDP to engage in crisis management, rescue & humanitarian missions (Howorth 2007)  Since 1999, EU involved in more than 23 missions in over a dozen countries on 3 continents (Grevi et. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper investigates how to address non-traditional security (NTS) challenges where the principal concern is to safeguard individuals. Since unilateral action cannot effectively deal with piracy, terrorism, cross-border conflicts, etc, there is a need for multilateral responses. Yet, time and again, the insistence on non-interference in the domestic affairs of countries has proven a major obstacle. European Union members, conceptualizing sovereignty in terms of ‘constitutional independence’, have made some progress addressing these challenges. Although, recently, some progress has also been made in Asia Pacific, there sovereignty often is still being used as a semantic weapon. Since states not only have rights but obligations, I argue, there is a need for a careful recalibration of sovereignty-related norms that stand in the way of improved human rights. Focusing on a specific issue area within NTS challenges, the Responsibility to Protect, I illustrate how a recalibration of sovereignty-related norms might take place.
... This is very much in line with the tradition. In their theory of international society, Martin Wight (1977: 129–152; 1978: 105–112), Hedley Bull (1977), Adam Watson (2009[1992]) and AlanJames (1973James ( , 1978James ( , 1986), among other classical exponents of the ES, stressed the importance of what they thought of as the 'fundamental' or 'basic' institutions of international society. More precisely, they referred to mutual recognition of sovereignty, the balance of power, diplomacy, international law, great power management and (regulated) war (among others) as bases of meaningful interaction: institutions as sets of 'habits and practices shaped towards the realisation of common goals' (Bull, 1977: 74; see alsoEvans and Wilson, 1992;Keohane, 1988;Suganami, 1983;Waever, 1998;Wendt and Duvall, 1989). ...
... The balance of power and great power management were evolving as institutional practices in the Middle Ages. Due to these primary institutions there has, in fact, never been a 'naked' states system in the realist sense (James, 1993). Logically, an international society can hardly exist without mutual recognition of sovereignty, diplomacy, international law and (more arguably) a balance of power and collective or unilateral great power management. ...
Article
Over the last few decades the English School (ES) has not only emerged, but has been acknowledged as a distinctive approach to the study of International Relations (IR). It is routinely listed in textbooks and disciplinary surveys as one of IR’s primary modes of inquiry, attracting interest and adherents in many parts of the world. This state of affairs is attributable to the work of a number of people, but especially to that of Barry Buzan. More than ‘reconvening’ the school, a metaphor misleading in some ways, Buzan has led, pushed and challenged his colleagues to better clarify and define their ideas, concepts and theories, as well as to put the ES on a much sounder organizational footing. Buzan’s (2014) latest book builds on his previous volume (Buzan, 2004a) to provide an introduction for readers new to the school. However, it does much more than this, providing a ‘state of the debate’ on such demanding matters as the expansion of international society, and the pluralist–solidarist divide. It also links present research efforts to the classics, putting into perspective and defining the school’s current research agenda for the next phase of its development. It has the potential to become a landmark work on a par with the classic work of the early ES, Hedley Bull’s The Anarchical Society. But how does Buzan’s research agenda respond to the requirements of an increasingly diverse and fragmenting discipline? Are his preferred analytical concepts and categories sound? Of what pitfalls should newcomers to the school be aware? In this symposium five established scholars, closely associated with the ES, seek to answer these questions, and in dialogue with Buzan, further advance our understanding of the school’s ‘societal’ approach and its potential for deepening our understanding of what at times appears a highly unsocial world. The approach of the section is ‘internal’ as opposed to ‘external’ critique. External critiques of the ES are well known (see, e.g., Finnemore, 2001). The section proceeds on the assumption that at this stage of its development the school’s approach can be most effectively advanced by vigorous debate between those who share the same broad research agenda with little purpose being served by reiterating the already well-known ‘external’ objections. The section is based on a roundtable discussion held at the EISA conference, Warsaw, September 2013, in which Zhang, Wilson, Navari and Buzan took part. I am grateful to these contributors as well as to Knudsen and Sharp for their timely and thought-provoking contributions.
... Sovereignty is both a principle and a practice. As a principle, it is defined most narrowly as legal or constitutional independence (James 1986). This conceptualization informs the United Nations' principle of "sovereign equality," a seemingly absolute property that a political entity either has or does not (Nincic 1970). ...
... International relations theorists have traditionally sidestepped the thorny issues of legitimacy either by embracing a juridical conception of authority or by implicitly conflating authority with power. For most such scholars, legitimacy is externally derived by gaining recognition from other states or by having standing in international law (Wight 1977;Bull and Watson 1982;James 1986). This conception rests on interstate rather than state-society relations, reducing legitimacy to "the collective judgement of international society about rightful membership in the family of nations" (Wight 1977:153). ...
Article
Over the last three decades, the number of international environmental agreements into which states have entered has proliferated enormously. In the 1970s it was commonly assumed that the cumulative impact of such agreements would be to undermine the institution of state sovereignty. Recent evidence, however, suggests that the trend toward international cooperation in the face of "the seamless web of nature" has resulted in something more subtle but perhaps equally profound: a shift in the practices in the norms of sovereignty. This essay looks at the impact of international environmental problem solving on state sovereignty. As a prelude, it reviews recent literature from international relations theory that substantiates a more differentiated view of sovereignty, separating it into three components: authority, control, and legitimacy. With this more complex notion of sovereignty as a backdrop, the review argues that the proliferation of environmental agreements has in fact lead to a complex web of "sovereignty bargains" through which states have increased their sovereignty vis-a-vis certain dimensions even as they have suffered losses of sovereignty vis-a-vis others. Although more research remains to be done, environmental cooperation appears to have indeed altered the nature and practice of sovereignty in the contemporary world.
... " iv Hence, the criterion for admission to inter-state affairs is solely legal, it has nothing to do with population size, GDP, etc. Moreover, according to James (1986: 48), sovereignty is absolute, a state either is constitutionally independent or it is not. By placing a restriction on its legal freedom, for instance by signing a treaty, a state in no way diminishes its sovereignty (James 1986: 55). ...
... Moreover, according to James (1986: 48), sovereignty is absolute, a state either is constitutionally independent or it is not. By placing a restriction on its legal freedom, for instance by signing a treaty, a state in no way diminishes its sovereignty (James 1986: 55). The latter cannot be reduced, other than totally. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper investigates how to address non-traditional security (NTS) challenges where the principal concern is not to safeguard territorial sovereignty per se, but individuals. Since unilateral action cannot effectively deal with challenges like environmental problems, infectious diseases, piracy, terrorism, cross-border conflicts, etc., there is a need for multilateral responses. Yet, time and again, the insistence on non-interference in the domestic affairs of countries has proven to be a major obstacle. European Union (EU) countries, conceptualizing sovereignty in terms of "constitutional independence" (a qualitative rather than quantitative measure), have made some progress addressing these challenges in that EU member states repeatedly have been willing to curtail their freedom of action to find solutions to these pressing problems. Although, in the last decade, some progress has been made in Asia Pacific as well, in this part of the world, sovereignty often is still being used as a semantic weapon. Given that there is no such thing as full freedom under international law (the latter places certain restrictions on how states can treat their own people), there is a need to empower actors who are willing to move away from a purely interest-driven interpretation of sovereignty and also place emphasis on moral criteria such as the protection of human or civil rights. Or, put differently, since states not only have rights but obligations, there is a need for a careful recalibration of sovereignty-related norms that stand in the way of improved human rights. Focusing on a specific issue area within NTS challenges, the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), I illustrate how a recalibration of sovereignty-related norms might take place.
... Sovereignty is considered an important aspect of any state's internal governance and international relations, but it has no single or scientific definition (Weiss & Chopra, 1995;Jackson 1999). While some scholars imply that it is one of the least contentious terms in political science (Walker 1990), others have argued that it is one of the most confusing concepts (James 1984;Kratochwil 1995). Whatever controversies exist, sovereignty is universally recognised as the primary constitutive principle of the modern state, but its history has not been properly explained. ...
Article
Full-text available
The continuing political crisis in South Sudan has been explained almost exclusively in terms of internal power dynamics. This article goes beyond the domestic focus and examines the manner in which the imbroglio has exposed weaknesses in South Sudan's sovereign statehood. It argues that it was the failure to uphold empirical and popular sovereignty that, in part, precipitated the problem. Therefore, it suggests that a resolution ought to involve a re-examination of the relationship between popular, empirical and juridical sovereignty. This article posits that a renegotiation of South Sudan's sovereignty, involving co-governance, would deliver good governance, strengthen economic management, facilitate state-building, and enhance regional security.
... The distinguishing feature of international politics has always been the existence of independent political communities that seek to preserve their autonomy from other states (Badie 1999;Krasner 1999;James 1986). The attributes of a sovereign state are possessed by a government within a defined territorial area that exercises supreme authority over the population within those boundaries. ...
Article
Full-text available
Paradiplomacy, federalism and international negotiation are increasingly prevalent phenomena that require more theoretical attention. Successful mobilization of noncentral governments has increased their relevance on the international stage. The rise of paradiplomacy complicates conditions for both international negotiation and the formulation of foreign policy in federal regimes. Westphalian state diplomacy is finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the proliferation of ad hoc and informal arrangements that bind non-central governments. The international arena is inhabited by an ever larger number of players that sometimes have significant autonomy from the central state.
... The distinguishing feature of international politics has always been the existence of independent political communities that seek to preserve their autonomy from other states (Badie 1999;Krasner 1999;James 1986). The attributes of a sovereign state are possessed by a government within a defined territorial area that exercises supreme authority over the population within those boundaries. ...
... More costly to the de facto state is the general inability of most intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental aid agencies to deal with non-sovereign entities. As Alan James (1986: 276) points out, it " deserves emphasis that the acquisition of sovereign status does, in itself, constitute a material, and not just a nominal, change in a territory's position. For this alteration in its status is not simply a matter of words but has some practical implications, which can be of considerable significance. ...
... Sovereignty is considered an important aspect of any state's internal governance and international relations, but it has no single or scientific definition (Weiss & Chopra, 1995;Jackson 1999). While some scholars imply that it is one of the least contentious terms in political science (Walker 1990), others have argued that it is one of the most confusing concepts (James 1984;Kratochwil 1995). Whatever controversies exist, sovereignty is universally recognised as the primary constitutive principle of the modern state, but its history has not been properly explained. ...
Article
Full-text available
AUTHORITARIAN leaders and single-party regimes of all shades increasingly came under great pressures between 1990 and 1993 to liberalise and permit more participation in the political process. This transformation, which was part of what Samuel Huntington described as ‘the third wave of democratisation’,1 stemmed from sustained efforts by domestic political forces in African states, albeit assisted by a variety of demanded requirements from international financial institutions and industrialised countries, as well as by the disintegration of the Soviet Union. According to the US Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, the ‘new resolve to establish new attitudes, arrangements and structures’ came directly out of the exhaustion of the cold war.2 In other words, the promotion of democracy in Africa was part of the so-called peace dividend.3 Expectations for political evolution throughout the world were so high that some analysts predicted the emergence of ‘an international democratic order’.4 As Keith Somerville has observed: ‘Africa entered the 1990S in a mood of hope and expectation’.5
Article
Sovereignty is the core concept of international relations. Almost without exception, approaches to sovereignty in IR have followed a binary framing where sovereignty is seen to consist of two components: ‘internal’ versus ‘external’ sovereignty, ‘positive’ versus ‘negative’ sovereignty, and so on. These dichotomies stem from the prevailing understanding of sovereignty as the boundary between the inside and the outside of the state. This article builds on and expands these existing approaches by reconceptualizing the sovereign border line as a liminal border space. Relatedly, we theorize the concept of liminality in greater depth by distinguishing between four distinct kinds of liminality: marginal, hybrid, interstitial, and external. Each of these problematizes the dividing line of sovereignty in unique but comparable ways. We empirically illustrate these four kinds of liminality with reference to contested states, ‘tribal’ or ‘indigenous’ groups, NGOs such as Amnesty International, and extremist groups such as ISIS, respectively. Each of these types of liminality entails unique actors, practices, and consequences for the concept of sovereignty. We suggest that liminal sovereignty practices represent the most radical source of change for the concept of sovereignty, yet at the same time, somewhat counterintuitively, they also serve as the best means of clarifying existing, established meanings and practices of sovereignty.
Article
Full-text available
This article analyses the evolution of the English school’s approach to international relations from the work of the early British Committee in the late 1950s and early 1960s to its revival in the 1990s and afterwards. It argues that the school’s so-called ‘classical approach’ was shaped by the crisis of developmental historicism brought on by the First World War and by the reactions of historians like Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight to the rise of modernist social science in the twentieth century. It characterises the classical approach, as advanced by Hedley Bull, as a form of ‘reluctant modernism’ with underlying interpretivist commitments and unresolved tensions with modernist approaches. It argues that to resolve some of the confusion concerning its preferred approach to the study of international relations, the English school should return to the interpretivist commitments of its early thinkers.
Article
The English School is one of the main traditions of thought in International Relations and the only one home-grown in Britain. While initially unconcerned with questions of integration, and the regional level more generally, its concepts and insights have recently been applied to the European integration process. However, an English School analysis of the consequences of Brexit has yet to be conducted. This article rectifies this omission and offers a broad system-level analysis of major-state withdrawal from deep multilateral arrangements. Following a brief introduction to the main phases of English School development, the article analyses the consequences of Brexit in terms of three central areas: the pluralist-solidarist debate; primary institutions; and great power status. It finds that while the adjustment costs of Brexit will be considerable, the longer-term systemic consequences are unlikely to be far-reaching. The main consequence is the additional pressure Brexit puts on Britain’s precarious great power status.
Chapter
Identity and territory are inseparably linked. Indeed, in a topologist’s puzzle, they can be said to underlie each other. We are where we came from, recently or originally, and we were there in the first place because of who we are. Who and where we are in turn determine our place in the world, and our ability to maintain or to challenge that place. Space and self are thus the basic ingredients of international (and many other) relations, with ideological relations providing the fourth dimension to the standard three geographic dimensions, both types of relations subsuming the time dimension through which they derive and project their meaning.
Article
Full-text available
Antarctica presents an exceptional governance framework. The expansion of sovereignty and territoriality primary institutions demanded a different norm localisation from international society, creating practices and identities unique to the region. In order to preserve peace, delimited territories with exclusive exercise of authority could not be replicated. This conundrum led to the suspension of sovereignty discussions by the Antarctic Treaty, and an emphasis on activities which could accommodate multiple understandings of authority. Scientific research and environmental protection provided the avenue which consolidated the Treaty by reinforcing its exceptional character. Decision-making has been exclusive to Consultative parties, a status awarded for those able to demonstrate substantive scientific research. Likewise, environmental protection has defined Antarctic territorial organisation by creating different protected areas. Nevertheless, joint proposals are still low. Therefore, this work concludes that the institutionalisation of the Antarctic Treaty has stabilised, and concrete cooperation still has a long way to go.
Article
The concept of sovereignty still generates a considerable amount of debate in the discipline of International Relations. Using myth as a heuristic device, I argue that part of this confusion results from a mythical understanding of ‘sovereignty as equality’. Following the myth, sovereignty is seen as playing an equalising role in international relations, while international inequalities are depicted as existing despite the norm of sovereignty (and not as a result of it). The myth of sovereignty as equality thus enables international relations scholars to separate the inequalities instituted and legitimised by sovereignty from the concept itself. As a consequence, sovereignty is considered as normatively desirable since it is the best tool to offset inequalities. This article argues that the myth rests on three interlinked building blocks and that its maintenance can be explained by its normative appeal (more than by its dubious analytical value). Indeed, even those scholars who reproduce the myth acknowledge that international relations do not conform to it. As such, an effective critique of sovereignty requires both factual disproval (to reveal what the myth contributes to hide) and the construction of an alternative, more desirable myth.
Article
The importance and impact of current globalization processes on relationships between peoples, institutions and structures—particularly, the (initial) retreat of the sovereign state and its return to power in its post sovereign form—are urgent issues for feminists. To depict this emerging reality, this article revisits the male-framed discourse and praxis of IR by focusing on the construction of sovereignty from the idea of the ‘sovereign man.’ From this vantage point, I will then demonstrate how globalization processes have undermined the integrity of state sovereignty through the weakening of the supremacy of state territoriality and its power to define identities and rules. At this historical juncture, the women’s movement is faced with a dual challenge. At one level, the women’s human rights project has gained ground with the codification of women’s rights as well as the continuous participation of women’s organizations at various levels of global governance structures like the United Nations. At another level, this achievement is being diluted by a clash of interests with other global governance regimes such as the trade and financial regimes advanced by international institutions like the World Trade Organization. The emerging trend is that of the post-sovereign state reasserting its monolithic status on the world stage and working with non-state entities so long as they serve the interests of the state. The women’s movement must continue to engage with the state, while critically contesting it simultaneously.
Chapter
An increasing number of writings on various aspects of world politics, some of which have contributed significantly to the growth of International Relations (IR) as an academic discipline, particularly in the United Kingdom, have come from a group of scholars now known as “the English School of International Relations.” The purpose of this chapter is to outline the historical development of this school, focusing mainly on its important publications. The English School's emblematic text is The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (1977, London: Macmillan) by Hedley Bull, who was the Montague Burton Professor of IR at Oxford from 1977 to 1985. The book's title neatly captures the School's key contention that, despite the formally anarchical or decentralized authority structure of world politics, sovereign states have formed a society, exhibiting a tolerable degree of international order and thereby enabling, though only to a limited degree, also a pursuit of justice.
Article
Full-text available
În contextul în care naţiunea s-a dovedit de-a lungul timpului un concept fluid, dificil de definit, Anthony Smith propune o serie de şase asumpţii cu caracter metodologic şi substanţial, pe de-o parte în ideea de a clarifica din punct de vedere analitic obiectul de studiu şi, pe de altã parte, pentru a facilita calea cãtre o definiţie operaţionalã a naţiunii. Aceastã serie de afirmaţii metodologice constituie în opinia mea nucleul dur epistemic al paradigmei dominante în cadrul studiilor de naţiune şi naţionalism, etno-simbolismul, şi incumbã anumite asumpţii ce necesitã o analizã mai atentã. În articolul de faţã îmi propun mai întâi o examinare criticã a premiselor metodologice propuse de Smith pentru ca, mai apoi, sã încerc o evaluare a impactului pe care acestea îl au asupra programul de cercetare asumat şi, în particular, asupra explicaţiei privind geneza fenomenului naţional. Motivele pentru care am decis sã abordez metodologia etno-simbolistã rezidã pe de-o parte în impactul pe care acestã abordare l-a avut asupra domeniului studiilor de naþiune şi naþionalism, unde a devenit practic paradigmã dominantã, respectiv dorinţa de a rafina propriul demers de cercetare privind cazul românesc, ce vizeazã rolul jucat de percepţia culturalã a mediului natural în construcţia naţiunii şi a identitãţii naţionale.
Article
Contemporary Russian foreign policy demonstrates a dual approach to state sovereignty, using a Westphalian model of sovereignty outside the former Soviet region and a post-Soviet model inside it. This approach performs three functions in contemporary Russian foreign policy: securing Russian national interests at domestic, regional, and international levels; balancing against the United States; and acting as a marker of ‘non-Western’ power identity in an emergent multipolar order. The conflict between these two models increasingly appears to threaten the last of these objectives, however, and as a means of advancing foreign policy objectives the approach thus appears caught in a self-defeating logic.
Chapter
In the sphere of international relations, some political entities are endowed with specific prerogatives and responsibilities that are connected to juridical sovereignty,1 while such a position is denied to others, sometimes even after decades of intense, more or less successful struggles. What is the immediate factor that distinguishes these two groups of entities, that draws, as a matter of actual legal fact rather than of pure normative right, the demarcation line between the privileged and the debarred, the member and the outsider, the enfranchised and the disentitled? In the writings of international lawyers and political scientists it is possible to identify three types of answers to this question: two of these refer to endogenous features, to constitutional independence and empirical attributes of statehood, respectively, while the third points to an exogenous factor, namely, recognition as a state by other states, as the determinant of sovereign legal status. In what follows, these explanations will be explored in some detail and with reference to classic monographs, contemporary studies, and modern textbooks. As it shall be seen in due course, apart from a sheer correlation between recognition as a state and sovereign legal status, none of these explanations provide a satisfactory answer to the question under investigation. In the sphere of international relations, it is not possible to identify any regular or regulated state practice that would warrant the claim that any of these factors causes acquisition of juridical state sovereignty.
Chapter
What does sovereignty as a descriptive concept refer to at the level of states and similar entities? Since, in epistemological terms, any concept may refer to any phenomenon at any level, the first step in the analysis must be a certain modification of this question: what does sovereignty, or more precisely, terms like “state sovereignty,” “sovereign statehood,” or “sovereignty of states and similar entities”1reasonably refer to when employed as a nonnormative, analytical tool at the level of states and similar entities? To introduce reason in this fashion opens the way for an attempt to apply a loosely defined set of criteria, such as analytical utility generated by a high degree of precision, logical coherence, consistency with previous usage, and relative imperviousness to rhetorical abuse, to an apparently fruitless discussion. To speak about nonnormative, analytical tools, on the other hand, delimits the analysis to the sources of actual and potential controversies to be found in those scientific disciplines that endeavor to understand the referent of the concept.
Chapter
The defining feature of contested states is the internationally disputed nature of their purported statehood, manifested in their lack of de jure recognition. Although serious, the deficit in recognition is not the same for all contested states. In most cases their very right of statehood is challenged by the international community, resulting in no formal recognition at all or recognition by only a small number of established states. In a few instances contested states’ right of statehood finds wide acceptance and may even be endorsed by the UN, but the realization of the right is internationally contested. But whatever differences among them, all contested states are denied conventional international recognition; this means they do not have collective recognition (typically through the UN) of both their right to exist as sovereign states and their actual existence as such. Conversely, they all experience collective non-recognition in the sense of being deliberately excluded from UN membership. This leaves contested states in a rather abnormal situation because the vast majority of contemporary states were accorded de jure recognition on gaining independence and accepted into the ranks of confirmed states without difficulty. The small group of aspirant states that has been turned away by those on the inside find themselves condemned to a twilight existence at the margins of the international community.
Article
and the paper is not quoted or cited without express permission of the author. The editors cannot guarantee a stable URL for any paper posted here, nor will they be responsible for notifying others if the URL is changed or the paper is taken off the site. Electronic copies of this paper may not be posted on any other website without express permission of the author. The posting of this paper on the hrhw working papers website does not constitute any position of opinion or judgment about the contents, arguments or claims made in the paper by the editors. For more information about the hrhw working papers series or website, please visit the site online at
Article
In this paper, I outline and assess the international society perspective on world politics, and identify the distinctive common ground of the leading English School writers in terms of the three dimensions of their main subject?matter ? structural, functional and historical. I focus on the major works of Manning, Bull, Wight, Watson, Wheeler, and Buzan and Little, paying special attention to the structure of each writer's argument and the interconnections of these writers' ideas. I conclude by listing a number of themes that the English School writers offer. These provide us with significant points of departure from where we may build on or transcend their collective and individual achievements.
Article
Full-text available
This article examines the concept of sovereignty in elite and popular affection during the violent and turbulent events from April to October 2010 in the Kyrgyz Republic. Nationalist leaders promoted Kyrgyz ethnic values and ideals as the center of sovereignty held by some to be under threat. These events exemplify what we describe as the affective politics of sovereignty. We explore how emotion, in particular, serves as an important component of the constitution of sovereignty as both an international and popular institution. We explore how Kyrgyz identity has become intertwined with the sovereignty of Kyrgyzstan and clashes with Western multi-ethnic conceptions and practices.
Article
This article is concerned with the existence of states as a matter of fact, and it approaches that subject within the context of the ontology of social reality as a whole. It argues, first, that states do not have a place in the traditional Platonist duality of the concrete and the abstract. Second, that states belong to a third category – the quasi-abstract – that has received philosophical attention with a recently emerging theory of documentality. Documentality, derived from Austin’s theory of performative utterances, claims that documents acts can bring quasi-abstract objects, such as states into being. Third and finally, it argues that the existence of quasi-abstract states should not be rejected on the basis of the Principle of Parsimony, because geopolitical theories that recognise the existence of quasi-abstract states will have greater explanatory power than theories that deny their existence.
Article
The terms “state” and “government” are often used interchangeably in political discourse, but they can also refer to very different entities. In political geography, a distinction between the two is often not made, or made weakly. Thus, this article reviews how these terms have been used in political geography and across allied disciplines, especially in international law. Political geographers commonly seem to draw from the anthropological and sociological uses of the terms, but the distinction between state and government is arguably most developed in international legal scholarship. This article argues that political geography would gain by adopting a distinction between state and government as it is articulated in international legal scholarship. Drawing from that literature, this article recommends that states be contrasted with governments in the following way: states are juridical entities of the international legal system; governments are the exclusive legally coercive organizations for making and enforcing certain group decisions. Arguably, ambiguity regarding the referents of these terms has hindered the development of state theory and even made it unclear what the “theory of the state” is supposed to explain. Therefore, this article concludes with a call for geographers to be just as cognizant of the distinction between state and government as they traditionally have been of the distinction between state and nation.
Article
Wilson, Peter. (2012) The English School Meets the Chicago School: The Case for a Grounded Theory of International Institutions. International Studies Review, doi: 10.1111/misr.12001 © 2012 International Studies Association The concept of primary international institutions is a core idea of the English School and central to those scholars from Bull to Buzan who have sought to take it in a more sociological direction. Yet the English School has traditionally found it difficult to define and identify with consistency the institutions of international society. A group of scholars, here called the “new institutionalists,” have recently sought to address this problem by devising tighter definitions and applying them more rigorously. But different understandings and lists of institutions continue to proliferate. The source of the problem is the reliance on “stipulative” definitions, drawn from an increasingly abstract theoretical literature. The problem is compounded by the new institutionalists’ employment of social structural and other “outsider” methods of social research. This article argues that it is only possible to empirically ground institutions, a task on which all agree, by returning to the interpretive “insider” approach traditionally associated with the school—but employing it in a much more rigorous way. To this end it makes the case for a “grounded theory” of international institutions inspired by Chicago School sociology.
Article
The objective of a ‘people-oriented’ Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has not readily translated into easy relations between the Association and regional civil society. Discourse inspired by global civil society has found plenty to focus on in the gap between aspiration and practice. This article argues, however, that not enough attention has been directed to the bridges that are gradually forming across that gap, and suggests that an ‘English School’-derived account can give a fuller picture of what is under way in this area. From this perspective, a process of institutionalization is observable among the different actors. By tackling – consciously or unconsciously – core problems such as recognition, location of common ground, confidence-building, and burden-sharing, this process is potentially transforming the relations of a state-imposed hierarchy into something more societal. The usefulness of such an approach lies in its ability to describe a process of slow change on its own terms, to normatively validate the fragile bridges under construction, and to stake out possibilities for progress on the basis of negotiation and accommodation.
Article
The importance and impact of current globalization processes on relationships between peoples, institutions and structures—particularly, the (initial) retreat of the sovereign state and its return to power in its post sovereign form—are urgent issues for feminists. To depict this emerging reality, this article revisits the male-framed discourse and praxis of IR by focusing on the construction of sovereignty from the idea of the ‘sovereign man.’ From this vantage point, I will then demonstrate how globalization processes have undermined the integrity of state sovereignty through the weakening of the supremacy of state territoriality and its power to define identities and rules. At this historical juncture, the women’s movement is faced with a dual challenge. At one level, the women’s human rights project has gained ground with the codification of women’s rights as well as the continuous participation of women’s organizations at various levels of global governance structures like the United Nations. At another level, this achievement is being diluted by a clash of interests with other global governance regimes such as the trade and financial regimes advanced by international institutions like the World Trade Organization. The emerging trend is that of the post-sovereign state reasserting its monolithic status on the world stage and working with non-state entities so long as they serve the interests of the state. The women’s movement must continue to engage with the state, while critically contesting it simultaneously.
Article
Full-text available
As we enter the twenty-. rst century and the third millennium, International Relations1 (IR) is arguably more fragmented than it was 50 years ago. Realism, which has been closely identified with the discipline since the 1940s, is still dominant in North American IR, but even there it is increasingly regarded as just one of the paradigms.2 Most textbooks now include sections on liberalism, neoliberalism, international society, postmodernism, feminism, post-structuralism, constructivism and critical theory (see Jackson and Sorensen 1999; Nossal 1998; Baylis and Smith 1997; Brown 1997). A distinctive feature of recent IR debates is that most theorists tend to address more critically such themes as science and interpretation; objectivity and subjectivity; norms and practices; and materialism and idealism. Very little is assumed or taken for granted. While these debates have provided platforms for previously marginalised Western viewpoints, they have also unfortunately produced cult-like mentalities. Many scholars talk of ‘opening space’ when all they do is provide an ‘opening’ on one side and a ‘closure’ on the other. Others appear to find it attractive to accuse earlier theorists of closure even when they have not engaged broadly the writings of these earlier thinkers. I am of the view that one cannot be serious about ‘opening’ when one insists that certain phenomena cannot be studied scientifically or vice versa. The emancipatory power or hegemonic status of any theoretical framework should not be taken for granted. Indeed, anti-essentialism, like rationalism, has the potential for both closure and opening.
Article
Changes in the meaning of sovereignty are at the center of intersecting discussions between comparative and international politics. This article uses open-system perspectives from organization theory to move beyond arguments over the erosion or resilience of sovereignty, toward more substantive questions about the nature of the boundaries of political actors, and to frame the possibility that changes in world politics are constituting new actors whose relationships would follow logics different from those ascribed to sovereign states.
Article
This is an attempt to clarify some of the problems in analyzing Hong Kong's international status. It approaches the complex set of questions on the territory's international position by looking at three inter-related aspects: first, conceptual questions concerning Hong Kong's status as a non-sovereign international actor in the context of international relations theory; second, the nature of Hong Kong's involvement in international affairs; and finally, the problems that Hong Kong encounters as a result of recent global and regional changes. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region's (SAR's) international status will become clear only after 1997. The extent to which Hong Kong can exist as a reversed form of the Jacksonian "quasi-state' as suggested by this article will ultimately be determined by the political and economic influences that China is prepared to exert on the territory. -from Author
Article
This article claims that Immanuel Kant's unique international thought can contribute to theorising about European integration. The specific nature of this contribution is the lesson that cosmopolitan aspirations and the continued existence of autonomous states should not be viewed as mutually exclusive, but are the fundamental terms with which the process of integration must negotiate continually. The approach of the article is to assemble the essentials of a Kantian framework in order to accomplish two things: (1) an evaluation of the dominant strands of existing integration theory; and (2) to supplement philosophically those emerging refinements to integration theory that wish to conceive of the dialectical relationship between cosmopolitan purposes and the principle of state sovereignty. The article concludes by noting the limits to the type of liberalism that undergirds the Kantian framework, and further suggests that the twentieth century tradition of integration theory may actually have something important to contribute to an improved Kantian politics.
Article
A general theory of national self‐determination (Adoptive Nationalism) provides a set of principles for the creation ‐ by secession or otherwise ‐ of new, liberal democracies. There is no such theory now, an omission being paid for worldwide at the cost of civil strife and ethnic cleansing. Fortunately, a growing consensus on human rights has permitted a significant recasting of the issues and their resolution. Underpinned by human rights and culture, the theory identifies a ‘people’ with the right to self‐determination and the if, when and how such a ‘people’ may exercise its right by forming either a state or a substate.
Article
Members of the Commonwealth do not use the title ‘ambassador’ for the heads of diplomatic missions which they send to one another. Instead, they use the title ‘high commissioner’. This article firstly examines how the office of high commissioner emerged to meet the representational needs of states owing allegiance to a common sovereign. Secondly, it explains why the office survived the transformation of the British empire into the modern Commonwealth of sovereign states. Thirdly, the article considers the factors that continue to make the office appealing to its holders and a diplomatic asset to their states.
Article
Recently, some analysts have accused the United Nations of eroding the sovereignty of its members. However, these critics often ignore the fact that the creation of the United Nations was itself one incident in the process of reinterpreting sovereignty which has gone on for centuries. Before 1945, sovereignty was often reinterpreted to fit the changing norms and institutions. As a principle which legitimises political control and helps enhance international security, sovereignty often reflects the prevailing notions of international order. While the Security Council has tried to redefine sovereignty after the cold war, the UN Charter remains a constraint on such reinterpretation. If the Charter is not amended to reflect post-cold war changes, the international society might be split between supporters of the Charter principles of sovereignty and those who seek change.
Article
Full-text available
Sovereignty takes on many forms today. Legalistic and absolute conditions of sovereignty have dominated in theoretical reasoning and its practical applications whereas empirical attributes of statehood and relative sovereignty conceptualisations have generally been neglected. Yet, the quantification of empirical sovereignty would give us a few ways to compare and contrast the different degrees of internal and external sovereignty and demonstrate the ‘differences of being sovereign’ among internationally recognised states, de facto states, autonomous regions, dependent territories and governments-in-exile. All these entities display their internal and external attributes of sovereignty, which results in power (efficiency of governance) or symbols (representation of ideas). This paper highlights the need to pay more attention to the empirical aspects of sovereignty – it has to be complemented with the facts on the ground – and shows how to operationalise the relative concept of sovereignty. Ignoring the empirical aspects of sovereignty, or spurning the time-honoured requirement of recognition, is bound to lead to the emergence of failed states.
Article
Full-text available
Over the last three decades, the number of international environmental agreements into which states have entered has proliferated enormously. In the 1970s it was commonly assumed that the cumulative impact of such agreements would be to undermine the institution of state sovereignty. Recent evidence, however, suggests that the trend toward international cooperation in the face of “the seamless web of nature” has resulted in something more subtle but perhaps equally profound: a shift in the practices in the norms of sovereignty. This essay looks at the impact of international environmental problem solving on state sovereignty. As a prelude, it reviews recent literature from international relations theory that substantiates a more differentiated view of sovereignty, separating it into three components: authority, control, and legitimacy. With this more complex notion of sovereignty as a backdrop, the review argues that the proliferation of environmental agreements has in fact lead to a complex web of “sovereignty bargains” through which states have increased their sovereignty vis-á-vis certain dimensions even as they have suffered losses of sovereignty vis-á-vis others. Although more research remains to be done, environmental cooperation appears to have indeed altered the nature and practice of sovereignty in the contemporary world.
Article
Full-text available
A central feature of modernity is that state authority has been conceived as resting on the consent of the governed, which in turn depends upon governments' ability to promote economic prosperity. The performance criteria upon which political authority has been judged in large part are positively correlated with the exponential growth in the use of fossil fuels. An international scientific consensus has emerged: the burning of fossil fuels will cause global climate change sometime in this century. This suggests that the authority of science presents a challenge to a key source of the state'spolitical authority: its role as guarantor of wealth production. Moreover, since the real impact of global climate change will not be felt for several decades,the notion of intergenerational responsibility is implicit in contemporaryefforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Given that the liberal notion of political authority entails consent of currently living self-interested citizens, efforts to promote intergenerational responsibility suggest that the basis of political authority is being revised by efforts to cope with global environmental degradation.
Article
The political geographical literature of focuses on the State yet little attention has been placed on the basic criteria and attributes of statehood. This paper presents a linked politico-geographic and legal perspective on statehood. The criteria and attributes identified and discussed are: a particular defined territory; a permanent resident population; a constituted effective government; independence; sovereignty; recognition; permanence; the capacity to enter into relations with other States; a State apparatus; a circulation system; and an organized economy. Certain conceptualizations and the importance of discourse are discussed.
Article
The case of post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) provides an interesting lens through which to reflect on the interconnected and often conflicting challenges of implementation of internationally brokered peace agreements, external support to democratic transition and consolidation, and contemporary notions of sovereignty and state building. This chapter suggests that in the case of BiH, certain contradictions and tradeoffs have been and may still be necessary to ensure a foundation for future stability and democratic consolidation. The situation in post-Dayton BiH can be described as a frozen conflict that has remained frozen in large part due to an international presence that ensures that an imperfect peace prevails while also providing a basis for incremental reform. The peace implementation process in BiH is briefly reviewed by looking at two reform strategies: the “soft” protectorate strategy used in BiH as a whole and the “hard” protectorate option exercised in the District of Brčko. The aim is to demonstrate that while a democratic end-state remains the goal in such transitions, the means toward getting there can include a number of contradictory policy options.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.