Sovereignty: A political emotion, not a concept

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

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 author.

... As argued recently by an American academic, rational discourse with the United States is impossible when it raises sovereignty as an argument, 'the invocation of which is its own justification, requiring no further explanation.' 147 In order to engage the United States in a genuine debate over both the merits of their avoidance agreements, and the potential for co-operation with the ICC, this powerful, patriotic rhetoric needs to be demystified. ...
... For example scholars and politicians have claimed that United States' entrance into North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, and the International Criminal Court have all threatened sovereignty. They claimed that in signing these permanent agreements, the United States had forsaken its sovereign status (Radon 2004). This similar concern of the erosion of sovereignty kept the United States from several human rights treaties such as the Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Goldsmith 1998). ...
This article aims to analyze Indonesia’s Immigration policy in restricting the arrival of foreigners due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Through a qualitative research method and descriptive analysis approach, it can be explained how the concept of human security and state sovereignty affects the making and implementation of a series of policies to restrict the arrival of foreigners to Indonesia during the Covid-19 pandemic. The author seeks to provide an analysis of how the Covid-19 pandemic has become a real threat to global human security and how the Indonesian government seeks to protect the Indonesian people by limiting the arrival of foreigners to minimize the spread of Covid-19. The Indonesian government does not take a lockdown policy, but prefers policies that can protect health while protecting the economic activities of the Indonesian people. In the ‘New Normal’ way, Indonesia’s immigration policies continue to adapt to support economic recovery while supporting the implementation of health protocols.
Territory is central to the doctrine of international jurisdiction. However, the use of territory as the jurisdictional linchpin is a political choice, the result of a confluence of historically specific political, material, epistemic, and above all mapping practices. The political contingency of territory begs the question whether alternative, non-territorial jurisdictional concepts could be contemplated. In this contribution, community, temporality, and justice are explored. The territorial imbrications of these jurisdictional alternatives are acknowledged, but it is highlighted how territory can in fact be re-conceptualized in the service of ‘its others’. Opting for the ‘others’ and for a novel conceptualization of territory remains a political choice. However, the political character of jurisdiction is not something to lament, but rather to celebrate, as it creates opportunities for a variety of political actors to have an impact on the actual application and construction of the un(der)determined notions of jurisdiction and territory, and ultimately on the modes of exercise of public authority. The salience of these theoretical ideas is exemplified by applying them to the case of transnational human rights litigation against corporations, a manifestation of socio-legal globalization that encapsulates the key role played by jurisdiction in negotiating claims of authority.
In this article, the discourse around humanitarian intervention involving international human rights law, morality, and politics, is considered, and a right to intervention given the rigours of sovereignty is questioned. Further issues interrogated are: if intervention takes place, should it be authorised by the United Nations or should unilateral intervention by regional organisations or a single country be permissible in the face of mass killings, genocide and similar events; and what factors drive the act or omission of unilateral intervention for humanitarian purposes? The debate around these inquiries is introduced by considering the intermeshing of world politics and international law in a substantially globalising world-with particular reference to state sovereignty and the role of the United Nations. Thereafter, the evolution of humanitarian intervention and its contemporary development is examined-in the specific context of the 2011 humanitarian intervention in Libya. This is done by examining the justifications for such intervention under international law. The legality of the intervention is explored and it is argued that the Libyan experience demonstrates that humanitarian intervention is more about morality and politics than international law. Although the lessons learned from the Libyan conflict are perhaps still unclear, it is concluded that a reformed UN Security Council may well be the global authority with auspices above powerful nation-state interests, and with the wherewithal to give meaning to international law over morality and politics in humanitarian interventions.
The WTO is here to stay. Institutions are never perfect. The way the WTO, as an institution, runs its business may not be perfect either. Arab countries are attempting to broaden their engagement in the multilateral trading system in a manner that has many implications. This engagement includes accession to the WTO, participation in WTO dispute resolution mechanism, and representations at the WTO.
This book explores the interplay between sovereignty, politics and law through different conceptualizations of sovereignty. Despite developments such as European integration, globalization, and state failure, sovereignty proves to be a resilient institution in contemporary international politics.
We are living through a unique moment of transition, marked by a frenetic cycle of invention, construction, consumption and destruction. However, there is more to this transition than globalization, argue the authors of this unique and penetrating study. In their highly innovative approach, they set this transition against a broader evolutionary canvas, with the emphasis on the evolution of governance.
For too long, state interests have dominated public jurisdiction and private choice-of-law analyses regarding the reach and application of a state’s law, or prescriptive jurisdiction. Individual rights — whether of criminal defendants or private litigants — have been marginalized. Yet states are projecting regulatory power over actors abroad with unprecedented frequency and aggression. State interest analyses proceed from the perennially critiqued but remarkably sticky concept of sovereignty. Now more than ever, legal thinkers, courts and litigants need a bedrock concept from which to build individual rights arguments against jurisdictional overreach. And it should be one that holds not only theoretical cogency but also the promise of real-world traction in cases. This article introduces the concept of spatial legality. It recasts the familiar and deeply rooted notion of legality — that is, the idea of fair notice of the law — along spatial as well as temporal dimensions. Operating in time, legality vindicates individual rights, for example by prohibiting ex post facto laws. Spatial legality focuses on law’s reach in space rather than its existence in time, but the problem is essentially the same: someone is being subjected to a law he could not reasonably have expected would govern his conduct when he engaged in it. The article begins by taking extant rules of jurisdiction in multistate systems and transforms them through the concept of spatial legality into a right to fair notice of the law applicable at the time of conduct. It then shows how a jurisdictional mix-up metastasizing in both U.S. and international law is presently aggravating spatial legality problems: namely, the use of personal jurisdiction over parties to bootstrap application of substantive law to their extraterritorial conduct. The mix-up occurs (a) on the criminal side, by using a defendant’s post-conduct presence in the forum to justify applying substantive law to prior conduct outside the forum, and (b) on the civil side, by using “general” personal jurisdiction over parties to justify applying forum law to activity outside the forum. Reorienting jurisdictional doctrine around the rights of parties instead of states generates important doctrinal and litigation payoffs: it clarifies and straightens out the law for courts and, where courts do err, supplies parties with rights-based arguments to challenge such errors as opposed to state-based arguments about sovereignty and comity. In this connection, the article proposes a typology that weaves together public jurisdiction and private choice-of-law doctrines to identify how and when spatial legality claims will have the most traction on the current state of the law. It concludes by indicating the limits of a spatial legality concept based only on notice and suggests other rule-of-law criteria like feasibility of compliance, avoidance of contradictory laws, and consistency that, going forward, may further inform analysis of the demands multistate systems with overlapping laws place on fundamental fairness.
Professor Meron here explores the medieval sources of the modern law of treaties, particularly in relation to the authority to conclude treaties transferring aspects of national sovereignty. He shows that one's understanding of modern treaty questions can be deepened by understanding arguments made five centuries ago.
Few rules for the ordering of Society have such a deep moral and religious influence as the principle of the sanctity of contracts: Pacta sunt servanda . In ancient times, this principle was developed in the Bast by the Chaldeans, the Egyptians and the Chinese in a noteworthy way. According to the view of these peoples, the national gods of each party took part in the formation of the contract. The gods were, so to speak, the guarantors of the contract and they threatened to intervene against the party guilty of a breach of contract. So it came to be that the making of a contract was bound up in solemn religious formulas and that a cult of contracts actually developed.