No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Egemenlik kavramı, iktidar kavramı gibi devletin ortaya çıkışından bu yana gerek siyasetçileri, gerek devlet adamlarını gerekse de düşünürlerin üzerinde düşündüğü, yorum yaptığı, tanımlamaya ve kavramsallaştırmaya ve genel çerçevesini çizmeye çalıştığı kavramlardan birisi olmuştur. Zaman içerisinde devletin geçirdiği değişim ve gelişim süreci ile irtibatlı olarak gelişen egemenlik kavramı özellikle Westphalia uluslararası sistemi sonrasında ortaya çıkan ulus devlet merkezli yeni sistem sonrasında daha da ön plana çıkan ve üzerinde düşünülen bir kavram olmuştur. Düşünürleri, siyasetçileri ve devlet adamlarını meşgul eden bu kavram, modern çağda, özellikle iletişim alanında yaşanan gelişmeler ve Küreselleşme gibi süreçler sonrasında dünya siyasetinin değiştiği, dünyanın daha küçük ve ulaşılabilir hale geldiği günümüzde, sorgulanır ve tartışılır hale gelmiştir. Bu süreci aşmak adına Egemenlik kavramı da değişim geçirmiş, yeni dönemin şartlarına adapte olmak için, internet sayesinde sanal bir evrenin ortaya çıktığı ve hızla geliştiği bu dönemde karşısına çıkan meydan okumaları karşılamak adına Sanal-Siber Egemenlik olarak adlandırılan bir kavramla karşılık vermiştir.
This article presents an original historical-philosophical conception that attempts to discern the matter, form, and power of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea ( dprk ). A panoramic and problematizing cognitive framework, the theory configurates 629 years of sociopolitical history from 1392 to 2021 and then comparatively discusses the dprk system in relation to ancient democracy and liberal democracy from Pericles to Samuel P. Huntington. The article is divided into three parts, which outline the theory and its principles, map historical foundations and political phases, and address social relations, state will, and political reality. Description and analysis convey the thesis that the dprk polity is home to a Neo-Hobbesian formation: a hybrid state entity that is historically modern, politically absolutist, and illiberally democratic, with a transforming cross-civilizational physiognomy. By design, the “soft” theory is conceived to stimulate academic discussion and debate, not declare a final solution.
A principal theme of international relations scholarship following the Cold War was the apparent erosion of state sovereignty caused by globalization's integrative effects and the proliferation of international institutions and networks. In recent years, however, scholars have noted a reverse trend: the reassertion of traditional, or Westphalian, state sovereignty. By contrast, I highlight another recent trend that has gone largely overlooked: the reaffirmation of older “extralegal” and “organic” versions of sovereignty by three of the world's most powerful states—Russia, China, and the United States. After tracing the genealogy of these older concepts, I consider how and why they have gained prominence in the official discourse of all three countries. I also explore the implications of this shift, which not only illustrates the importance of “norm retrieval” in international affairs, but also raises questions about the foundations of international order. Contrary to Westphalian sovereignty, which emphasizes the legal equality of states and the principle of noninterference in domestic affairs, the extralegal and organic versions offer few constraints on state action. If anything, they appear to license powerful states to dominate others.
The primary focus of this article is to argue that certain violations of the human right to water can act as a triggering mechanism for humanitarian intervention through the 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P). This connection is established through R2P's focus on the four mass atrocity crimes and water's intrinsic connection to life. Once this connection has been established this article will determine what implications this may have for transboundary water cooperation, ultimately arguing that some aspects of R2P, particularly its focus on preventive measures, may be useful in the promotion of transboundary water cooperation. Although it is demonstrated that the connection may be a tool to promote transboundary water cooperation, owing to the concept of sovereignty, any such assistance cannot be forced upon other states.
Introduction
The concept of sovereignty is at the heart of Chinese international legal discourse, as well as Chinese foreign policy. Yet there is no agreement among international lawyers, political scientists and theorists what exactly the notion of sovereignty means.
Approach and method
This article provides a background to the different uses of the concept of sovereignty, legal, historical, and political, and describes how it has been used by the People’s Republic of China in various areas of practice, notably human rights, international criminal law and the law of intervention.
Conclusion
It is argued that China’s use of sovereignty should be understood both from a historical and a legal perspective and that ultimately, the concept serves as a pragmatic tool to distinguish the realms of the legal and a political in a way that the Chinese government sees fit.
