Captives of Sovereignty

Havercroft, Jonathan

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139003322

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 122 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, authority would be clear. On any given territory, there would be a single authority, and hence, no conflicts (Havercroft 2011). This pattern of organization is mirrored in the figure of the private property owner.…”

Section: Two Models Of Social Order and Structural Contestationmentioning

confidence: 93%

Crisis, Contestation and Social Order in Europe: A Sympoietic Analysis

Cherry¹

2018

RERA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Europe is facing multiple existential crises at once. I argue that these crises are rooted in larger, older patterns of structural contestation that have always animated the EU. Drawing from these patterns, I contend that there are at least two conceptions of social order at work within the EU – an autopoietic model based on bounded hierarchy and a sympoietic model based on decentralization and compromise. I argue that the autopoietic aspects of the Union, and neo-liberal representative democracy in particular, continually produce systemic crises. At the same time, sympoietic practices of inter-institutional adjustment allow us to weather such challenges, albeit imperfectly. Ultimately, I conclude that escaping the cycle of structural crisis requires moving more definitively towards sympoiesis by radically decentralizing and democratizing political and economic power in Europe.

show abstract

Section: Two Models Of Social Order and Structural Contestationmentioning

confidence: 93%

Crisis, Contestation and Social Order in Europe: A Sympoietic Analysis

Cherry¹

2018

RERA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such a limitation is akin to a ‘dilemma of sovereignty’: on the one hand, the concept is criticised for its inadequacy, while on the other, it is reinstalled in its mythical form (despite the general dissatisfaction accumulated about it). Using the idea of myth helps explain why some IR scholars seem ‘captive of sovereignty’ (Havercroft, 2011): as will be developed in the third section, it is the normative appeal of sovereignty as equality that maintains this dominant conceptualisation (rather than its dubious empirical adequacy). Approaching sovereignty as a myth can therefore explain why the vast amount of critical literature on sovereignty has not been able to challenge the association between sovereignty and equality.…”

Section: The Myth Of Sovereignty As Equality and Its Criticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sovereign myths in international relations: Sovereignty as equality and the reproduction of Eurocentric blindness

Mathieu

2018

Journal of International Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Para comprender la evolución del Estado en la era Global no resultan apropiadas, ni empírica y ni normativamente, visiones estatistas, imperiales o cosmopolitas. En efecto, en primer lugar, en un mundo de soberanías fragmentadas y compartidas, una teoría del Estado (y de la Nación) que mantenga los supuestos monistas y teológico-políticos del soberanismo resulta un anacrónico desvarío (Havercroft 2011, Cohen 2012. En segundo lugar, la teoría normativa/empírica que postula la aparición de una nueva forma de dominación postmoderna, el Imperio, diferente al Imperialismo clásico de los Estados, resulta prematura y desacertada, aún como mera tendencia.…”

Section: ¿Desaparición Del Estado En La Globalización O Estatismo Neounclassified

El Dios mortal. ¿Implica la globalización una progresiva desaparición de los Estados?

Máiz¹

2017

Araucaria

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumenEl artículo discute la tesis postmoderna de que la globalización implica el progresivo desmantelamiento del Estado. Desde una perspectiva estratégico-relacional y neo-institucionalista histórica se trata de mostrar, analizando las principales continuidades y descontinuidades entre el Estado regulador clásico y el nuevo Estado eficiente y competitivo del neoliberalismo, que los Estados siguen desempeñando un papel clave en la reproducción ampliada del capital. Se sostiene que el vocabulario de la "desregulación" oscurece los procesos de estatismo neoliberal autoritario que tienen lugar en la actualidad.

show abstract

Captives of Sovereignty

Cited by 23 publications

References 122 publications

Crisis, Contestation and Social Order in Europe: A Sympoietic Analysis

Crisis, Contestation and Social Order in Europe: A Sympoietic Analysis

Sovereign myths in international relations: Sovereignty as equality and the reproduction of Eurocentric blindness

El Dios mortal. ¿Implica la globalización una progresiva desaparición de los Estados?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About