Liminal sovereignty practices: Rethinking the inside/outside dichotomy

Abstract

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.

Belarus as a liminal space for Russia’s ontological security before and after the 2020 protests

“…Within this site of contestation, ‘social structure seeks to domesticate liminality by positioning it in one of the pre-given identity categories, and liminality continues to subvert those very categories by presenting the possibility of an in-between existence’ (Rumelili, 2012: 496). This concept, as Loh and Heiskanen (2020) pointed out, has been mostly deployed by IR scholars to destabilize the binary of inside/outside in international politics and to highlight the importance of processes and relationality. In order to emphasize the analytical value of liminality and its distinction from closely related concepts such as hybridity and marginality, Loh and Heiskanen (2020) came up with four different modalities of liminality.…”

“…This concept, as Loh and Heiskanen (2020) pointed out, has been mostly deployed by IR scholars to destabilize the binary of inside/outside in international politics and to highlight the importance of processes and relationality. In order to emphasize the analytical value of liminality and its distinction from closely related concepts such as hybridity and marginality, Loh and Heiskanen (2020) came up with four different modalities of liminality. The marginal liminality, hybrid liminality, interstitial liminality, and external liminality are used by Loh and Heiskanen (2020) to theorize about sovereignty practices in international order.…”

“…In order to emphasize the analytical value of liminality and its distinction from closely related concepts such as hybridity and marginality, Loh and Heiskanen (2020) came up with four different modalities of liminality. The marginal liminality, hybrid liminality, interstitial liminality, and external liminality are used by Loh and Heiskanen (2020) to theorize about sovereignty practices in international order. These modalities are categorized according to their potential of being subversive and reproductive of the system, a distinction also used by Rumellili (2012).…”

Affect, practice, and change: Dancing world politics at the Congress of Vienna

“…Almost a decade has passed since Raymond Duvall and Arjun Chowdhury (2011: 337) observed that ‘the analysis of practices falls short of offering satisfying ways of theorizing change in international politics.’ Even today, while pooling many different approaches, practice theory (PT) is united in identifying the issue of change as requiring further attention (Cornut, 2018; Hopf, 2018; Loh and Heiskanen, 2020; Mulich, 2018; Schindler and Wille, 2015; Stappert, 2020). To address this issue, this article brings PT into conversation with the study of affect (Åhäll, 2018; Fierke, 2013; Hutchison and Bleiker, 2014; Koschut, 2018), as so far affect has only been mentioned ‘ en passant ’, to use Monique Scheer’s (2012: 199; emphasis in original) words, when it comes to practices, apart from some notable exceptions (Bially Mattern, 2011; Solomon and Steele, 2017).…”

Solidariedades Perigosas: Repensando O Conceito De Solidariedade

“…Ao fazer isso, Walker denuncia que por baixo dos paradigmas mais influentes das teorias de relações internacionais subjazem os contornos de horizontes políticos e intelectuais herdados da modernidade que expressam uma noção de comunidade política que nasceu no início da era moderna na Europa, bem como as distinções binárias e hierárquicas como eu/outro, dentro/fora, ser/devir, identidade/diferença daqueles mesmos horizontes (WALKER, 1993, p. 17 -18). Diante disso, ele avança uma ideia de soberania que, contra as abordagens tradicionais, é definida como um problema, uma construção social historicamente localizada que está alicerçada numa série de inclusões e exclusões dinâmicas que precisam ser reiteradas por diferentes práticas sociopolíticas (LOH;HEISKANEN, 2020;WALKER, 1993).…”