The Practice of Sovereign Statehood in Contemporary International Society

Abstract

The absence of legislative control over semantic practice is, in one's more authoritarian moments, a matter for regret. In respect of discourse about international relations, no better ground for this reaction can be found than the use of the term sovereignty. On every hand, it seems, the term is freely introduced; and on inspection ( for writers are in this regard rarely self-conscious) it emerges that an almost equivalent profusion of concepts is being paraded. However, this situation at least provides grist for the familiar academic tasks of drawing distinctions and ± International Relations falling within the province of social science ± the establishment of categories. Concepts of SovereigntyIt may therefore be noted that, speaking very broadly, the subsequent contributions to this special number of the journal fall into three broad groups. In this they re¯ect the contemporary concerns of the discipline and the associated literature. In the ®rst place, sovereignty is used to refer to the extent to which a state is free to behave as it wishes (see the articles by Philpott, Taylor, and Wallace). This has two aspects: jurisdictional and political. Jurisdictional sovereignty has to do with the extent to which a state is under no speci®c or general international obligations regarding its internal behaviour and decision making. To that extent it is legally free to conduct itself as it sees ®t, or sovereign. 1 As these comments imply, this concept of sovereignty is not an absolute. It is not something which a state either has immutably or not at all. Rather, it is relative in nature. It is like a bundle of separable rights. Thus the bundle remains in existence notwithstanding the renunciation or involuntary loss of some of the individual items of which it is, collectively, composed. It also remains in existence even if the state is in some political disarray. The state continues to be sovereign, in the sense of having jurisdictional rights, over those areas of its aairs which are not subject to the direct requirements of international law.The other aspect of this ®rst concept of sovereignty focuses on political rather than jurisdictional freedom. 2 Like the latter, its nature is necessarily relative.

Spaces of concern: Parliamentary discourse on Britain's overseas territories

“…Nonetheless, the UK retains powers over defence and foreign affairs, among other areas. The British Parliament and the Privy Council (through Orders in Council) are empowered to legislate for the territories (Hendry & Dickson, ), and it is this authority that defines them as non‐sovereign; as James argues, “sovereignty consists of being constitutionally apart, of not being contained, however loosely, within a wider constitutional scheme” (James, , p. 461). Their non‐state status has attracted attention from diverse disciplines, with their political and economic agency explored and championed as part of a wider group of “subnational island jurisdictions” by Island Studies scholars (e.g., Baldacchino, ; McElroy & Pearce, ).…”

Theorizing Sovereignty and European Integration

“…Sovereignty, irrespective of its actual and more detailed attributes, has thus been described, to name but a few characterizations, as a basic element of the grammar of politics and a working hypothesis of modern political life (Jackson , 431); a foundational concept that underpins the modern juridico‐political order (Loughlin , 80) and a constitutive principle of international relations (James , 467). The concept of sovereignty is thus a foundational concept of modernity.…”

Africa and International Relations in the 21st Century

“…Obviously, the notion of sovereignty underlying the above debates differs from conventional, mainstream IR notions, where sovereignty is seen as the ultimate ordering principle of international relations, separating the inside and the outside (James, 1999;Kurtulus, 2005;Walker, 1993). 8 The notion of sovereignty underpinning the alternative perspectives described above is mainly concerned with the social production of sovereignty (Bartelson, 1995;Biersteker and Weber, 1996).…”