Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The aim of the piece is to locate a particular theoretical argument within the literature on sovereignty and apply it to the development of conceptions of sovereignty within the United Nations (UN).

It will be argued that realists assumed or ignored why sovereignty would persist; interdependence writings confused capabilities for independence and autonomy with the erosion of sovereignty; and members of the English School assumed a juridico-organic understanding of the institution therefore not understanding its sociological roots. Against these views one needs to understand the particular discussion from a constructivist perspective. Sovereignty should be seen as socially constructed. Within constructivism three positions will be further identified: a conventional, a consistent and a radical position. Posing this debate along two dimensions of sovereignty - external and internal – it will be argued that both conventional and consistent forms share the same assumptions on the external dimension but differ on how they understanding the nature of recognition and, therefore, the nature of the state. On the other hand, consistent and radical arguments share the same ideas on the internal workings of sovereignty but diverge on their view of the external dimension. Finally, conventional and radical constructivist versions diverge on both external and internal discussions. Departing from this literature review the piece will further how one needs to change the perceptions within the consistent perspective. The institution of sovereignty should be seen as embedded in a broader matrix of socio-political and legal practices. These practices generate categories of meaning through which we conceive and explain applications of sovereignty.

This approach will be applied to the analysis of the development of sovereignty within the UN. The main debate here, with reference to sovereignty, is whether the UN Collective Security System is being transformed giving emergence to new conceptions of international sovereignty that differ from a traditional conception. The UN Collective Security System is therefore increasingly giving voice to new versions of international sovereignty where it is accepted that this institution is conditional and dependent upon certain on international government criteria. Departing from the theoretical framework emphasized above, and consolidated by particular research methods, the argument is to analyse the development of the UN through three stages to confirm that it has been changing, and, therefore, the nature of sovereignty is also being changed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Sovereignty is increasingly contested, both in the political realm and in International Relations theory. Political developments emanating from the end of the Cold War have prompted questions regarding the role of conventional rules of sovereignty in facilitating, if not shaping, the political, economic, security, or ideological objectives pursued by actors or agents (Krasner 1999; Krasner 2001). Treating sovereignty as a social construct allows for theoretical space to study how rules have evolved and consideration of transformation in the locus of authority (Biersteker and Weber 1996; Philpott 2001). A number of anomalous cases, such as Tibet, Hong Kong, Bosnia, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and Palestine, among others, point to scenarios where principles associated with sovereignty have affected choices. Although the “script of sovereignty” envisions internationally independent legal sovereignty, the concept of juridical independence, and internationally recognized territorial entities, cases like these raise the question as to how and when rules are or are not bent.
The island of Cyprus merits attention. Like other problematic cases, arrangements and de facto realities on Cyprus are inconsistent with some of the principles associated with sovereignty. This paper proposes to analyze the Cyprus problem within the context of contested rules and sovereignty. Cyprus is often treated as a case study by scholars of conflict resolution studies (Fisher 2001), but the question of problematic sovereignty would broaden the analytical focus.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Although IR scholars have offered various explanations for the origins of sovereignty, the literature is yet to offer a convincing one. Rejecting the hypothesis to locate sovereignty with Westphalia, this paper traces the emergence of sovereignty to two nineteenth century developments: the dominance of the positivist legal theory and the ascendancy of European states over non-European states. Theoretically, this paper integrates critical legal theory and postcolonial theory into international relations theory. The critical legal theory clarifies how three doctrines that constructed sovereignty (state?s ultimate authority, territoriality, recognition) were directly related to the positivist (as opposed to earlier natural) legal theory. The postcolonial theory illuminates how the positivist legal theory?s construction of sovereignty was related to the legitimization of European and delegitimization of non-European political entities. Sovereignty both justified and enabled Europe? domination over non-European political entities. The empirical part of the paper examines the imposition of extraterritoriality (European states? exclusive jurisdiction over their citizens in non-European states) in Japan, China, Turkey, Iran, and Thailand to provide evidence that positivist legal theory?s attempt to conceptualize the interaction of European states? interaction with the non-European political entities crystallized the doctrine of sovereignty.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper attempts to break new ground by establishing a critical dialogue between Arendt and Agamben’s works on the questions of sovereignty and human life. I suggest that Arendt’s insights into the notions of history, plurality and political action signal shortcomings in Agamben’s critique of the logic of sovereignty. However, I also claim that Agamben’s developments of the human/animal divide, as well as of the notion of bare life, help us to understand the problematic role of the human in Arendt’s political theory. Based on a critical dialogue between these two authors, I propose an alternative notion of politics in which the sovereign relation is both explored and contested through attentiveness to the theoretical and political uses of the word animal in contexts of exclusion and justification of violence over others.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Contemporary peacebuilding operations reflect a global agenda of actively expanding ‘the democratic peace’ through political and economic liberalization. This project of liberal peacebuilding through global governance seeks to replace the inter-state peace of Westphalia with a post-Westphalian global liberal order. This implies a circumscription of state sovereignty that has its clearest manifestation in the doctrine of ‘the responsibility to protect’. Most of the reactions to this doctrine have focused on its sidelining of state sovereignty in exceptional circumstances of humanitarian intervention. Less attention has been drawn to its universal political agenda of building responsible states through conflict prevention and peacebuilding, including ‘the responsibility to rebuild’ after intervention. In this paper, I will focus on the ethical premises of this underlying idea of building sovereignty through political intervention by 1) outlining the presuppositions that supposedly resolves this paradox, 2) assessing these in the context of peacebuilding operations, and 3) reconstructing the ethical premises of peacebuilding by proposing a post-Westphalian sovereignty principle for global governance. In short, this principle implies that lowering the threshold for political intervention must be premised on a more radical integration of the autonomy of local political communities than is conceivable within the current paradigm of liberal peacebuilding.