Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
Most of the other, if not all institutions and principles of international law rely, directly or indirectly, on State sovereignty; it suffices to mention, for instance, the relationship between the conditions and attributes of statehood or the principles of territorial or personal jurisdiction, immunity, and non-intervention, on the one hand, and considerations of sovereignty, on the other. The 1945 United Nations (UN) system itself is based, albeit not directly on the principle of sovereignty itself, on a necessary corollary of that principle: the principle of sovereign equality of its Member States as guaranteed in Art. 2 (1) UN Charter ( States, Sovereign Equality). Provided States have supreme authority within their territory, the plenitude of internal jurisdiction, their immunity from other States’ own jurisdiction and their freedom from other States’ intervention on their territory ( Art. 2 (4) and (7) UN Charter), but also their equal rank to other sovereign States are consequences of their sovereignty. The acceptance of human rights and minority rights, the increasing role of international financial institutions, and globalization have led many observers to question the continued viability of the sovereign state. Here a leading expert challenges this conclusion. Stephen Krasner contends that states have never been as sovereign as some have supposed. Throughout history, rulers have been motivated by a desire to stay in power, not by some abstract adherence to international principles. Organized hypocrisy--the presence of longstanding norms that are frequently violated--has been an enduring attribute of international relations. Interestingly, even when the conditions for the legitimate authority of international law over sovereign States are fulfilled, there could still be some matters over which it is more important for a sovereign to be able to decide independently. This is by analogy to what applies to individuals: it is important that, in some cases at least, a person reaches and acts on her own decision, rather than take a putative authority’s directives as binding, even if doing the latter would result in decisions that, in other respects, better conform to reason. Whereas some authors argue that sovereign rights and duties are correlative, others do not even conceive of sovereignty in terms of rights and duties but in terms of the components of sovereign States’ independence and the corresponding restrictions on others’. Importantly, the existence of sovereignty rights and duties need not imply that sovereignty is reducible to them and to a bundle of rights. Stephanie Russo Carroll (Ahtna-Native Village of Kluti-Kaah, Sicilian-descent) (DrPH, MPH) is Assistant Professor of Public Health and Associate Director for the Native Nations Institute at the University of Arizona, USA. A researcher active at the nexus of Indigenous governance, the environment, community wellness and data, Stephanie co-founded the US Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network and is a founding member and chair of the Global Indigenous Data Alliance.
Sovereignty, the WTO and Changing Fundamentals of Sovereignty, the WTO and Changing Fundamentals of
It means we have right to this land. It is our land. We never ceded the right to the land, the sea and the air. We have never given that right away. We never told white people in any way that we had given them this country. There are no contracts of any sort, no treaties. It is still our land.
Small wonder that Tombs is confident enough to assert that “Brexit should not be a threat to the Union”. He says Scotland will not leave because of economics. Maybe so, but this is an odd argument in a book that insists that sovereignty is more important than anything else. If international sovereignty is both international law-based and a source of valid international law, it is pivotal to the legitimacy, ie legitimate authority of international law. International law’s authority is justified or legitimate if it has the right to rule and create duties to obey on the part of its subjects. It can be difficult to distinguish the two terms. 'Self-determination' is a more loose word for 'sovereignty'. Sometimes, it is used as an alternative, while other times it is used to describe a form of ‘limited sovereignty’ under the sovereign power of someone else. In international law, sovereignty is a more precise term than self-determination. In sum, State sovereignty is not necessarily compatible with the authority of international law. It is only the case when the latter has legitimate authority, ie furthers State autonomy and the reasons that underlie State autonomy. Those can be understood by reference to the values that make a good State or more generally a good political entity such as self-determination, democracy, and human rights, but also the values that make a good international community of equal sovereign entities. Of course, this should not be taken to mean that State sovereignty is only incompatible with international law’s authority when it is illegitimate. There may be cases where autonomy requires legitimate authority, but others where self-direction is valuable despite the prima facie justification of international law’s authority. Too much international regulation would empty sovereign autonomy from its purpose.
Parliamentary Sovereignty - Cambridge University Press Parliamentary Sovereignty - Cambridge University Press
Ryan also writes about how most men live goal-less life, living each day to make money for their boss and for their family, only to go home to their kids and wife, watching TV till evening, going to sleep, and repeating.
References
Carsten Stahn, Law and Practice of International Territorial Administration: Versailles to Iraq and Beyond (Cambridge: CUP, 2008) International sovereignty is not only law-based, as discussed before, but it is also a source of international law itself.
Sovereignty | Sovereignty Sharing in Justifying Shared Sovereignty | Sovereignty Sharing in
In a time of democratic deficit and the emergence of a new authoritarian populism, Bronner has written a timely book about the nature of political power that can help us find clarity and critical judgment. He provides us with an incisive political critique of the reactionary forms of power and authority that are on the rise while at the same time pointing us toward a cosmopolitan, democratic alternative that can inspire social transformation and offer principles for a more democratic politics yet to be realized." — Michael J. Thompson, Professor of Political Science, William Paterson University There are four sovereignty duties corresponding to the rights mentioned above: immunity of other States and State agents before one’s jurisdiction; respect for international law and duty to cooperate; prohibition of intervention; duty of peaceful dispute settlement. Those main sovereignty duties are listed, among others, in Art. 2 UN Charter and in the 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration. By contrast, numerous variations of the principle and so-called ‘correlated’ principles of sovereignty, as opposed to the principle of sovereignty itself, can be found in conventional international law. This is the case in particular of Art. 2 (1) UN Charter for the principle of sovereign equality, but also in the Friendly Relations Declaration (1970) for the detailed rights that follow from that principle of sovereign equality. The UN Charter also protects sovereign States’ domaine réservé and prohibits other States’ intervention on sovereign States’ territory (Arts 2 (4) and (7) UN Charter). Further correlated principles to the principle of sovereign equality may be found in general principles of international law and customary international law, and have been progressively recognized in international adjudication. Curiously for such a pivotal concept, but maybe precisely because it is such, its meaning has been changing across historical and political contexts and has also been heavily contested at any given time and space. Recently, upholding the concept, by reference to the State or in general, has become a ground of major contention among international lawyers and theorists; while some argue that the concept of sovereignty, or at least of State sovereignty is obsolete and should be abandoned in favour of new concepts of supranational or transnational political organization through which the current sharing, limiting, and parcelling of authority can be better explained, others see new forms of political authority and integration beyond the State, such as the European Union (‘EU’) for instance, and their inherent limitations as a confirmation or at least a development of the concept of sovereignty or even of State sovereignty (see also European Union, Historical Evolution).The biggest contradiction of all is that, on the one hand, he argues that the future lies with the nation state and the sense of rootedness in place that makes democratic engagement possible. Fair enough – except that, on the other hand, he ends up suggesting that place doesn’t really matter anymore: “Geography comes before history. But for centuries we have been loosening the bonds of time and distance. Place has become less important.” If that is so, how can the old idea of pure sovereignty not need to be rethought? Since its origins, the content and implications of the concept of sovereignty have constantly evolved. In Richard Falk’s own terms, the history of the concept of sovereignty is one of ‘conceptual migration’ (Falk 789): different periods in history have generated different difficulties which in turn have influenced the legal answers sought to political problems and conditioned the function granted to sovereignty at any given time and space. This book examines how Indigenous Peoples around the world are demanding greater data sovereignty, and challenging the ways in which governments have historically used Indigenous data to develop policies and programs. Reading these developments as the end of or as a reduction of sovereignty amounts to a misconception, however. They are in line with modern sovereignty as it was conceived of in the domestic context since the late 18 th century and are merely signs of its adaptation to new circumstances. Just as modern domestic sovereignty became an impersonal function of the State for the people, modern international sovereignty finally became a function distinct from the legal persona of the State. Moreover, just as modern domestic sovereignty emerged through a limitation of classic and early modern sovereignty, modern international sovereignty is a limited version of its classic correspondent. Further, just as modern domestic sovereignty is law-based, modern international sovereignty finds its sources in international law and not only the other way around. Finally, just as modern domestic sovereignty has an internal and an external dimension, modern international sovereignty is no longer only external, but it also has a growing internal dimension as international law regulates elements of internal State organization and competence. In short, modern international sovereignty is as important for the self-determination of democratic States in international law as ever, but to serve the same purpose its modalities have changed. D. Philpott, Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)
The Right of Sovereignty - Daniel Lee - Oxford University Press
Secondly, for the authority of international law to be actually justified and hence legitimate, the reasons international law provides ought not only to match pre-existing reasons of sovereign States, ie the reasons that make them good States. They ought also to be able to preclude those reasons by helping the subject to respect them better than on his own. The justifications for their exclusionary quality can be numerous and range from cognitive or volitive qualities to coordination abilities. Vanessa Ogle, ‘’Funk Money’: The End of Empires, the Expansion of Tax Havens, and Decolonization as an Economic and Financial Event’, Past & Present 249 (2020), pp. 213-249. Secondly, material and economic interdependence between States has meant increased institutional cooperation at a transnational, international, and supranational level, and the creation of corresponding IOs. The delegation of sovereign competences to IOs is compatible with the sovereignty of Member States and does not turn IOs into sovereign States (see Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations [Advisory Opinion]). Mira L. Siegelberg, Statelessness: A Modern History (Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 2020) But if the referendum is the sacred moment of the exercise of sovereignty, why were the sovereign people not told in 2016 that, as Tombs insists, the only form of Brexit they were going to get was one of the most extreme imaginable? How can sovereign decisions be made in ignorance of their meaning?Have a book that you’d like for me to read? Be sure to comment down below and read and review it so long as it has to do with mental strength or success. I repeat that I am not aware of any express enactment or treaty subjecting the Aborigines of this colony to the English colonial law, and I have shown that the Aborigines cannot be considered as Foreigners in a Kingdom which is their own." An Interview With Jenny Munro', Gaele Sobott, 25/1/2015, gaelesobott.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/an-interview-with-jenny-munro/, retrieved 2/2/2015
Great Deal 
New Comment