Showing papers on "Sovereignty published in 1995"

Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance

Abstract: Part I: Introduction 1 Stories of Democracy: Old and New Part II: Analysis: The Formation and Displacement of the Modern State 2 The Emergence of Sovereignty and the Modern State 3 The Development of the Nation--State and the Entrenchment of Democracy 4 The Inter--State System 5 Democracy, the Nation--State and the Global Order I 6 Democracy, the Nation--State and the Global Order II Part III: Reconstruction: Foundations of Democracy 7 Rethinking Democracy 8 Sites of Power, Problems of Democracy 9 Democracy and the Democratic Good Part IV: Elaboration and Advocacy: Cosmopolitan Democracy 10 Political Community and the Cosmopolitan Order 11 Markets, Private Property and Cosmopolitan Democratic Law 12 Cosmopolitan Democracy and the New International Order References and Select Bibliography Index

Territorialization and state power in Thailand

Abstract: Weber and many other theorists have defined the state as a political organization that claims and upholds a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in a given territory.1 Writers who draw on this Weberian approach have devoted considerable theoretical attention to political organization, legitimacy, and physical coercion in the making of modern states. Until recently, however, the meaning of territory as a key practical aspect of state control has been relatively neglected by many theorists of the sources of state power. Territorial sovereignty defines people's political identities as citizens and forms the basis on which states claim authority over people and the resources within those boundaries.2 More important for our purposes here, modern states have increasingly turned to territorial strategies to control what people can do inside national boundaries. In this article, we aim to outline the emergence of territoriality in state power in Thailand, formerly called Siam. In particular, we examine the use of what we call internal territorialization in establishing control over natural resources and the people who use them.

A genealogy of sovereignty

Abstract: The concept of sovereignty is central to international relations theory and theories of state formation, and provides the foundation of the conventional separation of modern politics into domestic and international spheres. In this book Jens Bartelson provides a critical analysis and conceptual history of sovereignty, dealing with this separation as reflected in philosophical and political texts during three periods: the Renaissance, the Classical Age, and Modernity. He argues that the concept of sovereignty and its place within political discourse are conditioned by philosophical and historiographical discontinuities between the periods, and that sovereignty should be regarded as a concept contingent upon, rather than fundamental to, political science and its history.

Corruption and state politics in Sierra Leone

Abstract: 1. Informal markets and the shadow state: some theoretical issues 2. Colonial rule and the foundations of the shadow state 3. Elite hegemony and the threat of political and economic reform 4. Reining in the informal market: the early Stevens' years, 1968-1973 5. An exchange of services: state power and the diamond business 6. The shadow state and international commerce 7. Foreign firms, economic 'reform' and shadow state power 8. The changing character of African sovereignty.

Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State and Symbolic Exchange

Abstract: 1. Writing the state 2. Examining the sovereignty/intervention boundary 3. Interpretive approaches 4. Concert of Europe interventions in Spain and Naples 5. Wilson administration actions in the Mexican and Bolshevik revolutions 6. United States invasions of Grenada and Panama 7. Symbolic exchange and the state.

The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements

Abstract: The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements, by Abram Chayes and Antonia Handler Chayes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Pp. 285. $49.95 (hardcover) . I. INTRODUCTION Just after the end of the second World War, and at the dawn of the modern age of technological innovation, the future prime minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Anthony Eden, told the House of Commons that "[e]very succeeding scientific discovery makes greater nonsense of old-time conceptions of sovereignty."1 Five decades later, despite the sustained assault mounted not only by science but by the dissolution, association, and recombination of what used to be thought of as indisputably sovereign states, and by the expanding importance of intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, international lawyers have been slow to discard those conceptions. Sovereignty is still seen as a defining criterion of international legal personality, rendering more difficult questions regarding the juridical status of such entities as the European Union, the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and insurgent forces exercising government authority in such places as Liberia, Bosnia, Burma, and Sri Lanka.2 Despite both its title and the need for a scholarly yet provocative book on the evolution of the concept of sovereignty at the end of the twentieth century, this is not the set of issues to which Abram and Antonia Chayes turn their attention in The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements.3 Rather than a theory of sovereignty, new or otherwise, they present a theory of international behavior modification. More accurately, it is a theory of getting states to do what they should do, either because they accepted obligations voluntarily, as in the case of treaties and other agreements, or because obligations were imposed on them by other international legal processes, such as the maturation of custom into binding law. The book's principal thesis is that noncompliance with norms is usually the result, not of deliberate contumacy, but of a lack of capacity, sluggishness brought on by domestic political paralysis, or, occasionally, ambiguity in the rule itself.4 Compliance, therefore, is most efficiently secured not by coercive measures, or even by threatened or actual withdrawal of membership rights in international organizations, but by interactive, cooperative efforts and transparency.5 Such efforts result not only in improved behavior by recalcitrant states but in improvement of the international regimes themselves. The most valuable and persuasive parts of the book are those in which the Chayeses draw upon their first-hand experience to discuss specific regulatory treaty regimes of which they have been participants or close students.6 The least effective are those in which generalizations are hazarded with insufficient empirical support and theoretical underpinnings that are not developed with adequate rigor. The volume also suffers from inconsistent and even incorrect readings of U.S. law and policy (U.S. law is regularly deployed as illustrating key aspects of the authors' thesis), which undermine some of the credibility that the authors work so hard to earn elsewhere in the book. In particular, the critical argument that coercive sanctions do not work fails to take into account other objectives, beyond bringing about compliance with treaties, that states have in view when they decide that other states' behavior is intolerable and requires a response. II. THE NEW SOVEREIGNTY The agenda in The New Sovereignty is the development of a theory under which the international community can attain a level of compliance with what the authors call "international regulatory agreements" superior to that commonly observed.7 To that end, they set out to prove, first, that sanctions-whether collective or unilateral, economic or military-do not work. …

State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Empirical Research

Abstract: This article explores many of the key theoretical and analytical issues attending empirical research on state sovereignty. It reviews recent research on sovereignty, the state, and state-building in an attempt to summarize what we now know or think we know about state sovereignty. Bringing the fruits of that research to bear on the concepts that define state sovereignty, I offer some criteria from which analysts might derive empirically testable propositions about sovereignty's historical status and future prospects. In conclusion, I argue that research on these issues should be (re-) directed to the bedrock of sovereignty: rule making and enforcement authority, or what I call policing.

Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia: A Comparative and Historical Perspective

Abstract: In a comparative and historical study of the interplay between democratic politics and authoritarian states in South Asia, Ayesha Jalal explains how a shared colonial legacy led to apparently contrasting patterns of political development - democracy in India and authoritarianism in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The analysis shows how, despite differences in form, central political authority in each state came to confront similar threats from regional and linguistic dissidence, religious and sectarian strife, as well as class and caste conflicts. By comparing state structures and political processes, the author evaluates and redefines democracy, citizenship, sovereignty and the nation-state, arguing for a more decentralized governmental structure. This original and provocative study will challenge students and scholars in the field to rethink traditional concepts of democracy and authoritarianism in South Asia.

Globalization and the future of the nation state

Abstract: This article addresses the issue of whether the nation state has a future as a major locus of governance in an increasingly ‘globalized’ economic and social system. It begins by considering the development of the sovereign state and argues that international agreements between states were important in establishing the power of the state over society. It goes on to consider the changing capacities of the state in the modern world. Extreme versions of the 'globalization' thesis are then challenged, and it is argued that national-level economic processes remain central and that the international economy is far from ungovernable. Major nation states have a pivotal role to play in creating and sustaining such governance. However, their role is less than as autonomous national macro-economic managers, than as agencies that are representative of their populations and sources of legitimacy for new forms of governance. The central function of the nation state is that of distributing and rendering accountable power...

The Philadelphian system: sovereignty, arms control, and balance of power in the American states-union, circa 1787–1861

Abstract: A rediscovery of the long-forgotten republican version of liberal political theory has arresting implications for the theory and practice of international relations. Republican liberalism has a theory of security that is superior to realism, because it addresses not only threats of war from other states but also the threat of despotism at home. In this view, a Hobson's choice between anarchy and hierarchy is not necessary because an intermediary structure, here dubbed “negarchy,” is also available. The American Union from 1787 until 1861 is a historical example. This Philadelphian system was not a real state since, for example, the union did not enjoy a monopoly of legitimate violence. Yet neither was it a state system, since the American states lacked sufficient autonomy. While it shared some features with the Westphalian system such as balance of power, it differed fundamentally. Its origins owed something to particular conditions of time and place, and the American Civil War ended this system. Yet close analysis indicates that it may have surprising relevance for the future of contemporary issues such as the European Union and nuclear governance.

Hierarchy under anarchy: informal empire and the East German state

Abstract: Contemporary international politics embody a tension between formal equality and de facto inequality. States recognize each other as sovereign equals, yet the strong still push around the weak. Among the structures that reflect this tension are informal empires. The dominant assumptions in mainstream international relations theory, materialism and rationalism, privilege the formal equality of states in informal empires a priori: materialism by assuming that authority relations cannot exist between sovereign states; rationalism by assuming that states are sovereign over their own interests. A constructivist approach allows one to explore the hypothesis that transnational authority structures construct state identities and interests. An empirical analysis of the Soviet-East German relationship supports this hypothesis, which raises questions about the emerging study of international governance.

Identity, Integration and Security: Solving the Sovereignty Puzzle in E.U. Studies

Abstract: Western Europe is probably the area in the world where one meets the most advanced case of border fluidity and transgression of sovereignty. John Ruggie recently suggested that "the institutional, juridical and spatial complexes associated with the community may constitute nothing less than the emergence of the first truly postmodern international political form."(1) Postmodernity in the context of international relations first of all means post-sovereignty. The European Union (E.U.), as it now calls itself, is thus a prominent case to investigate if one is interested in issues like the changing nature of boundaries and the possibilities of constructing political communities beyond sovereignty. One way to address this question would be to see to what extent politics in the E.U. proceed according to old rules, and to what extent they follow new post-sovereign patterns. However, this is easier said than done. A principle like state sovereignty is neither an empirical designation nor an edict on limits of accepted behavior, so one cannot in a simple sense check empirical events against this description. Rather, sovereignty is an underlying organizing principle, a structure visible to the extent that events can be seen as effects of its particular generative grammar.(2) Thus it is impossible to find conclusive evidence for the status of generative grammars or organizing principles. In observing the simultaneity of European Court supremacy and the persistence of national legal systems, the postmodernist will see proof of new organizing principles, while the traditionalist will argue - legitimately - that the system is still constituted on the basis of sovereignty. As argued by Hedley Bull: Indeed, it is difficult to believe that anyone ever asserted the "statecentric" view of international politics that is today so knowingly rejected by those who seek to emphasize the role of "the new international actors." What was widely asserted about European international relations from the time of Vattel in the mid-eighteenth century until the end of the First World War was the legal fiction of a political universe that consisted of states alone, the doctrine that only states had rights and duties in international law.(3) There is good reason to be careful not to proclaim a radical transformation every time one sees change, or what Ruggie has referred to as: the prevailing superficiality of the proliferating literature on international transformations, in which the sheer momentum of processes sweeps the international polity along toward its next encounter with destiny.(4) Therefore, it is easy to write entertaining essays on how Western Europe has become "neo-medieval," "post-sovereign" or organized by "fractal politics." But it is difficult to substantiate such claims in a satisfactory way, unless one makes a straw-man out of sovereignty and transfers it from its role as underlying principle to a role of empirical regularity or judicial limitation. In order to overcome this dilemma, this article will look at the E.U. on a different level, through a discussion of the overall dynamics of the process, rather than the day-to-day operations and decision making (although they will, of course, be part of the analysis). Whether or not the E.U. is beyond sovereignty is an impossible discussion. It is definitely possible to make the case against transformation. The really interesting discussions are those that address the destiny of the project, whether the E.U. points realistically (and not just programmatically) beyond sovereignty; and if it points beyond the sovereignty of the present states, whether this necessarily leads to a sovereign E.U. or to something post-sovereign. This requires a return to the "big questions" of integration and integration theory. Classical Questions, Unconventional Approaches and False Starts To the founding fathers of integration theory, Ernst B. Haas, Karl W. …

Non-Governmental Organizations and Their Influence on International Society

Abstract: International non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have proliferated in the latter half of the 20th century. Many of these transnational actors are new to world politics, a province that historically has been dominated by states. In some issue areas, NGOs have acquired significant authority in the eyes of transnational actors. A prime example is the human rights group, Amnesty International, which began in 1961 with letter-writing efforts to free individuals imprisoned for the nonviolent expression of opinion. Since then, and especially within the past two decades, Amnesty International has developed the capacity to research, report and analyze global patterns of human rights violations, empowering it to be a source of record in U.N. sessions and national halls of power. Moreover, Amnesty International is only one of a network of international and national NGOs active in human rights. Others include the International Commission of Jurists, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch, all of which attempt to influence governments by applying general human rights principles to particular situations. Similarly, a growing network of environmental NGOs works to hold governments accountable to international environmental standards. Other NGOs, such as OXFAM, establish economic development projects and administer economic and humanitarian aid with funding from the pockets of private contributors. What these NGO activities have in common is, while they often challenge governments and sometimes complement government-provided services, they nearly always act in counterpoint with governmental actors. NGO operations historically have been dependent upon interstate organizations for the provision of channels of action. However, partly due to the limitations on participation and expression inherent when international arenas are controlled fundamentally by states, these NGOs have also devised new channels of action that allow them more freedom. International NGOs not only cross formal national boundaries - they also have created a direct and independent form of non-governmental diplomacy through networks of their own.(2) The economic, informational and intellectual resources of NGOs have garnered them enough expertise and influence to assume authority in matters that, traditionally, have been solely within the purview of state administration and responsibility. Further, many NGOs claim a certain legitimacy for their causes by virtue of popular representation. Whether or not the influence and independent authority claimed by NGOs by virtue of their expertise and mandate of popular sovereignty amount to an erosion of formal state sovereignty is both a theoretical and empirical question. While I will not discuss the conceptual history of sovereignty here, for purposes of this essay it is important to recognize, as has been noted recently, that state practices only murkily reflect formal, diplomatic definitions of sovereignty, and sovereignty is often highly conditional and socially determined in practice.(3) Similarly, the relative influence of NGOs is not a static phenomenon, and their impact on state policies has changed and is changing with time. To return to human rights, NGOs have been involved at crucial junctures in strengthening the expectation that states be held accountable for human rights practices in the 20th century, as international and regional human rights norms have been elaborated in response to problematic country cases, and states have been encouraged to create new intergovernmental reporting and monitoring procedures at the formal level.(4) These changes have arisen not so much from enthusiastic state participation as from international popular and diplomatic pressure exerted on governments. Human rights NGOs, such as Amnesty International, have become skilled at mounting such pressure by feeding information into pertinent public and governmental channels for discussion, on the one hand, and distributing and promoting new human rights instruments, on the other. …

Sovereignty, nationalism, and regional order in the Arab states system

Abstract: What accounts for the development of the Arab states system from the explosive mix of Arab nationalism and sovereignty to their simultaneous existence? To understand this development, one must first examine how institutions can shape the very interests and roles of states in such a manner as to encourage the development of relatively stable expectations and shared norms; that is, regional order. This approach illuminates how inter-Arab interactions and state formation processes led to the consolidation of sovereignty and a meaning of Arab nationalism that is consistent with sovereignty. Consequently, this region highlights how sovereignty—and its lack thereof—is consequential for understanding interstate dynamics, and how different meanings of the nation have different implications for security.

Do Credit Markets Discipline Sovereign Borrowers? Evidence from US States

Abstract: The degree to which credit markets discipline sovereign borrowers is investigated by estimating the supply curve for debt faced by US states. The results generally support an optimistic view of the market discipline hypothesis, with credit markets providing incentives for sovereign borrowers to restrain borrowing. While the risk premium on bond yields is estimated to increase only gradually at low levels of debt, this effect appears to become much larger as debt rises. There is also some evidence that credit markets may withhold access to credit at very high levels of debt.

Sovereignty and Governmentality: From the Problematics of the "New World Order" to the Ethical Problematic of the World Order

Abstract: The constitution of (inter) national political order is undisputedly a creation of power. But how? And can raising the central question of power, once more, cast any new light on the condition of (inter) national politics now that the question of (inter) national order as such has been so forcefully re-posed in the aftermath of the ending of the Cold War and the dissolution of the postwar order?1 I think the answer to this second question is, "yes it can," and that that answer serves to clarify the first. If we look outside of the canon of international political theory, I also think we can find an understanding of power that will afford some new interpretive purchase upon contemporary (inter) national politics. This understanding is made available in Continental European philosophy, specifically in the work of Michel Foucault.

Whose World Order?: Uneven Globalization And The End Of The Cold War

Abstract: * Introduction: What Has Changed? Hans-Henrik Holm and Georg Srensen * The New World Order: A View from Africa Claude Ake * Uneven Globalization, Economic Reform, and Democracy: A View from Latin America Osvaldo Sunkel * South Asia and the New World Order Gowher Rizvi * China in the PostCold War Era Zhang Yunling * Russia: Between Peace and Conflict Vladislav M. Zubok * Dialectics of World Order: A View from Pacific Asia Takashi Inoguchi * The Challenge of Globalization and Individualization: A View from Europe Michael Z rn * Hobbes's Dilemma and Institutional Change in World Politics: Sovereignty in International Society Robert O. Keohane * International Relations Theory in a World of Variation H.-H. Holm and G. Srensen

Beyond Westphalia? : state sovereignty and international intervention

Abstract: Under the Westphalian system of international order, each nation is understood to be sovereign and its borders are seen as inviolable. "Beyond Westphalia" brings together a distinguished group of scholars to explore the question of whether recent political changes have shifted the balance between the sovereign rights of states and the authority of the larger international community.

From Statism To Federalism: A Paradigm Shift

Abstract: Since the end of World War II and most particularly since the late 1970s, the world has been in the midst of a paradigm shift from a world of states modeled after the idea of the nation-state developed in the seventeenth century to a world of diminished state sovereignty and increas- ingly constitutionalized interstate linkages of a federal character. This paradigm shift has been noted by students of both federalism and inter- national relations. It has been most strongly manifested in the economic sphere. Worldwide and regional economic arrangements have become essential to the peace and prosperity of the world and while formally volun- tary, no state can remain outside the increasingly more demanding economic networks. Thus, those networks have acquired an increasingly confederal dimension. Foremost among them is that of Western Europe which, since the Maastricht Treaty, has been transformed into a confeder- ation in fact if not in name. Other arrangements approach the EU in varying degrees. In this new paradigm, existing states will not disappear; rather they will be overlaid by a variety of federal arrangements of a confederal character that will tie them ever closer to each other.

Sovereignty: An Introduction and Brief History

Abstract: Most citizens of most states recall, in eulogy or in censure, a founding moment when battles, heroes, speeches, debates and compromises brought about a new constitution, an enduring new orthodoxy of political authority and principles. They speak of 1776, 1789 and 1917, of preserving the spirit of the revolution and the intentions of its founders. Rarely, though, do such sentiments apply to international relations. Occasionally scholars write of our "Westphalian system," but only cooly to categorize and chronicle not to pronounce or polemicize. Why the reticence? It probably has much to do with the dominance of the realist tradition, according to which the history of international relations is an endless competition between armies and economies; rules, constitutions and notions of political authority, then, are only deceptive, forgettable surface reflections. I will argue for the reality of these reflections. International relations, too, has something akin to a constitution, embodied in what I will call "norms of sovereignty," and this constitution is formed through revolutions: Tumult yields novel orthodoxy. Today sovereignty is again the issue. There is evidence that another revolution is afoot. Against the spirit of "the end of history," new actors are claiming new forms of authority. The European Union and the United Nations endorse the right to independence of secessionist Yugoslavian republics; the U.N. and its proxy armies intervene in Somalia, Iraq and Rwanda for humanitarian reasons and apply sanctions on Haiti on behalf of democracy, all without the consent of local parties; legal scholars note an "emerging right to democratic governance" which makes domestic government a matter of international concern; and E.U. states make new progress toward the "pooling" of authority in a common institution.[2] These trends are still partial; whether they will become durable norms in the new world order is not yet certain. But if they do, together they will amount to one of the rare international revolutions in sovereignty since medieval times. If the current relevance of the state is our question, then these emerging norms of sovereignty are noteworthy. They are not, however, all that is important to the state. Increased flows of trade, money, information and armaments, and changes in laws governing ownership and citizenship dramatically alter the state's functions and efficacy, but have little to do with sovereignty, which itself is purely a matter of legitimate authority. Although revolutions in norms of sovereignty are only part of important political change, they are an inestimably important part, and we ought to know something about their nature and history. I seek, then, to introduce sovereignty in two stages. First, I offer a sorely needed definition and explore some of its variations. I then offer a brief history of its crucial historical junctures and founding moments. International lawyers have so thoroughly delineated, demarcated, explicated, qualified and categorized sovereignty that the term's continued useful precision is open to question.[3] Yet, because sovereignty has so often been appealed to or claimed, in both polemics and preambles, by statespeople, diplomats and members of parliament concerned about the integrity of their authority, and because it comprises the struts and joists without which statecraft would not exist, it cannot be scuttled. But sovereignty needs definition. Precisely because of its complex historical evolution, finding a definition encompassing every usage since the 13th century is a pipe dream.[4] However, there is a broad concept - not a definition, but a wide philosophical category - which unites most of sovereignty's past, and with which we can begin: authority. Authority is "the right to command and correlatively, the right to be obeyed."[5] It is legitimate when it is rooted in law, tradition, consent or divine command, and when those living under it generally endorse this notion. …

Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World

Abstract: Introduction 1. States and quasi-states 2. A new sovereignty regime 3. Sovereignty regimes in history 4. Independence by right 5. Sovereignty and development 6. Sovereign rights versus development 7. Quasi-states and international history Conclusion.

'Political Conditionality' and Democratisation

Abstract: The use of aid to impose political conditions on recipient countries, to further democratic and government reforms or to punish non‐compliance with earlier demands, is a relatively new feature of the international aid regime. This article evaluates the proliferating donor and academic literature emerging on the subject. At the heart of discussion of democracy/ governance policies are debates about transformation of the state, its relationship to economic development and the decreasing extent to which considerations of sovereignty limit donor interventions. The author argues that, while political conditionalities may assist the development of democratic movements in Africa, there is an irony in that structural adjustment risks undermining the state reforms seen to be essential to them while, equally, democratisation may challenge the processes of economic restructuring being imposed.

The encyclopedia of democracy

Abstract: African Independence Movements. Baltic States. Winston Churchill. Citizenship. Civil Rights. Costa Rica. Egalitarianism. Election Campaigns. European Union. Freedom of Assembly. Globalization. Hinduism and Democracy. Human Rights. Impeachment. India. Judicial Systems. Laissez-faire Economic Theory. Liberalism. John Locke. Ramon Magsaysay. Marxism and Democracy. Mass Media. May Fourth Movement. John Stuart Mill. Party Systems. Plato. Populism. Tunku Abdu Rahman. Separation of Powers. Slavery. Solidarity (Polish). Sovereignty. States' Rights. United Kingdom. United Nations. United States. Voting Behaviour. Max Weber. Women's Suffrage.Woodrow Wilson.Boris Yeltsin. Zionism and Democracy.

Law, Power, and the Sovereign State: The Evolution and Application of the Concept of Sovereignty

Abstract: In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet bloc, it is timely to ask what continuing role, if any, the concept of sovereignty can and should play in the emerging "new world order." The aim of Law, Power, and the Sovereign State is both to counter the argument that the end of the sovereign state is close at hand and to bring scholarship on sovereignty into the post-Cold War era. The study assesses sovereignty as status and as power and examines the issue of what precisely constitutes a sovereign state. In determining how a political entity gains sovereignty, the authors introduce the requirements of de facto independence and de jure independence and explore the ambiguities inherent in each. They also examine the political process by which the international community formally confers sovereign status. Fowler and Bunck trace the continuing tension of the "chunk and basket" theories of sovereignty through the history of international sovereignty disputes and conclude by considering the usefulness of sovereignty as a concept in the future study and conduct of international affairs. They find that, despite frequent predictions of its imminent demise, the concept of sovereignty is alive and well as the twentieth century draws to a close.

Puerto Rico: Culture, Politics, and Identity

Abstract: This book uses historical and interview data to trace the development of Puerto Rican identity in the 20th century. It analyzes how and why Puerto Ricans have maintained a clear sense of distinctiveness in the face of direct and indirect pressures on their identity. After gaining sovereignty over Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898, the United States undertook a sustained campaign to Americanize the island. Despite 50 years of active Americanization and another 40 years of continued United States sovereignty over the island, Puerto Ricans retain a sense of themselves as distinctly and proudly Puerto Rican. This study examines the symbols of Puerto Rican identity, and their use in the complex politics of the island. It shows that identity is dynamic, it is experienced differently by individuals across Puerto Rican society, and that the key symbols of Puerto Rican identity have not remained static over time. Through the study of Puerto Rico, the book investigates and challenges the widely-heard argument that the inevitable result of the export of U.S. mass media and consumer culture throughout the world is the weakening of cultural identities in receiving societies. The book develops the idea that external pressure on collective identity may strengthen that identity rather than, as is often assumed, diminish it.