Sovereignty

About: Sovereignty is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 25909 publications have been published within this topic receiving 410148 citations.

Three Disputes and Three Objectives: China and the South China Sea

Abstract: : The recent heightening of the competition between China and its neighbors over sovereignty, resources, and security in the South China Sea has drawn the attention of diplomatic and military leaders from many countries that seek to promote stability and security in these globally important waters. For states that ring the South China Sea, its waters represent a zone of rich hydrocarbon and protein resources that are increasingly dear on land as populations exhaust their territories ability to meet their increasing needs. This resource competition alone could be the basis of sharp-edged disputes between the claimants. However, the South China Sea also represents the projection of the cultural consciousness of the centuries-long relationship that each coastal nation has had with its adjoining seas. This fact fuels competing modern-day nationalist tendencies among claimant-state populations, tendencies that in turn magnify the importance of the disputes and, during times of crisis, narrow the options for quiet negotiation or de-escalation. As American leaders discuss policies and strategies in support of regional stability, some have described the complex disputes in the South China Sea as essentially a tangled knot of intractable challenges. Actually, however, there are three severable categories of disputes, each with its own parties, rule sets, and politics. There are disputes over territorial sovereignty, in the overlapping claims to the South China Sea s islands, rocks, and reefs; disputes over which coastal states claim rightful jurisdiction over waters and seabed; and disputes over the proper balance of for military purposes. Unfortunately, the region s states are currently pursuing win-lose solutions to all three of these disputes.

The Invisible Hand of the American Empire

Abstract: In the field of interstate military affairs it makes sense to talk of an American empire; but not in interstate economic affairs where the world remains thoroughly multipolar. So says Joseph Nye. This essay disagrees with the second part. It proceeds by way of a thought experiment. Imagine you are an aspiring modern-day emperor in a world of sovereign capitalist states. What sort of framework do you create such that (a) it sets the context in which all states and firms have to operate if they are not to exclude themselves from the world economy; (b) it channels normal market competition so as to benefit your firms and citizens disproportionately; and (c) it allows your economic statescraft to operate with fewer constraints than it imposes on everyone else's? The essay argues that the United States has indeed created such a framework since the 1970s, based on dollar dominance and American-centered private (not public) international financial relations. The framework allows the United States to keep spending far more abroad than it earns there–to have more butter and more guns (including military bases)–to a degree that other states cannot; and allows the United States to make the dollar swing high or low in accordance with American conditions, regardless of the costs inflicted on others. This is the paradox of economic globalization: it looks like the “powerless” expansion of communications and markets, but works to enhance the ability of the United States to harness the rest of the world to its rhythms and fortify its empire-like power. Concerted action between Europe and China and the East Asia countries is a vent for hope.

Geopolitical Relations in the European Middle Ages: History and Theory

Abstract: The European Middle Ages have recently attracted the attention of international relations (IR) scholars as a “testing-ground” for established IR theories. Neorealists, historicizing neorealists, and constructivists dispute the meanings of medieval anarchy and hierarchy in the absence of sovereignty. On the basis of a detailed critique of these approaches, I offer a historically informed and theoretically controlled interpretation of medieval geopolitics revolving around contested social property relations. My interpretation is meta-theoretically guided by dialectical principles. Lordships are the constitutive units of medieval authority, combining economic and political powers and assigning contradictory forms of rationality to their major agents, lords, and peasants. Interlordly competition over land and labor translates directly into distinct forms of geopolitical relations, generating a culture of war. Against this background, I clarify the specific meanings of the medieval “state,” territoriality, frontiers, peace, war, anarchy, and hierarchy before drawing out the wider implications of changing social property forms for IR theory.

Professionalism, Democracy, and Discursive Communities: Normative Reflections on Restructuring

Abstract: This paper examines two normative interpretations, professionalism and democracy, for recent work that argues against bureaucratic control of schooling and in favor of such reforms as decentralized management, a team approach to school operation, and more autonomy for teachers. It argues that a democratic conception is both distinguishable from and preferable to a conception of teachers as professionals. However, this view can only be sustained by an understanding of democracy that emphasizes discursive decision making in local educational communities and deemphasizes the location of political sovereignty in legislative bodies.

The principle of sovereign equality of states as a basis for international - organization

Abstract: AT the historic conference held in Moscow in October, 1943, the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China jointly declared that they recognized \"the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peaceloving States, and open to membership by all such States, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security.\" ' The extraordinary importance of this statement for the fate of the world after this war justifies the present attempt to examine the question whether the principle of \"sovereign equality\" of States proclaimed by the Declaration of Moscow can be the basis of an international organization ensuring a lasting peace. I.