THE PROBLEM OF SOVEREIGNTY, INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND INTELLECTUAL CONSCIENCE

The concept of sovereignty is a recurring and controversial theme in international law, and it has a long history in western philosophy. The traditionally favored concept of sovereignty proves problematic in the context of international law. International law’s own claims to sovereignty, which are premised on traditional concept of sovereignty, undermine individual nations’ claims to sovereignty. These problems are attributable to deep-seated flaws in the traditional concept of sovereignty. A viable alternative concept of sovereignty can be derived from key concepts in Friedrich Nietzsche’s views on human reason and epistemology. The essay begins by considering the problem of sovereignty from the ancient philosophical perspective inherent in the fundamental assumptions and ideas of Plato’s political philosophy and epistemology. It then considers the contemporary problem of sovereignty in the context of international law by examining Louis Henkin’s formulation of and approach to it in his essay That S-Word: Sovereignty, and Globalization, and Human Rights, Etc. Finally, the essay articulates Nietzsche’s views on intellectual conscience, discusses their merits and advantages when used in dealing the problem of sovereignty in the context of international law, and proposes a solution to this problem that draws on the philosophies of Nietzsche, Novalis, Kant and Plato. The essay illustrates the relevance and advantages of this solution by examining the issue of states’ reservations to international treaties and conventions

THE PROBLEM OF SOVEREIGNTY, INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND INTELLECTUAL CONSCIENCE

The concept of sovereignty is a recurring and controversial theme in international law, and it has a long history in western philosophy. The traditionally favored concept of sovereignty proves problematic in the context of international law. International law’s own claims to sovereignty, which are premised on traditional concept of sovereignty, undermine individual nations’ claims to sovereignty. These problems are attributable to deep-seated flaws in the traditional concept of sovereignty. A viable alternative concept of sovereignty can be derived from key concepts in Friedrich Nietzsche’s views on human reason and epistemology. The essay begins by considering the problem of sovereignty from the ancient philosophical perspective inherent in the fundamental assumptions and ideas of Plato’s political philosophy and epistemology. It then considers the contemporary problem of sovereignty in the context of international law by examining Louis Henkin’s formulation of and approach to it in his essay That S-Word: Sovereignty, and Globalization, and Human Rights, Etc. Finally, the essay articulates Nietzsche’s views on intellectual conscience, discusses their merits and advantages when used in dealing the problem of sovereignty in the context of international law, and proposes a solution to this problem that draws on the philosophies of Nietzsche, Novalis, Kant and Plato. The essay illustrates the relevance and advantages of this solution by examining the issue of states’ reservations to international treaties and conventions

Food sovereignty and consumer sovereignty: two antagonistic goals?

The concept of food sovereignty is becoming an element of everyday parlance in development politics and food justice advocacy. Yet to successfully achieve food sovereignty, the demands within this movement have to be compatible with the way people are pursuing consumer sovereignty, and vice versa. The aim of this article is to examine the different sets of demands that the two ideals of sovereignty bring about, analyze in how far these different demands can stand in constructive relations with each other and explain why consumers have to adjust their food choices to seasonal production variability to promote food sovereignty and so secure future autonomy

Sovereignty in cyberspace: lex lata vel non?

Globalization has not conquered sovereignty. Instead, the notion of sovereignty occupies center stage in discussions concerning the normative architecture of cyberspace. On the diplomatic level, the term is generally cast in its broadest sense, one that signifies freedom from external control and influence. For instance, when western States raise the issue of human rights in cyberspace, those occupying the opposite side of the negotiating table fall back on sovereignty-based arguments. Mention of sovereignty in consensus documents is consequently often the price that liberal democracies pay for recognition of their policy priorities, such as individual freedoms and the availability of self-help measures in response to hostile cyber operations Unfettered by the constraints of political agendas and negotiating tactics, the international law academy has tended to approach the notion from a normatively analytical perspective. For legal scholars, the question of how the principle of sovereignty, as well as its derivate rules, govern cyber activities by and against States has become a dominant topic on the research agenda. This article assesses a recent controversy over whether sovereignty is a primary rule of international law, sets forth the authors’ views on sovereignty violations in cyberspace, and highlights several resultant policy issues

Cinderella Sovereignty

The Blocher-Gulati critique of the barriers to secession under public international law is insightful and thought provoking, an important contribution in its own right. I wish it had not been eclipsed by the authors\u27 clever and provocative fix: turning sovereignty into a tradable commodity. I suspect that this fix would bring about more suffering than the status quo for two reasons. First, a market for sovereign control is unlikely to be a market in any meaningful sense. Therefore, trading sovereignty would not discipline oppressors. Second, should something like a real market materialize, it could diminish the incentives for states to treat their populations better just as plausibly as it could improve them. Distant empires could find it easier to traffic in oppressed people and territories, which would pass from state to state as their masters lose interest. A class of marginal client statelets would grow, endowed with a poor stepchild of sovereignty, which would leave their people defenseless and voiceless

Cinderella Sovereignty

The Blocher-Gulati critique of the barriers to secession under public international law is insightful and thought provoking, an important contribution in its own right. I wish it had not been eclipsed by the authors\u27 clever and provocative fix: turning sovereignty into a tradable commodity. I suspect that this fix would bring about more suffering than the status quo for two reasons. First, a market for sovereign control is unlikely to be a market in any meaningful sense. Therefore, trading sovereignty would not discipline oppressors. Second, should something like a real market materialize, it could diminish the incentives for states to treat their populations better just as plausibly as it could improve them. Distant empires could find it easier to traffic in oppressed people and territories, which would pass from state to state as their masters lose interest. A class of marginal client statelets would grow, endowed with a poor stepchild of sovereignty, which would leave their people defenseless and voiceless

Sovereignty - Modern: A New Approach to an Outdated Concept

This article, however, does not purport to cover all possible dimensions of sovereignty but, instead, focuses primarily on what might be thought of as the core of sovereignty - the monopoly of power dimension - although it will be clear that even this focus inevitably entails certain linkages and slop-over penumbra of the other sovereignty dimensions. This core dimension is examined in the context of its roles with respect to international law and institutions generally, and international relations and related disciplines such as economics. National government leaders and politicians, as well as special interest representatives, too often invoke the term sovereignty to forestall needed debate. Likewise, international elites often assume that international is better (thus downplaying the importance of sovereignty) and this is not always the better approach. What is needed is a close analysis of the policy framework that gets us away from these preconceived mantras”. The objective is to shed some light on these policy debates or, in some cases, policy dilemmas, and to describe some of the policy framework that needs to be addressed

Markets and Sovereignty

The past few decades have witnessed the growth of an exciting debate in the legal academy about the tensions between economic pressures to commodify and philosophical commitments to the market inalienability of certain items. Sex, organs, babies, and college athletics are among the many topics that have received attention. The debates often have proceeded, however, as if they involve markets on one side and the state on the other, with the relevant question being the ways in which the latter can or should try to facilitate, restrict, or rely on the former. In this article, we approach the relationship between markets and sovereign control from a different perspective, and contemplate more radical versions of their relationship. What would it mean for governing authority itself to be market alienable? And what would it mean if the people—rather than the state—were the ones who set the prices and controlled the transfers? Could a ‘market for sovereign control’ contribute to welfare-enhancing changes in governance