Sovereignty Before and After the Linguistic Turn

Abstract

Is the sovereign state here to stay, or is it withering away? Frequently posed in terms of the consequences of globalization, this question has been one of the main sticking points within academic international relations and international law during the past decades. Unsurprisingly, the answers provided by different authors display a considerable variety, both in terms of their basic assumptions about the nature of sovereignty, as well as in terms of their conclusions about its future prospects (see e.g., Ayoob 2002; Cohen 2004; Agnew 2005; Sassen 2006). On the one hand, we find those scholars who remain convinced of the staying power of state sovereignty. To them, those new forms of political authority that are believed to challenge the predominance of the sovereign state are ultimately derivative of state sovereignty, and therefore indicative of its endurance rather than anything else. Thus, when properly defined and understood, the concept of sovereignty is likely to retain its analytical and normative relevance even in the future. On the other hand, we find scholars who argue that the state is unlikely to remain the main locus of sovereignty in the future. Sovereign statehood is challenged by new forms of political authority that eventually will transform the international system into something new and different.