Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction: Beyond the Practice-Norm Gap Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2022 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. Sovereignty and the Life-Cycle of Norms Revisited

verfasst von : Emanuela Piccolo Koskimies

Erschienen in: Norm Contestation, Sovereignty and (Ir)responsibility at the International Criminal Court

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This chapter seeks to reorientate the set of theoretical foundations underpinning the sovereignty as responsibility debate, namely, not only the conventional constructivist understanding of norm development but also the concept of sovereignty, and the model of sovereignty commonly assumed as the benchmark for assessing change. As a whole, the chapter challenges any reading of international society that ends up collapsing on either the domain of ‘ideas’, ‘agency’, and ‘intentionality’ or the domain of the ‘material’. Instead, the proposed reappraisal focuses on the recursive quality of the relationship between structure and agency, and the implications thereof in the (re)production of unequal social, political, juridical realities. More to the point, it offers a critical—and, notably, post-positivist—qualification of Finnemore and Sikkink’s model. This brings the configuration of normativity as part of institutional practice to the forefront of the analysis, in the attempt to offer an innovative account of normative change—and (change in) sovereignty, more specifically—distinguishly receptive to questions of power and power inequalities.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Introduction: Beyond the Practice-Norm Gap
Nächstes Kapitel Shaping Sovereignty as Responsibility at the ICC (Part I): The Rome Statute
Fußnoten
1
The power through which sovereignty is enforced is similar to what David Held has labelled as ‘autonomy’. According to the author, autonomy is ‘the actual power the nation-state possesses to articulate and achieve policy goals independently’. In their view, autonomy differs from sovereignty, for the latter is ‘the entitlement to rule over a bounded territory’ and is eroded ‘only when such an entitlement is displaced by forms of ‘higher’ and/or independent authority which curtail the rightful basis of decision-making within a national framework’ (Held 2006, 307–308).
 
2
Interestingly, even according to a leading representative of realist international relations theory such as Hans J. Morgenthau, sovereignty is ‘not at all inconsistent with a decentralized, and therefore weak and ineffective international legal order; indeed, it is the source of such decentralization, weakness, and ineffectiveness’ (Morgenthau 1960, 288).
 
3
This point is illustrated at more length at the end of this section.
 
4
According to Neil Walker, ‘the assertion of jurisdiction is still a claim to legal competence and political capacity that may be at odds with other such claims, and if it has no foundation beyond itself then there is no independent basis for the resolution of these competing claims’ (Walker 2020a, b).
 
5
The ICC can intervene irrespective of any consent for cases referred by the UNSC; and, in the absence of a UNSC referral, the Court can exercise its jurisdiction if either the territorial state or the state of the suspect’s nationality has accepted its jurisdiction.
 
6
As Frédéric Mégret has pointedly summarised, the ICC ambiguously implicates both the ‘possibility of ‘constitutional moments’ and qualitative transitions in the global legal order on the one hand, and respect for the established practices of international law and statehood on the other’ (Mégret 2020, 162). Therefore, traditional (dichotomous) interpretative grids hardly do justice to the complex juridical nature of the Court and the challenges this poses (ibid., 167).
 
7
The estates obtained a territorial right of superiority within their own dominions. In addition, even though they had been making alliances with outside powers long before 1648, their right to do so was formally acknowledged by the treaties.
 
8
Contrary to conventional wisdom, constraints on sovereignty were contemplated even by earlier ideas of absolute sovereignty, which subjected the authority of sovereigns to moral, juridical, and divine responsibilities.
 
9
The exact phrase ‘sovereign equality’ first appeared in the Moscow Declaration (October 1943), in which the governments of the USA, the UK, the Soviet Union, and China agreed ‘[t]hat they recognise the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organisation, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states, and open to membership by all such states, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security’ (Fassbender 2003, 125).
 
10
According to Chandler, the existence of vast power inequalities, in the international sphere, was one of the reasons that ‘state sovereignty, held to be unconditional and indivisible, was the founding principle of international society’ (ibid., 79); and ‘it was only on this basis, of formally upholding the equality and autonomy of states and the sovereign rights of non-intervention, that post-colonial societies could be guaranteed the rights to self-government’ (ibid.).
 
11
As Barnett and Finnemore have put it, ‘IOs can become autonomous sites of authority, independent from the state “principals” who may have created them, because of power flowing from at least two sources: (1) the legitimacy of the rational-legal authority they embody, and (2) control over technical expertise and information’ (ibid.).
 
12
By determinism is broadly meant the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions. It follows that, knowing the latter, one could in principle be able to predict human agency.
 
13
Normative political theory started re-emerging already in the 1980s. Chris Brown’s early 1990s’ book, for example, was part of the establishment of that scholarly discourse.
 
14
According to Buzan: ‘the idea of a “primary” or “master” institution implies that one deep practice essentially generates or shapes all of the others. The idea of two layers of primary institutions implies that some are “deeper” than others’ (ibid.).
 
15
See paragraph 2.3.2.1 above for a reflection about the limited treatment of international inequality by the ES.
 
Literatur
Aalberts, T. E. (2012) Constructing sovereignty between politics and law. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.CrossRef
Aalberts-Meeuwsen, T. E., & Werner, W. G. (2008). Sovereignty beyond borders: sovereignty, self-defense, and the disciplining of states. In R. Adler-Nissen, & T. Gammeltoft-Hansen (Eds.), Sovereignty games: instrumentalizing state sovereignty in Europe and beyond (pp. 129–149). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Anghie, A. (1999). Finding the peripheries: sovereignty and colonialism in nineteenth-century international law. Harvard International Law Journal, 40(1), 1–80.
Anghie, A. (2007). Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Armitage, D. (2012). Foundations of modern international thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Badescu, C. G. (2012). Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect: security and human rights. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bartelson, J. (2006). The Concept of Sovereignty Revisited. The European Journal of International Law, 17(2), 463–474.CrossRef
Bartelson, J. (2008). Sovereignty before and after the linguistic turn. In R. Adler-Nissen, & T. Gammeltoft-Hansen (Eds.), Sovereignty games: instrumentalizing state sovereignty in Europe and beyond (pp. 33–45). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Beaulac, S. (2004). The Power of language in the making of international law. The word sovereignty in Bodin and Vattel and the myth of Westphalia. Leiden: Brill.CrossRef
Bellamy, R. (2003). Sovereignty, post-Sovereignty and pre-sovereignty: three models of the state, democracy and rights within the EU. In N. Walker (Ed.) Sovereignty in transition (pp. 167–190). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Brown, C. (1992). International relations theory: new normative approaches. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brunnée, J., & Toope, S. J. (2018). International law and the practice of legality: stability and change. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 49(4), 429–445.CrossRef
Buchanan, A. (2004). Justice, legitimacy, and self-determination: moral foundations for international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics. London: Macmillan.CrossRef
Bull, H., & Watson, A. (1984). The expansion of international society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Buzan, B. (2004). From international to world society?: English School theory and the social structure of globalisation. West Nyack, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Buzan, B (2017). Universal sovereignty. In C. Reus-Smit, & T. Dunne (Eds.), The globalization of international society. (pp. 227–247). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Chandler, D. (2017). Peacebuilding: the twenty years’ crisis, 1997–2017. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRef
Checkel, J. T. (1999). Norms, institutions, and national identity in contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 83–114.CrossRef
Chomsky, N. (2011). The skeleton in the closet: the responsibility to protect in history. In P. Cunliffe (Ed.), Critical perspectives on R2P: interrogating theory and practice (pp. 11–18). London: Taylor and Francis.
Clark, I. (2017). Hierarchy, hegemony, and the norms of international society. In C. Reus-Smit, & T. Dunne (Eds.), The globalization of international society. (pp. 248–264). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Cooley, A., & Spruyt, H. (2009). Contracting states: sovereign transfers in international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
Fanon, F. (2005). The wretched of the earth. New York: Grove Press.
Farrell, H., & Finnemore, M. (2017). Global institutions without a global state. In O. Fioretos (Ed.), International politics and institutions in time (pp. 144–166). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Fassbender, B. (2003). Sovereignty and Constitutionalism in International Law. In N. Walker (Ed.) Sovereignty in transition (pp. 115–144). Oxford: Hart Publishing..
Finnemore, M. (1996) National interests in international society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRef
Finnemore, M., & Goldstein, J. (2013). Puzzles about power. In M. Finnemore, & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Back to basics: state power in a contemporary world (pp. 3–17). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Foucault, M. (2004). “Society Must be defended”: lectures at the Collège de France 1975–1976. London: Verso.
Foucault, M. (1980). The history of sexuality, volume 1: an introduction. London: Penguin.
Glanville, L. (2014). Sovereignty and the responsibility to protect: a new history. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Glanville, L. (2016) Sovereignty. In A. Bellamy, & T. Dunne (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the responsibility to protect (pp. 151–166). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hathaway, O. A. (2008). International Delegation and State Sovereignty. Law and Contemporary Problems, 71(1), 115–150.
Held, D. (2006). Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heraclides, A., & Dialla, A. (2015). Eurocentrism, “civilization” and the “barbarians”. In A. Heraclides, & A. Dialla, Humanitarian intervention in the long nineteenth century: setting the precedent (pp. 31–56). Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRef
Holsti, K. J. (2006). The decline of interstate war: pondering systemic explanations. In R. Väyrynen (Ed.), The waning of major war: theories and debates (pp. 135–159). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Huysmans, J. (2003) Discussing sovereignty and transnational politics. In N. Walker (Ed.) Sovereignty in transition (pp. 209–228). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Jabri, V. (2012). The postcolonial subject: claiming politics/governing others in late modernity. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRef
Jackson, R. H. (1990). Quasi-states: sovereignty, international relations, and the third world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lake, D. A. (2013). Authority, coercion, and power in international relations. In M. Finnemore, & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Back to basics: state power in a contemporary world (pp. 55–77). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Kalmo, H. (2010). A matter of fact? The many faces of sovereignty. In H. Kalmo, & Q. Skinner (Eds.), Sovereignty in fragments: the past, present and future of a contested concept (pp. 114–131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Kalmo, H., & Skinner, Q. (2010). Introduction: a concept in fragments. In H. Kalmo, & Q. Skinner (Eds.), Sovereignty in fragments: the past, present and future of a contested concept (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Keating, M. (2003). Sovereignty and pluri-national democracy: problems in political science. In N. Walker (Ed.) Sovereignty in transition (pp. 191–208). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Keene, E. (2002). Beyond the anarchical society: Grotius, colonialism and order in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Keohane, R. O. (2013). Stephen Krasner: subversive realist. In M. Finnemore, & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Back to basics: state power in a contemporary world (pp. 28–54). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Korhonen, O., & Selkälä, T. (2016). Theorizing responsibility. In A. Orford, & F. Hoffmann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the theory of international law (pp. 844–861). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koskenniemi, M. (2002). Between impunity and show trials. In J. A. Frowein, R. Wolfrum, C. E. Philipp (Eds.), Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 6(1), 1–35.
Koskenniemi, M. (2010). Conclusion: vocabularies of sovereignty: the powers of a paradox. In H. Kalmo, & Q. Skinner (Eds.), Sovereignty in fragments: the past, present and future of a contested concept (pp. 222–242). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Kowert, P. A. (2001). The peril and promise of constructivist theory. Ritsumeikan Journal of International Studies, 13, 157–170.
Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
Krasner, S. D. (2013a). New terrains: sovereignty and alternative conceptions of power. In M. Finnemore, & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Back to basics: state power in a contemporary world (pp. 339–358). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Kratochwil, F. (2012). Leaving sovereignty behind? An inquiry into the politics of post-modernity. In R. Falk, M. Juergensmayer, V. Popovski (Eds.), Legality and Legitimacy in Global Affairs (pp. 127–148). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Lohne, K. (2020). Towards a sociology of international criminal justice. In Bergsmo, M., Klamberg, M., Lohne, K., & Mahony, C. B. (Eds.), Power in international criminal justice (pp. 47–78), Brussels: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher.
Macklem, P. (2015). The sovereignty of human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1960). Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. New York: Knopf.
Newman, S. (2005). Power and politics in poststructuralist thought: new theories of the political. New York: Routledge.
O’Hagan, J. (2017). The role of civilization in the globalization of international society. In C. Reus-Smit, & T. Dunne (Eds.), The globalization of international society. (pp. 185–203). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Orford, A. (2009). Jurisdiction without territory: from the Holy Roman Empire to the responsibility to protect. Michigan Journal of International Law, 30(3), 981–1015.
Patomäki, H. (2017). The anarchical society as futurology. In M. Carr, A. Humphreys, H. Suganami (Eds.), The anarchical society at 40: contemporary challenges and prospects (pp. 253–269). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piirimäe, P. (2010). The Westphalian myth and the idea of external sovereignty. In H. Kalmo, & Q. Skinner (Eds.), Sovereignty in fragments: the past, present and future of a contested concept (pp. 64–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Risse, T. (2015). Limited statehood: a critical perspective. In S. Leibfried, E. Huber, M. Lange, J. D. Levy, J. D. Stephens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of transformations of the state (pp. 152–168). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rousseau, J.-J. (1913). Social contract and discourses. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co.
Scheipers, S. (2010). Negotiating sovereignty and human rights: international society and the International Criminal Court. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRef
Simpson, G. (2004). Great powers and outlaw states: unequal sovereigns in the international legal order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Simpson, G. (2017). The globalization of international law. In C. Reus-Smit, & T. Dunne (Eds.), The globalization of international society. (pp. 265–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Solingen, E. (2013). Three scenes of sovereignty and power. In M. Finnemore, & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Back to basics: state power in a contemporary world (pp. 105–138). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Teitt, S. (2017). Sovereignty as responsibility. In C. Reus-Smit, & T. Dunne (Eds.), The globalization of international society (pp. 325–344). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Teschke, B. (2003). The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations, Vol. X. New York: Verso.
Vattel, E. de (1758). Droit des Gens. London: Neûchatel.
Vaughan-Williams, N. (2009). Border politics: the limits of sovereign power. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Viola, L. A., Snidal, D., Zürn, M. (2015). Sovereign (in)equality in the evolution of the international system. In S. Leibfried, E. Huber, M. Lange, J. D. Levy, J. D. Stephens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of transformations of the state (pp. 221–236). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walker, N. (2003a). Late sovereignty in the European Union. In N. Walker (Ed.) Sovereignty in transition (pp. 3–32). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Walker, N. (2008). The variety of sovereignty. In R. Adler-Nissen, & T. Gammeltoft-Hansen (Eds.), Sovereignty games: instrumentalizing state sovereignty in Europe and beyond (pp. 21–32). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Weber, C., & Biersteker, T. J. (1996). Reconstructing the analysis of sovereignty: concluding reflections and directions for future research. In T. J. Biersteker, & C. Weber (Eds.), State sovereignty as social construct (pp. 278–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Weiss, T. G., & Hubert, D. (2001). The Responsibility to Protect: Research, Bibliography, Background. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Werner, W. G. (2004). State sovereignty and international legal discourse. In I. F. Dekker, & W. G. Werner (Eds.), Governance and international legal theory (pp. 125–157). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRef
Whyte, J. (2017). Always on top: sovereignty, the “responsibility to protect” and the persistence of colonialism. In J. G. Singh, & D. D. Kim (Eds.) The Postcolonial World. (pp. 308–324). Abingdon: Routledge.
Wiener, A. (2003). Constructivism: the limits of bridging gaps. Journal of International Relations and Development, 6(3), 252–275.
Wiener, A. (2020). The concept of contestation of norms - an interview. Yearbook on Practical Philosophy in a Global Perspective (YPPGP-JPPGP), 4, 196–206.
Zimmermann, L. (2017). Global norms with a local face: rule-of-law promotion and norm translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Sovereignty and the Life-Cycle of Norms Revisited
verfasst von
Emanuela Piccolo Koskimies
Copyright-Jahr
2022
Buch
Norm Contestation, Sovereignty and (Ir)responsibility at the International Criminal Court

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85933-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-85934-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2022

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85934-3_2

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise