Constructing Sovereignty between Politics and Law

Greenland’s Arctic advantage: Articulations, acts and appearances of sovereignty games

“…Following this tradition, sovereignty is perceived as a claim to authority, while ‘sovereignty games’ is intended as a heuristic device used analytically to bring attention to the rules, players and moves of the game (cf. Aalberts, 2012: 94; Adler-Nissen and Gammeltoft-Hansen, 2008: 7). What is particularly central to postcolonial cases of sovereignty games is whether the former colony should be awarded any subjectivity as a player in the game and, through this, get the very possibility of articulating authority (Adler-Nissen and Gad, 2014: 20).…”

“…Central to this analogy is that the common understanding between the involved actors depends on a system of shared rules: the constitutive rule defining the game is the traditional either/or understanding of sovereignty, while regulative rules may evolve as the game develops (cf. Aalberts, 2012: 92–95), hence potentially changing the criteria for participation in international agreements and modifying the roles of the players (Adler-Nissen and Gad, 2014: 18).…”

“…The concept of sovereignty games has been further refined by, most notably, Karin M. Fierke and Michael Nicholson (2001), Tanja Aalberts (2004, 2010, 2012) and Rebecca Adler-Nissen together with Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen (2008) and Ulrik Pram Gad (2013, 2014), who have demonstrated how sovereignty should not only be perceived as a purely spatially bounded concept, but also as defining functionality and identity of both states and non-states. Following this tradition, sovereignty is perceived as a claim to authority, while ‘sovereignty games’ is intended as a heuristic device used analytically to bring attention to the rules, players and moves of the game (cf.…”

EU employment governance revisited

“…Cf. Dehousse (2011); see also Aalberts (2004). 214 This is further reflected in concerns about an increasing misalignment between the Union's constitutional order, as cast within the confines of the Lisbon Treaty, and its governance architecture, to recognise that the true source of the problem lies somewhere else.…”

“…Cf. Büttgen (2013); see also Aalberts (2004). 156 Nonetheless, insights from that branch of the Europeanisation literature will still be helpful to fine-tune -where appropriate -the design of the subsequent analysis.…”