The Endurance of Sovereignty

Werner, W.G.; Wilde, J.H. de

doi:10.1177/1354066101007003001

Cited by 94 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…given that sovereignty is a claimed status that is most asserted precisely when that status is challenged (Werner and de Wilde 2001), 1 this chapter focuses in particular on the moments when member states have used sovereignty claims either to try to limit the supranational character of integration or to establish special rights for certain states.…”

Section: Confederalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Federalism, Confederalism, and Sovereignty Claims: Understanding the Democracy Game in the European Union

Glencross¹

2008

Sovereignty Games

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Confederalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Federalism, Confederalism, and Sovereignty Claims: Understanding the Democracy Game in the European Union

Glencross¹

2008

Sovereignty Games

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…On the contrary, for local political elites globalisation and the erosion of state sovereignty present the possibility that problems of national economic management and development will be compounded as new institutional structures and actors steadily assume responsibility for, or a capacity to influence, crucial areas of policy and decision-making. And yet defenders of sovereignty's continuing empirical presence and theoretical utility argue that threats to state autonomy actually make sovereignty more important rather than less (see, for example, Werner and de Wilde 2001). This paper examines the status of sovereignty in contemporary Southeast Asia and suggests that there is little evidence to support such claims in that part of the world.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Sovereignty under siege: Globalisation and the state in Southeast Asia

Beeson¹

2003

Third World Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In both the theory and practice of international relations, sovereignty has assumed a paramount place. Not only is the notion of sovereignty a central pillar of contemporary scholarship, but political elites throughout the world have frequently acted in ways that appeared consciously intended to consolidate its place in domestic and international affairs; hardly surprising, given that the position and power of such elites, especially in the developing world, was partly dependent on the continuity of this singular concept. And yet, for all sovereignty's undoubted continuing importance and the crucial historical role it has assumed for several centuries, its empirical basis and thus its theoretical standing looks less certain than ever before. A number of increasingly influential processes -conveniently subsumed under the rubric of 'globalisation' -are systematically undermining the foundations of national sovereignty and raising questions about the capacity of policymakers to act autonomously or effectively within national jurisdictions. The erosion of a discrete and relatively autonomous domestic sphere also presents major theoretical challenge. The key question that emerges from a consideration of sovereignty's place in an era characterised by process of globalisation is whether, at a time when sovereignty is clearly either being transformed or eroded, it any longer makes sense to conceive of national political and policy-making processes as if they were sovereign and autonomous? This paper will argue that it does not. While the notion of sovereignty remains a useful ideal-type and indicative of important potential qualities of states, it frequently gives a highly misleading picture of the reality of state power as it is currently realised across a range of highly differentiated national jurisdictions. Whatever sovereignty is taken to be, one would intuitively expect the United States to have a qualitatively and quantitatively different capacity to realise it than say, Laos. Revealingly, the conduct of the Vietnam War -in which these countries played conspicuous parts -reminds us that powerful countries have the capacity to fundamentally comprise the sovereignty of less powerful ones. Dramatic as such endlessly extendable examples may be, they are hardly unprecedented. By contrast, the challenge presented to national sovereignty by the multifaceted forces of globalisation is not simply novel, it is more insidious, relentless, and capable of affecting even the most powerful economies and sophisticated polities. Indeed, one of the great ironies of globalisation is that the those states that preside over the most developed economies and have the greatest capacity to influence the international system are helping to create an international order that is ultimately inimical to their own state sovereignty.

show abstract

“…Among these collectives, sovereign states play a dominant role. Even though economic globalisation and political integration have changed the meaning of sovereignty, its endurance as a pivotal concept in politics is striking (Werner and De Wilde, 2001;Aalberts, 2006), and it comes as no surprise that the human security literature focuses in practice mainly on state behaviour.…”

Section: Jaap De Wildementioning

confidence: 99%

The Viability of Human Security

Wilde¹,

Boer²

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Endurance of Sovereignty

Cited by 94 publications

References 8 publications

Federalism, Confederalism, and Sovereignty Claims: Understanding the Democracy Game in the European Union

Federalism, Confederalism, and Sovereignty Claims: Understanding the Democracy Game in the European Union

Sovereignty under siege: Globalisation and the state in Southeast Asia

The Viability of Human Security

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About