The Myth of “Traditional” Sovereignty

Abstract

The conventional story of sovereignty told in the discipline of International Relations (IR) tells us that there is a “traditional” or “Westphalian” meaning of sovereignty that has prevailed since the seventeenth century and that accords states the right to govern themselves free from outside interference. In recent years, the tale goes, this meaning has been challenged for the first time by notions of conditional and responsible sovereignty. This article argues that the supposed “traditional” meaning of sovereignty is not as foundational and timeless as is often assumed. Rather than a right of non‐intervention, it was the right to wage (just) war that was first conceived by political theorists to be the external corollary of the internal supremacy of the sovereign. This included the right of war to punish tyranny and rescue the oppressed. This article examines the initial absence and then the gradual emergence of the “traditional” meaning of sovereignty, arguing that it was only firmly established by international society for the first time in the twentieth century. It concludes by considering some of the implications of this revised story of sovereignty for the study of IR.

Shared Security: A Chinese Perspective of Non-Traditional Security

“…This requires rethinking global public good that provides pleasant process of re-exploring new nature of 'national sovereignty' relations. It can be called 'conditional and responsible sovereignty' (Glanville, 2013) that is shared between the states to promote and implement or properly transfer sovereignty to global governance beyond the NTS dilemma. Chinese scholar Zhang Shengjun (2013) believes that the 'responsible sovereign' should be mutual and reasonable; otherwise the national development of the country will become imbalance to achieve real 'global governance'.…”

Just war and the question of authority

“…7 It is important to note at this point that the "Westphalian understanding" which Walzer refers to as the "legalist paradigm" and employs as starting point of moral analysis should not be conceived of as an understanding that was firmly established in 1648 and has continued to regulate state interaction until the present day. Far from it, the historical record calls for a considerable amount of caution when referring to the term "Westphalian System" as such a broad conceptualisation inevitably amounts to an act of simplification (cf., e. g., Duchhardt 1999Duchhardt , 2010Glanville 2013;Lesaffer 2018;Stirk 2012). 8 It should be noted that by taking political communities as primary unity of analysis Walzer in actual fact has "much in common with classical Aristotelian approaches to the jus ad bellum, like that offered by Aquinas" (O'Driscoll 2009, p. 33).…”

Local contestation against the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo

“…Because of its importance, the concept is intensely disputed (e.g., Glanville, 2013;Krasner, 1999;Thomson, 1995) as is its supremacy over other international norms, such as human rights or non-proliferation and non-use of weapons of mass destruction (e.g., Love, 2010). What is clear is that international peacebuilding activities have a direct impact on the ability of local authorities to exercise sovereignty in their country.…”