The Sovereign Exceptions: Colonization and the Foundation of Society

Abstract

This article seeks to both re-examine the legal and political basis for the denial of Aboriginal `sovereignty' in Australia and to question the universality of the discourse of sovereignty itself. Drawing on Foucault's recently translated lectures from the Collège de France, Society Must Be Defended, it endeavours to show how the discourse of territorial sovereignty was mobilized in the colonial context (as a myth of foundation) to shore up the position of the British Crown and extinguish alternative conceptions of politics and justice. The article argues that the institutionalization of British sovereignty in Australia does not represent the beginning of the reign of law (more or less just), but a partisan victory — the victory of a modern western conception of politics over a pre-existing system of Indigenous self-governance. On the basis of this analysis, it suggests that the problem that arises in the colonial context is not simply that the sovereign assumes an exceptional position in relation to the law. It is also (and possibly more importantly) that government becomes equated with sovereignty in a way that automatically discounts forms of politics not based on the principle of territoriality.

Between Disagreement and Consensus: Unravelling the Democratic Paradox

“…Whilst Indigenous politics frequently focuses on practical issues of under-privilege, inequality and so forth, a more fundamental variant points to the problematic implications of the original imposition of English law and the invalidity of the legal procedures and principles that have been invoked since that time. See also Muldoon (2006). BETWEEN DISAGREEMENT AND CONSENSUS 155 of consensus as the provider of long-term legitimacy to a political decision.…”

Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Politics of Reconciliation: The Constituent Power of the Aboriginal Embassy in Australia

“…(19) It is only because they havè nowhere else to live' that they are excluded from the general prohibition and excused of trespass. However the naming of the site as the Aboriginal Embassy marks a disidentification with this depoliticized, abject Aboriginal who survives in the constituted order only in the form of an exception (see Muldoon, 2008). By asserting sovereignty, the ambassadors claimed full possession over land in which the constituted power permits them nothing more than a usufructory right.…”

Theorizing Borders in a ‘Borderless World’: Globalization, Territory and Identity

“…The states in which Islamic Radicalism, in particular, are most broadly propagated formed under rather undemocratic circumstances following World War One. Given this reality, one might extend this argument to suggest that broader tensions in the international system are partially attributable to the undemocratic formation of most borders (Muldoon 2008).…”