In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 2 Sovereignty, Statehood, and Nationalism SOVEREIGNTYAND STATEHOOD "Sovereignty" and the accompanying corollary of the equality of states have been termed "the basic constitutional doctrine of the law of nation ~."*~ Sovereignty is the cornerstone of international rhetoric about state independence and freedom of action, and the most common response to initiatives which seek to limit a state's action in any way is that such initiatives constitute an impermissible limitation on that state's ~overeignty.~' At the same time, however, the content of the term "sovereignty" is at best murky, whatever its emotional appeal. "[Tlhere exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon."26 [Flor the practical purposes of the international lawyer sovereignty is not a metaphysical concept, nor is it part of the essence of statehood; it is merely a term which designates an aggregate of particular and very extensive claims that states habitually make for themselves in their relations with other states. To the extent that sovereignty has come to imply that there is something inherent in 24 Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3d. ed. 1979) at 287. 25 See, e.g., Alan James, Sovereign Statehood (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986) at 1. 26 L. F. E. Oppenheim, 1International Law (London: Longman, 2 vols. 1905,1906) at 103. Chapter 2 Sovereignty, Statehood, and Nationalism SOVEREIGNTY AND STATEHOOD "Sovereignty" and the accompanying corollary of the equality of states have been termed "the basic constitutional doctrine of the law of nations . ,,24 Sovereignty is the cornerstone of international rhetoric about state independence and freedom of action, and the most common response to initiatives which seek to limit a state's action in any way is that such initiatives constitute an impermissible limitation on that state's sovereignty.25 At the same time, however, the content of the term "sovereignty" is at best murky, whatever its emotional appeal. "[T]here exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon. ,,26 [F]or the practical purposes of the international lawyer sovereignty is not a metaphysical concept, nor is it part of the essence of statehood; it is merely a term which designates an aggregate of particular and very extensive claims that states habitually make for themselves in their relations with other states. To the extent that sovereignty has come to imply that there is something inherent in 24 Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3d. ed. 1979) at 287. 25 See, e.g., Alan James, Sovereign Statehood (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986) at 1. 26 L. F. E. Oppenheim, 1 International Law (London: Longman, 2 vols. 1905,1906) at 103. Sovereignty, Statehood, and Nationalism 15 the nature of states that makes it impossible for them to be subjected to law, it is a false doctrine which the facts of international relations do not support." At least part of the difficulty in defining sovereignty lies in the fact that sovereignty traces its historical roots to sovereigns, in whose hands "absolute7' spiritual and temporal power rested. Modern discussions of sovereignty have often addressed the question of whether one can speak of "absolute sovereignty" for states, a power above international law. Few, if any, would support such a view today, and the very concept of the equality of states at least implies that the sovereign rights of each state are limited by the equally sovereign rights of others.28 " '[Slovereignty' in its original sense of 'supreme power' is not merely an absurdity but an impossibility in a world of States which pride themselves upon their independence from each other and concede to each other a status of equality before the law."'" Many writers essentially equate sovereignty with independence, the fundamental authority of a state to exercise its powers without being subservient to any outside authority.'" Indeed, there is much to recommend the criterion of independence as the only one relevant in determining whether or not a state is fully sovereign. However, it is important to bear in mind that it is the authority or ability of a state to determine its relationship with...

Share