Jennifer M. Welsh (ed.)
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- April 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780199267217
- eISBN:
- 9780191601118
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199267219.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
The issue of humanitarian intervention has generated one of the most heated debates in international relations over the past decade, for both theorists and practitioners. At its heart is the alleged ...
More
The issue of humanitarian intervention has generated one of the most heated debates in international relations over the past decade, for both theorists and practitioners. At its heart is the alleged tension between the principle of state sovereignty, and the evolving norms related to individual human rights. This edited collection examines the challenges to international society posed by humanitarian intervention in a post-September 11th world. It brings scholars of law, philosophy, and international relations together with those who have actively engaged in cases of intervention, in order to examine the legitimacy and consequences of the use of military force for humanitarian purposes. The book demonstrates why humanitarian intervention continues to be a controversial question not only for the United Nations but also for Western states and humanitarian organisations.Less
The issue of humanitarian intervention has generated one of the most heated debates in international relations over the past decade, for both theorists and practitioners. At its heart is the alleged tension between the principle of state sovereignty, and the evolving norms related to individual human rights. This edited collection examines the challenges to international society posed by humanitarian intervention in a post-September 11th world. It brings scholars of law, philosophy, and international relations together with those who have actively engaged in cases of intervention, in order to examine the legitimacy and consequences of the use of military force for humanitarian purposes. The book demonstrates why humanitarian intervention continues to be a controversial question not only for the United Nations but also for Western states and humanitarian organisations.
Jennifer M. Welsh
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- April 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780199267217
- eISBN:
- 9780191601118
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199267219.003.0004
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
Outlines and evaluates the political, legal, and ethical objections to humanitarian intervention. In so doing, it questions not only whether the doctrine of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ has taken ...
More
Outlines and evaluates the political, legal, and ethical objections to humanitarian intervention. In so doing, it questions not only whether the doctrine of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ has taken hold in international society, but also whether it should – particularly in the form suggested by Western states. The author argues that the ethical position of pluralism – as articulated by non-Western states – represents the most compelling case against humanitarian intervention, by emphasizing the impact on international society of relaxing the norm of non-intervention. Despite these pluralist objections, military intervention in cases of supreme humanitarian emergency can be defended on moral grounds, provided the intervention meets certain tests of legitimacy. Given the unintended consequences of military action, the author also suggests that more attention should be paid to the non-military means of operationalizing ‘sovereignty as responsibility’.Less
Outlines and evaluates the political, legal, and ethical objections to humanitarian intervention. In so doing, it questions not only whether the doctrine of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ has taken hold in international society, but also whether it should – particularly in the form suggested by Western states. The author argues that the ethical position of pluralism – as articulated by non-Western states – represents the most compelling case against humanitarian intervention, by emphasizing the impact on international society of relaxing the norm of non-intervention. Despite these pluralist objections, military intervention in cases of supreme humanitarian emergency can be defended on moral grounds, provided the intervention meets certain tests of legitimacy. Given the unintended consequences of military action, the author also suggests that more attention should be paid to the non-military means of operationalizing ‘sovereignty as responsibility’.
James Mayall
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- April 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780199267217
- eISBN:
- 9780191601118
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199267219.003.0007
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
After the end of the Cold War, many in the West viewed Africa as a testing ground for the solidarist argument that sovereignty was no longer an absolute principle and that the international community ...
More
After the end of the Cold War, many in the West viewed Africa as a testing ground for the solidarist argument that sovereignty was no longer an absolute principle and that the international community could intervene to protect individual from human rights violations. This argument seems particularly challenging in the African context, given the continental leadership’s historic commitment to territorial integrity and non-intervention. However, as the author shows, African leaders from 1945 to 1990 were largely upholding the pluralist international norms of the time. In other words, the case for humanitarian intervention – and the problems posed by the practice – are not region-specific. The early 1990s, during which the United Nations intervened in Somalia, seemed to confirm the solidarist position. However, the failure to intervene in Rwanda in 1994, and the more recent experience of interventions in Sierra Leone, present a more mixed picture. Humanitarian intervention remains a controversial practice because of its coercive means, and its tendency to attribute blame or responsibility in what are often very complex civil conflicts.Less
After the end of the Cold War, many in the West viewed Africa as a testing ground for the solidarist argument that sovereignty was no longer an absolute principle and that the international community could intervene to protect individual from human rights violations. This argument seems particularly challenging in the African context, given the continental leadership’s historic commitment to territorial integrity and non-intervention. However, as the author shows, African leaders from 1945 to 1990 were largely upholding the pluralist international norms of the time. In other words, the case for humanitarian intervention – and the problems posed by the practice – are not region-specific. The early 1990s, during which the United Nations intervened in Somalia, seemed to confirm the solidarist position. However, the failure to intervene in Rwanda in 1994, and the more recent experience of interventions in Sierra Leone, present a more mixed picture. Humanitarian intervention remains a controversial practice because of its coercive means, and its tendency to attribute blame or responsibility in what are often very complex civil conflicts.
Jennifer M. Welsh
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- April 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780199267217
- eISBN:
- 9780191601118
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199267219.003.0010
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
This concluding chapter assesses the debate over humanitarian intervention in the light of the events of September 11, 2001. On the one hand, it can be argued that 9/11 has reversed the momentum ...
More
This concluding chapter assesses the debate over humanitarian intervention in the light of the events of September 11, 2001. On the one hand, it can be argued that 9/11 has reversed the momentum behind the norm of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’. In the course of waging the war on terrorism, the powers of sovereign states have been increased and the willingness of Western states to criticize the treatment of civilians within other sovereign jurisdictions appears to have weakened. On the other, there are three reasons why humanitarian intervention – and the issues associated with it – will continue to preoccupy scholars and statesmen in a post-September 11th world. First, the terrorist attacks of 2001 have reinforced the view that instability within or collapse of a state anywhere in the world can have implications that reach far wider than that particular region. Second, the debate about what constraints should be placed on the use of force – particularly those related to proper authority – are as relevant for the ‘war on terror’ as they are for humanitarian intervention. Finally, as the missions in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 have shown, humanitarian rationale are all-important in justifying the use of force in international society, even when other motives are at work.Less
This concluding chapter assesses the debate over humanitarian intervention in the light of the events of September 11, 2001. On the one hand, it can be argued that 9/11 has reversed the momentum behind the norm of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’. In the course of waging the war on terrorism, the powers of sovereign states have been increased and the willingness of Western states to criticize the treatment of civilians within other sovereign jurisdictions appears to have weakened. On the other, there are three reasons why humanitarian intervention – and the issues associated with it – will continue to preoccupy scholars and statesmen in a post-September 11th world. First, the terrorist attacks of 2001 have reinforced the view that instability within or collapse of a state anywhere in the world can have implications that reach far wider than that particular region. Second, the debate about what constraints should be placed on the use of force – particularly those related to proper authority – are as relevant for the ‘war on terror’ as they are for humanitarian intervention. Finally, as the missions in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 have shown, humanitarian rationale are all-important in justifying the use of force in international society, even when other motives are at work.
David G. Lewis
- Published in print:
- 2020
- Published Online:
- September 2020
- ISBN:
- 9781474454766
- eISBN:
- 9781474480611
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9781474454766.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
In this book, David Lewis offers an original interpretation of the Russian political system that developed under Vladimir Putin as a new form of authoritarianism. Lewis argues that the Putinist ...
More
In this book, David Lewis offers an original interpretation of the Russian political system that developed under Vladimir Putin as a new form of authoritarianism. Lewis argues that the Putinist worldview challenged liberal beliefs about concepts such as sovereignty, the state, and democracy, and instead promoted a set of illiberal norms and ideas that contributed to a global backlash against liberal politics. The book uses the political thought of Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurist and anti-liberal political theorist, to explore political developments in Russia in the first two decades of the 21st century. Case-studies examine how ideas of sovereign decision-making and exceptionality undermined the rule of law in Russia, producing a system of politicised, selective justice. A striving for national unity degenerated into a search for external and internal enemies. Russia’s democratic institutions were gradually hollowed out as Russia developed a form of “illiberal democracy”. The second part of the book uses Schmitt’s theories of international relations to study Russian foreign policy, including a detailed case-study of the annexation of Crimea, a new interpretation of Russia’s search for a sphere of influence in the former Soviet space, and a study of messianic thinking in Russian policy in the Middle East. The book is a detailed study of contemporary Russian politics, but also draws parallels between developments in Russia and the global growth of right-wing populism and authoritarianism.Less
In this book, David Lewis offers an original interpretation of the Russian political system that developed under Vladimir Putin as a new form of authoritarianism. Lewis argues that the Putinist worldview challenged liberal beliefs about concepts such as sovereignty, the state, and democracy, and instead promoted a set of illiberal norms and ideas that contributed to a global backlash against liberal politics. The book uses the political thought of Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurist and anti-liberal political theorist, to explore political developments in Russia in the first two decades of the 21st century. Case-studies examine how ideas of sovereign decision-making and exceptionality undermined the rule of law in Russia, producing a system of politicised, selective justice. A striving for national unity degenerated into a search for external and internal enemies. Russia’s democratic institutions were gradually hollowed out as Russia developed a form of “illiberal democracy”. The second part of the book uses Schmitt’s theories of international relations to study Russian foreign policy, including a detailed case-study of the annexation of Crimea, a new interpretation of Russia’s search for a sphere of influence in the former Soviet space, and a study of messianic thinking in Russian policy in the Middle East. The book is a detailed study of contemporary Russian politics, but also draws parallels between developments in Russia and the global growth of right-wing populism and authoritarianism.
See Seng Tan
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- May 2020
- ISBN:
- 9781529200720
- eISBN:
- 9781529200751
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Policy Press
- DOI:
- 10.1332/policypress/9781529200720.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
Are the sovereign states of Southeast Asia responsible actors that care and provide for their own as well as their neighbours? Do they act hospitably towards each other? This book examines an ...
More
Are the sovereign states of Southeast Asia responsible actors that care and provide for their own as well as their neighbours? Do they act hospitably towards each other? This book examines an embryonic ‘ethos’ of intraregional responsibility among Southeast Asian countries. Unevenly distributed and more apparent in some states than others, the ethic has been expressed as acts of hospitality shown to victims of earthquakes, typhoons and other natural disasters, and increasingly in conflict situations. This sovereign responsibility to provide, or the ‘R2Provide’ as this book calls it, has manifested as forms of assistance – mediated through ASEAN but also bilaterally – given to neighbours coping with economic difficulties, problems of militancy and terrorism and the like. But unlike the global norm of the responsibility to protect (R2P), the R2Provide is noninterventionist in practice. More indirectly, it has also materialised as a mutual reliance by regional states on pacific and increasingly rules-based approaches to manage and, where feasible, resolve their disputes with one another. The contention is not that Southeast Asians have never, whether by commission or omission, behaved irresponsibly or unethically – the region’s belated and deficient response to the Rohingya refugee crisis is but one of many tragic examples – but that they are misrepresented as void of responsible conduct. By way of Emmanuel Levinas’ concept of ‘responsibility for the other’, the book provides an ethical-theoretical explanation for the R2Provide and sovereign responsibility in Southeast Asia.Less
Are the sovereign states of Southeast Asia responsible actors that care and provide for their own as well as their neighbours? Do they act hospitably towards each other? This book examines an embryonic ‘ethos’ of intraregional responsibility among Southeast Asian countries. Unevenly distributed and more apparent in some states than others, the ethic has been expressed as acts of hospitality shown to victims of earthquakes, typhoons and other natural disasters, and increasingly in conflict situations. This sovereign responsibility to provide, or the ‘R2Provide’ as this book calls it, has manifested as forms of assistance – mediated through ASEAN but also bilaterally – given to neighbours coping with economic difficulties, problems of militancy and terrorism and the like. But unlike the global norm of the responsibility to protect (R2P), the R2Provide is noninterventionist in practice. More indirectly, it has also materialised as a mutual reliance by regional states on pacific and increasingly rules-based approaches to manage and, where feasible, resolve their disputes with one another. The contention is not that Southeast Asians have never, whether by commission or omission, behaved irresponsibly or unethically – the region’s belated and deficient response to the Rohingya refugee crisis is but one of many tragic examples – but that they are misrepresented as void of responsible conduct. By way of Emmanuel Levinas’ concept of ‘responsibility for the other’, the book provides an ethical-theoretical explanation for the R2Provide and sovereign responsibility in Southeast Asia.
Laura Southgate
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- January 2020
- ISBN:
- 9781529202205
- eISBN:
- 9781529202243
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Policy Press
- DOI:
- 10.1332/policypress/9781529202205.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Asian Politics
This book investigates the history of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) stance on external intervention in regional affairs. It asks when has ASEAN state resistance to sovereignty ...
More
This book investigates the history of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) stance on external intervention in regional affairs. It asks when has ASEAN state resistance to sovereignty challenges succeeded, and when have they failed? ASEAN’s history of (non)resistance is understood in terms of a realist theoretical logic, focusing on the relationship between an ASEAN ‘vanguard state’ and selected external powers. A ‘vanguard state’ is defined as an ASEAN state that comes to the fore of the Association when it has vital interests at stake that it wishes to pursue. Whilst a state’s interests may vary, vital interests relate to state survival and the preservation of state sovereignty. Once a vanguard state has come to prominence, it will perform two major functions, which reflect an external balancing logic. The vanguard state will actively seek out an external power whose interests align with its own, and will seek to portray a united ASEAN front in support of its interests. Using case study analysis and drawing on a large amount of previously unanalysed material, this book contends that when an ASEAN vanguard state has interests that converge with those of an external power, it has an active and substantial role in resisting sovereignty violation.Less
This book investigates the history of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) stance on external intervention in regional affairs. It asks when has ASEAN state resistance to sovereignty challenges succeeded, and when have they failed? ASEAN’s history of (non)resistance is understood in terms of a realist theoretical logic, focusing on the relationship between an ASEAN ‘vanguard state’ and selected external powers. A ‘vanguard state’ is defined as an ASEAN state that comes to the fore of the Association when it has vital interests at stake that it wishes to pursue. Whilst a state’s interests may vary, vital interests relate to state survival and the preservation of state sovereignty. Once a vanguard state has come to prominence, it will perform two major functions, which reflect an external balancing logic. The vanguard state will actively seek out an external power whose interests align with its own, and will seek to portray a united ASEAN front in support of its interests. Using case study analysis and drawing on a large amount of previously unanalysed material, this book contends that when an ASEAN vanguard state has interests that converge with those of an external power, it has an active and substantial role in resisting sovereignty violation.
Doyeeta Majumder
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- May 2020
- ISBN:
- 9781786941688
- eISBN:
- 9781789623260
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Liverpool University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3828/liverpool/9781786941688.001.0001
- Subject:
- Literature, 16th-century and Renaissance Literature
This book examines the fraught relationship between the sixteenth-century formulations of the theories of sovereign violence, tyranny and usurpation and the manifestations of these ideas on the ...
More
This book examines the fraught relationship between the sixteenth-century formulations of the theories of sovereign violence, tyranny and usurpation and the manifestations of these ideas on the contemporary English stage. It will attempt to trace an evolution of the poetics of English and Scottish political drama through the early, middle, and late decades of the sixteenth-century in conjunction with developments in the political thought of the century, linking theatre and politics through the representations of the problematic figure of the usurper or, in Machiavellian terms, the ‘New Prince’. While the early Tudor morality plays are concerned with the legitimate monarch who becomes a tyrant, the later historical and tragic drama of the century foregrounds the figure of the illegitimate monarch who is a tyrant by default. On the one hand the sudden proliferation of usurpation plots in Elizabethan drama and the transition from the legitimate tyrant to the usurper tyrant is linked to the dramaturgical shift from the allegorical morality play tradition to later history plays and tragedies, and on the other it is reflective of a poetic turn in political thought which impelled political writers to conceive of the state and sovereignty as a product of human ‘poiesis’, independent of transcendental legitimization. The poetics of political drama and the emergence of the idea of ‘poiesis’ in the political context merge in the figure of the nuove principe: the prince without dynastic claims who creates his sovereignty by dint of his own ‘virtu’ and through an act of law-making violence.Less
This book examines the fraught relationship between the sixteenth-century formulations of the theories of sovereign violence, tyranny and usurpation and the manifestations of these ideas on the contemporary English stage. It will attempt to trace an evolution of the poetics of English and Scottish political drama through the early, middle, and late decades of the sixteenth-century in conjunction with developments in the political thought of the century, linking theatre and politics through the representations of the problematic figure of the usurper or, in Machiavellian terms, the ‘New Prince’. While the early Tudor morality plays are concerned with the legitimate monarch who becomes a tyrant, the later historical and tragic drama of the century foregrounds the figure of the illegitimate monarch who is a tyrant by default. On the one hand the sudden proliferation of usurpation plots in Elizabethan drama and the transition from the legitimate tyrant to the usurper tyrant is linked to the dramaturgical shift from the allegorical morality play tradition to later history plays and tragedies, and on the other it is reflective of a poetic turn in political thought which impelled political writers to conceive of the state and sovereignty as a product of human ‘poiesis’, independent of transcendental legitimization. The poetics of political drama and the emergence of the idea of ‘poiesis’ in the political context merge in the figure of the nuove principe: the prince without dynastic claims who creates his sovereignty by dint of his own ‘virtu’ and through an act of law-making violence.
Christopher Bryan
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- July 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780195183344
- eISBN:
- 9780199835584
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195183347.003.0002
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
According to biblical and prophetic tradition, God wills that there shall be empires and superpowers: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia are all, at different times, said to rule by God’s mandate, ...
More
According to biblical and prophetic tradition, God wills that there shall be empires and superpowers: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia are all, at different times, said to rule by God’s mandate, but also within the limits of God’s sovereignty. That sovereignty is concerned for the well-being of Israel, but also for justice and courtesy among all the nations. Empires that flout God’s sovereignty bring destruction upon themselves, for not even a superpower can long defy God. Where, however, there is acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty, there may (as in the case of Persia) be cooperation between Israel and Empire. Israel itself, as an imperial power (as it was under David and Solomon), is subject to the same conditions: the Israelite king may no more absolutize himself or his power than may a pagan emperor.Less
According to biblical and prophetic tradition, God wills that there shall be empires and superpowers: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia are all, at different times, said to rule by God’s mandate, but also within the limits of God’s sovereignty. That sovereignty is concerned for the well-being of Israel, but also for justice and courtesy among all the nations. Empires that flout God’s sovereignty bring destruction upon themselves, for not even a superpower can long defy God. Where, however, there is acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty, there may (as in the case of Persia) be cooperation between Israel and Empire. Israel itself, as an imperial power (as it was under David and Solomon), is subject to the same conditions: the Israelite king may no more absolutize himself or his power than may a pagan emperor.
Richard Langhorne
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- January 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780197263020
- eISBN:
- 9780191734199
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- British Academy
- DOI:
- 10.5871/bacad/9780197263020.003.0013
- Subject:
- History, Historiography
Sir Harry Hinsley was a cryptanalyst, an historian and an effective university administrator. He was fascinated by the progression of peace and war since states had become the most common form of ...
More
Sir Harry Hinsley was a cryptanalyst, an historian and an effective university administrator. He was fascinated by the progression of peace and war since states had become the most common form of political organisation among human societies, and their near universality had induced the creation of an international system among them. Here are to be found the main thrusts of his three core books: Power and the Pursuit of Peace (CUP, 1963), Sovereignty (Watts, 1966), and Nationalism and the International System. Of these, Power and the Pursuit of Peace is the most substantial, Sovereignty the most important and original of his writings, while Nationalism represents a further working out of a very important theme from Power and the Pursuit of Peace.Less
Sir Harry Hinsley was a cryptanalyst, an historian and an effective university administrator. He was fascinated by the progression of peace and war since states had become the most common form of political organisation among human societies, and their near universality had induced the creation of an international system among them. Here are to be found the main thrusts of his three core books: Power and the Pursuit of Peace (CUP, 1963), Sovereignty (Watts, 1966), and Nationalism and the International System. Of these, Power and the Pursuit of Peace is the most substantial, Sovereignty the most important and original of his writings, while Nationalism represents a further working out of a very important theme from Power and the Pursuit of Peace.
Jason Edward Black
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2016
- ISBN:
- 9781628461961
- eISBN:
- 9781626744899
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University Press of Mississippi
- DOI:
- 10.14325/mississippi/9781628461961.003.0005
- Subject:
- History, American History: 19th Century
Chapter Four addresses colonizing governmental discourses surrounding the Dawes Act of 1887 and the identity constructions that arose as the nation edged ever closer to removed Native communities in ...
More
Chapter Four addresses colonizing governmental discourses surrounding the Dawes Act of 1887 and the identity constructions that arose as the nation edged ever closer to removed Native communities in the West. The chapter, particularly, argues that the U.S. government transformed the paternal relationship it employed in the 1830s to exclude Natives into a rhetorical strategy of assimilation. In the process, American Indians were constituted as dependent and yet civilized enough for agricultural production as a key contribution to the U.S. nation-state. This illustrated a commodification of Native communities through republicanism. And, the government constructed itself as a republican father that would train American Indians for possible citizenship through the allotment policy’s insistence on yeoman farming. The late nineteenth century promises of citizenship pointed to the possibility that American Indians could exist as equals within the civis. However, the colonizing Dawes Act continued to distance American Indians from the U.S. nation. This conflation of assimilation and segregation underscored the identity duality of U.S. nationalism. But, the possibility that citizenship was feasible acted as a decolonial rupture that American Indians worked through to petition for both U.S. citizenship and separate sovereignty.Less
Chapter Four addresses colonizing governmental discourses surrounding the Dawes Act of 1887 and the identity constructions that arose as the nation edged ever closer to removed Native communities in the West. The chapter, particularly, argues that the U.S. government transformed the paternal relationship it employed in the 1830s to exclude Natives into a rhetorical strategy of assimilation. In the process, American Indians were constituted as dependent and yet civilized enough for agricultural production as a key contribution to the U.S. nation-state. This illustrated a commodification of Native communities through republicanism. And, the government constructed itself as a republican father that would train American Indians for possible citizenship through the allotment policy’s insistence on yeoman farming. The late nineteenth century promises of citizenship pointed to the possibility that American Indians could exist as equals within the civis. However, the colonizing Dawes Act continued to distance American Indians from the U.S. nation. This conflation of assimilation and segregation underscored the identity duality of U.S. nationalism. But, the possibility that citizenship was feasible acted as a decolonial rupture that American Indians worked through to petition for both U.S. citizenship and separate sovereignty.
Jason Edward Black
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2016
- ISBN:
- 9781628461961
- eISBN:
- 9781626744899
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University Press of Mississippi
- DOI:
- 10.14325/mississippi/9781628461961.003.0006
- Subject:
- History, American History: 19th Century
Chapter Five analyzes the fashion in which American Indians decolonially challenged the allotment policy, and did so in part by restructuring their dependent – and the government’s self-professed ...
More
Chapter Five analyzes the fashion in which American Indians decolonially challenged the allotment policy, and did so in part by restructuring their dependent – and the government’s self-professed paternal and controlling – identities codified in the Dawes Act. American Indians crafted their rebukes to the policy through petitions, memorials, biographical and literary works and public speeches that served to interrogate the identity duality that was entrenched in the allotment scheme. Specifically, the chapter argues that American Indians gave voice to this dualism and these identity constructions, signifying both the hybrid relationship between the U.S. government and Native communities and the decolonizing power of indigenous voice in exposing the government’s contradictions. That is, Dawes era Native discourses pierced the mythos of republicanism and paternalism that the government imbricated, thus revealing the incongruence of the allotment policy’s promises of citizenship combined with further exclusion.Less
Chapter Five analyzes the fashion in which American Indians decolonially challenged the allotment policy, and did so in part by restructuring their dependent – and the government’s self-professed paternal and controlling – identities codified in the Dawes Act. American Indians crafted their rebukes to the policy through petitions, memorials, biographical and literary works and public speeches that served to interrogate the identity duality that was entrenched in the allotment scheme. Specifically, the chapter argues that American Indians gave voice to this dualism and these identity constructions, signifying both the hybrid relationship between the U.S. government and Native communities and the decolonizing power of indigenous voice in exposing the government’s contradictions. That is, Dawes era Native discourses pierced the mythos of republicanism and paternalism that the government imbricated, thus revealing the incongruence of the allotment policy’s promises of citizenship combined with further exclusion.
Jason Edward Black
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2016
- ISBN:
- 9781628461961
- eISBN:
- 9781626744899
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University Press of Mississippi
- DOI:
- 10.14325/mississippi/9781628461961.003.0007
- Subject:
- History, American History: 19th Century
The conclusion considers the exchanges of governmental and American Indian discourses in the first third of the twentieth century in a colonizing context. Here, the passage of the Indian Citizenship ...
More
The conclusion considers the exchanges of governmental and American Indian discourses in the first third of the twentieth century in a colonizing context. Here, the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and the Indian New Deal of 1934 culminated from a merging of governmental and indigenous voices, thereby exhibiting a hybridity present in the residues of their nineteenth century exchanges. Both of the outwardly emancipating acts were symbolic of the decolonizing power of Native agency over the course of the removal and allotment eras. Seemingly, integrationist American Indians would achieve the U.S. citizenship they had striven for throughout the allotment era through the Indian Citizenship Act. Likewise, separatist Natives would attain independence through the Indian New Deal, which allowed for tribal restructuring. However, the acts also pointed to the ways that the U.S. government retained its colonial control over American Indians by reifying the identity duality of U.S. nationalism. That is, the acts granted American Indian communities a controlled citizenship and a controlled sovereignty. In the end, both U.S. governmental and American Indian voices were blended into the resulting twin legislation that capped the cultural exchanges extant in nineteenth century U.S.-Native relations.Less
The conclusion considers the exchanges of governmental and American Indian discourses in the first third of the twentieth century in a colonizing context. Here, the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and the Indian New Deal of 1934 culminated from a merging of governmental and indigenous voices, thereby exhibiting a hybridity present in the residues of their nineteenth century exchanges. Both of the outwardly emancipating acts were symbolic of the decolonizing power of Native agency over the course of the removal and allotment eras. Seemingly, integrationist American Indians would achieve the U.S. citizenship they had striven for throughout the allotment era through the Indian Citizenship Act. Likewise, separatist Natives would attain independence through the Indian New Deal, which allowed for tribal restructuring. However, the acts also pointed to the ways that the U.S. government retained its colonial control over American Indians by reifying the identity duality of U.S. nationalism. That is, the acts granted American Indian communities a controlled citizenship and a controlled sovereignty. In the end, both U.S. governmental and American Indian voices were blended into the resulting twin legislation that capped the cultural exchanges extant in nineteenth century U.S.-Native relations.
Neal Curtis
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- May 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780719085048
- eISBN:
- 9781526104434
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Manchester University Press
- DOI:
- 10.7228/manchester/9780719085048.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, UK Politics
This book explores the concept of sovereignty through an analysis of superhero comics. Sovereignty is traditionally understood to be the legitimate monopoly on the use of force in a given territory. ...
More
This book explores the concept of sovereignty through an analysis of superhero comics. Sovereignty is traditionally understood to be the legitimate monopoly on the use of force in a given territory. It is therefore a complex mix of authority, strength, law and violence, which are all used to a secure a physical and existential identity for a defined community. Another defining trait of the sovereign is the capacity to suspend the law and declare a state of emergency. Given that superheroes are themselves composites of authority, law and violence, while also being exceptional figures operating in a seemingly extra-legal space, they are perfect for working through the problems associated with the concept of sovereignty. However, rather than use superhero comics to simply illustrate the problems associated with sovereignty, the book argues that superhero comics—using a range of stories and characters from the Marvel and DC universes—explicitly engage with the themes in a critically reflexive and politically progressive way undermining the charge that they are simply conservative defenders of the status quo or dumb vigilantes. The book also argues that at the heart of superhero universes is a fundamental intuition about the contradictory nature of sovereignty, that it is at once both absolutely powerful and absolutely nihilating. The book claims that this intuition should inform our theories of what sovereignty means.Less
This book explores the concept of sovereignty through an analysis of superhero comics. Sovereignty is traditionally understood to be the legitimate monopoly on the use of force in a given territory. It is therefore a complex mix of authority, strength, law and violence, which are all used to a secure a physical and existential identity for a defined community. Another defining trait of the sovereign is the capacity to suspend the law and declare a state of emergency. Given that superheroes are themselves composites of authority, law and violence, while also being exceptional figures operating in a seemingly extra-legal space, they are perfect for working through the problems associated with the concept of sovereignty. However, rather than use superhero comics to simply illustrate the problems associated with sovereignty, the book argues that superhero comics—using a range of stories and characters from the Marvel and DC universes—explicitly engage with the themes in a critically reflexive and politically progressive way undermining the charge that they are simply conservative defenders of the status quo or dumb vigilantes. The book also argues that at the heart of superhero universes is a fundamental intuition about the contradictory nature of sovereignty, that it is at once both absolutely powerful and absolutely nihilating. The book claims that this intuition should inform our theories of what sovereignty means.
Gillian Brock
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- May 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199230938
- eISBN:
- 9780191710957
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230938.003.0007
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
This chapter argues that military intervention to support the goals of global justice can be defensible in the extreme cases in which people's abilities to meet their most basic needs and protect ...
More
This chapter argues that military intervention to support the goals of global justice can be defensible in the extreme cases in which people's abilities to meet their most basic needs and protect their basic freedoms are not adequately attended to by the governments of those citizens. Reconceptualizing sovereignty as responsibility allows us to circumvent problems thought to attend such proposals, for instance, that intervention would interfere unjustly with the sovereignty of nations. Protections against abuse provide the assurances we need and constitute an important part of the justification for legitimate interventions. The findings of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty discussed in this chapter provide reason for optimism about future possibilities for acting decisively as humanitarian crises unfold, especially as the core idea of a responsibility to protect now enjoys widespread endorsement.Less
This chapter argues that military intervention to support the goals of global justice can be defensible in the extreme cases in which people's abilities to meet their most basic needs and protect their basic freedoms are not adequately attended to by the governments of those citizens. Reconceptualizing sovereignty as responsibility allows us to circumvent problems thought to attend such proposals, for instance, that intervention would interfere unjustly with the sovereignty of nations. Protections against abuse provide the assurances we need and constitute an important part of the justification for legitimate interventions. The findings of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty discussed in this chapter provide reason for optimism about future possibilities for acting decisively as humanitarian crises unfold, especially as the core idea of a responsibility to protect now enjoys widespread endorsement.
Cecilia Sjöholm
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780231173087
- eISBN:
- 9780231539906
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Columbia University Press
- DOI:
- 10.7312/columbia/9780231173087.003.0004
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Aesthetics
Drawing largely on Arendt’s political theory, Sjöholm advances a theory of tragic aesthetics and its relation to the modern subject. Tragedy operates as a model for sovereignty in Arendt’s account, ...
More
Drawing largely on Arendt’s political theory, Sjöholm advances a theory of tragic aesthetics and its relation to the modern subject. Tragedy operates as a model for sovereignty in Arendt’s account, positing the repercussions, contingency and violence of the state through its narrative. Arendt’s conception of freedom is post-political, it is not necessarily guaranteed to all citizens, but is manifest in action. Sjöholm interprets these actions in the realm of aesthetics and philosophy – isolating tragedy as the coming to terms with an ancient discourse of both aesthetics and sovereignty. For Sjöholm, tragedy makes visible kinds of life, in particular the refugee. The refugee is the interlocular of the avant-garde - similarly borderless, uncanny and excluded from the state. The refugee represents the avant-garde of aesthetics and is opposed to the violence of sovereignty present in tragedy. Following the Ancient Greek republic, the legitimacy of the modern state is established through its exclusionary mechanisms. As depicted in the Sophocles trilogy, tragedy makes memory political by bringing a silenced opinion to the public sphere. The relation of Greek tragedy and sovereignty is thoroughly explored in this chapter, coinciding with political theory and mythology.Less
Drawing largely on Arendt’s political theory, Sjöholm advances a theory of tragic aesthetics and its relation to the modern subject. Tragedy operates as a model for sovereignty in Arendt’s account, positing the repercussions, contingency and violence of the state through its narrative. Arendt’s conception of freedom is post-political, it is not necessarily guaranteed to all citizens, but is manifest in action. Sjöholm interprets these actions in the realm of aesthetics and philosophy – isolating tragedy as the coming to terms with an ancient discourse of both aesthetics and sovereignty. For Sjöholm, tragedy makes visible kinds of life, in particular the refugee. The refugee is the interlocular of the avant-garde - similarly borderless, uncanny and excluded from the state. The refugee represents the avant-garde of aesthetics and is opposed to the violence of sovereignty present in tragedy. Following the Ancient Greek republic, the legitimacy of the modern state is established through its exclusionary mechanisms. As depicted in the Sophocles trilogy, tragedy makes memory political by bringing a silenced opinion to the public sphere. The relation of Greek tragedy and sovereignty is thoroughly explored in this chapter, coinciding with political theory and mythology.
Daniel Innerarity
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- January 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780231170604
- eISBN:
- 9780231542258
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Columbia University Press
- DOI:
- 10.7312/columbia/9780231170604.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
When we talk about globalization, we tend to focus on its social and economic benefits. In Governance in the New Global Disorder, the political philosopher Daniel Innerarity considers its unsettling ...
More
When we talk about globalization, we tend to focus on its social and economic benefits. In Governance in the New Global Disorder, the political philosopher Daniel Innerarity considers its unsettling and largely unacknowledged consequences. The “opening” of different societies to new ideas, products, and forms of prosperity has introduced a persistent uncertainty, or disorder, into everyday life. Multinational corporations have weakened sovereignty. We no longer know who is in control or who is responsible. Economies can collapse without sufficient warning, and the effort to rebuild can drag on for years. Piracy is everywhere. Is there any way to balance the interests of state, marketplace, and society in this new construct of power? Since national economies have become deterritorialized and political interdependencies aggravate our common vulnerabilities, Innerarity contends that there is no other solution except to move toward global governance and a denationalization of justice. Globalization tries to unify the world through technologies, the economy, and cultural products and styles, but it cannot articulate or regulate political and legal equivalents. Everyone faces the same risks to their security, food supply, health, financial stability, and environment, and these risks demand a new global politics of humanity. In her foreword, the sociologist Saskia Sassen isolates the key takeaways from Innerarity’s argument and the solutions they present to growing global tensions.Less
When we talk about globalization, we tend to focus on its social and economic benefits. In Governance in the New Global Disorder, the political philosopher Daniel Innerarity considers its unsettling and largely unacknowledged consequences. The “opening” of different societies to new ideas, products, and forms of prosperity has introduced a persistent uncertainty, or disorder, into everyday life. Multinational corporations have weakened sovereignty. We no longer know who is in control or who is responsible. Economies can collapse without sufficient warning, and the effort to rebuild can drag on for years. Piracy is everywhere. Is there any way to balance the interests of state, marketplace, and society in this new construct of power? Since national economies have become deterritorialized and political interdependencies aggravate our common vulnerabilities, Innerarity contends that there is no other solution except to move toward global governance and a denationalization of justice. Globalization tries to unify the world through technologies, the economy, and cultural products and styles, but it cannot articulate or regulate political and legal equivalents. Everyone faces the same risks to their security, food supply, health, financial stability, and environment, and these risks demand a new global politics of humanity. In her foreword, the sociologist Saskia Sassen isolates the key takeaways from Innerarity’s argument and the solutions they present to growing global tensions.
Robert E., Jr. Luckett
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- January 2017
- ISBN:
- 9781496802699
- eISBN:
- 9781496802736
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- University Press of Mississippi
- DOI:
- 10.14325/mississippi/9781496802699.001.0001
- Subject:
- History, American History: 20th Century
As Mississippi's attorney general from 1956 to 1969, Joe T. Patterson led the legal defense for Jim Crow in the state. He was inaugurated for his first term two months before the launch of the ...
More
As Mississippi's attorney general from 1956 to 1969, Joe T. Patterson led the legal defense for Jim Crow in the state. He was inaugurated for his first term two months before the launch of the Sovereignty Commission. Patterson supported the organization's mission from the start and served as an ex-officio leader on its board for the rest of his life. He was also a card-carrying member of the segregationist Citizens' Council. Few ever doubted his Jim Crow credentials. That is until September 1962 and the integration of the University of Mississippi by James Meredith. Patterson stepped out of his entrenchment by defying a circle of white power brokers, but only to a point. His seeming acquiescence came at the height of the biggest crisis for Mississippi's racist order. Yet even after the U.S. Supreme Court decreed that Meredith must enter the university, Patterson opposed any further desegregation and despised the federal intervention. Still he faced a dilemma that confronted all white southerners: how to maintain an artificially elevated position for whites in southern society without resorting to violence or intimidation. Once the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Meredith v. Fair, the state attorney general walked a strategic tightrope, looking to temper the ruling's impact without inciting the mob and without retreating any further. Patterson and others sought pragmatic answers to the dilemma of white southerners, to offer a more durable version of white power.Less
As Mississippi's attorney general from 1956 to 1969, Joe T. Patterson led the legal defense for Jim Crow in the state. He was inaugurated for his first term two months before the launch of the Sovereignty Commission. Patterson supported the organization's mission from the start and served as an ex-officio leader on its board for the rest of his life. He was also a card-carrying member of the segregationist Citizens' Council. Few ever doubted his Jim Crow credentials. That is until September 1962 and the integration of the University of Mississippi by James Meredith. Patterson stepped out of his entrenchment by defying a circle of white power brokers, but only to a point. His seeming acquiescence came at the height of the biggest crisis for Mississippi's racist order. Yet even after the U.S. Supreme Court decreed that Meredith must enter the university, Patterson opposed any further desegregation and despised the federal intervention. Still he faced a dilemma that confronted all white southerners: how to maintain an artificially elevated position for whites in southern society without resorting to violence or intimidation. Once the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Meredith v. Fair, the state attorney general walked a strategic tightrope, looking to temper the ruling's impact without inciting the mob and without retreating any further. Patterson and others sought pragmatic answers to the dilemma of white southerners, to offer a more durable version of white power.
Claus D. Zimmerman
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199680740
- eISBN:
- 9780191760686
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199680740.003.0007
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law, Company and Commercial Law
This general conclusion summarizes the key findings of each chapter most of which are applicable to the concept of sovereignty in general and inform our understanding of what it means to be sovereign ...
More
This general conclusion summarizes the key findings of each chapter most of which are applicable to the concept of sovereignty in general and inform our understanding of what it means to be sovereign under evolving economic circumstances. The conclusion realistically acknowledges that the economic constraints pushing state leaders to exercise the sovereign powers in the realm of money as truly cooperative sovereignty may be felt less violently as the recovery of the world economy gains pace. Overall, it emerges that the acceptance of legal constraints on formerly exclusive state competences does not ring the death knell for a state’s monetary sovereignty. Rather, by renouncing the unfettered exercise of certain sovereign powers states can reassert their monetary sovereignty under the special form of cooperative sovereignty, regaining together a margin of manoeuvre with respect to sovereign powers whose isolated exercise had previously become increasingly ineffective and illusory under the impact of economic globalization and financial integration.Less
This general conclusion summarizes the key findings of each chapter most of which are applicable to the concept of sovereignty in general and inform our understanding of what it means to be sovereign under evolving economic circumstances. The conclusion realistically acknowledges that the economic constraints pushing state leaders to exercise the sovereign powers in the realm of money as truly cooperative sovereignty may be felt less violently as the recovery of the world economy gains pace. Overall, it emerges that the acceptance of legal constraints on formerly exclusive state competences does not ring the death knell for a state’s monetary sovereignty. Rather, by renouncing the unfettered exercise of certain sovereign powers states can reassert their monetary sovereignty under the special form of cooperative sovereignty, regaining together a margin of manoeuvre with respect to sovereign powers whose isolated exercise had previously become increasingly ineffective and illusory under the impact of economic globalization and financial integration.
Gavin Rae
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- January 2020
- ISBN:
- 9781474445283
- eISBN:
- 9781474465144
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9781474445283.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Political Philosophy
Sovereign violence is a dominant issue in contemporary political theory and has attracted much attention from proponents of critical theory, biopolitics, post-structuralism, and deconstruction. While ...
More
Sovereign violence is a dominant issue in contemporary political theory and has attracted much attention from proponents of critical theory, biopolitics, post-structuralism, and deconstruction. While heterogeneous, these commentators are united in rejecting the classic-juridical conception that holds sovereignty to be indivisible and orientated towards the establishment and maintenance of juridical order. This book argues that this rejection has been based on three distinct logics, termed the radical-juridical perspective, the biopolitical one, and the bio-juridical. The first, outlined through chapters on Benjamin, Schmitt, Arendt, and Deleuze and Guattari, offers a number of increasingly radical critiques of the classic-juridical conception of sovereignty, but continues to focus the inquiry around the creation/preservation/disruption of the juridical order. The second biopolitical logic, outlined through chapters on Foucault and Agamben, goes further by undermining the primacy that the classic and radical-juridical models give to law. Instead, sovereign violence is held to be concerned with the regulation of life, with this occurring through exclusion from law. The first two critical logics do, however, set up a binary opposition between law and life: the former affirming the sovereign’s connection to the former, the latter reversing this to claim that it primarily refers to the latter. The third model—called the bio-juridical and developed from Jacques Derrida’s late work on the death penalty—is held to overcome this by developing a compatibilist understanding in which sovereign violence is placed between law and life, simultaneously creating and regulating each through the other.Less
Sovereign violence is a dominant issue in contemporary political theory and has attracted much attention from proponents of critical theory, biopolitics, post-structuralism, and deconstruction. While heterogeneous, these commentators are united in rejecting the classic-juridical conception that holds sovereignty to be indivisible and orientated towards the establishment and maintenance of juridical order. This book argues that this rejection has been based on three distinct logics, termed the radical-juridical perspective, the biopolitical one, and the bio-juridical. The first, outlined through chapters on Benjamin, Schmitt, Arendt, and Deleuze and Guattari, offers a number of increasingly radical critiques of the classic-juridical conception of sovereignty, but continues to focus the inquiry around the creation/preservation/disruption of the juridical order. The second biopolitical logic, outlined through chapters on Foucault and Agamben, goes further by undermining the primacy that the classic and radical-juridical models give to law. Instead, sovereign violence is held to be concerned with the regulation of life, with this occurring through exclusion from law. The first two critical logics do, however, set up a binary opposition between law and life: the former affirming the sovereign’s connection to the former, the latter reversing this to claim that it primarily refers to the latter. The third model—called the bio-juridical and developed from Jacques Derrida’s late work on the death penalty—is held to overcome this by developing a compatibilist understanding in which sovereign violence is placed between law and life, simultaneously creating and regulating each through the other.
