As part of my continuing ruminations in the domain of political theory, I thought I’d touch on the notion of sovereignty ? It seems to combine ideas of authority, right, power, territory and probably many other concepts together. It is clearly not a foundational concept, but one which is itself the effect of other more fundamental operations and concepts. So this particular piece is just exploring how several of these notions interact. It is a  kind of meta-political discussion in this sense.

In Australia, it is the demands of indigenous people for some form of official recognition that makes the question of sovereignty pertinent, but to my mind, the very notion of sovereignty as something one simply HAS is, quite anachronistic. Take the example of the China’s assertion of sovereignty in the south China sea. Such a territorial claim stands so long it is not effectively challenged, and the claim is only asserted in the first place when control of the territory is already under dispute. So sovereignty emerges only through dispute, and prior to the argument breaking out, the territory is, so to speak, “open access”, although it may be for this reason, in a state of anarchy, where private interests prevail. This is arguably the state of nature but it is only potentially the battle of all-against-all and in practice is just everyone going about their business. Claims of sovereignty are then the outcome of imperialism and it is the disputation which arises out of expansion of the sphere of control that brings the question of sovereignty to a head.

So sovereignty, is not a basic concept. It is the field that opens up when territorial claims come into conflict. the state of nature should be thought of not as the worst state of conflict, that the sovereign resolves, but as the absence of serious dispute, prior to any particular party pursuing an expansionist program. The  “tooth and claw”  version is how the sovereign would characterise the state of nature because this story legitimises their monopoly on force, but it is not a necessary portrait of anarchy. There are other equally viable pictures of the “state of nature” .We could regard parties as being largely indifferent to each other. When one party discovers the notion of the “resource”, and also realises that they can guarantee access to resources by pursuing a strategy of subjugation – at that point the whole situation changes fundamentally.

From that  point on, the history of a region is a long-running territorial dispute – but between who ? Even the idea of territory seems to presuppose discrete social units whose interests are already in conflict. The existing configuration of states is then, just the accidental outcome of contingent events. Peace is just the cessation of prior conflict that has left a particular political and territorial arrangement in it’s wake and the nations, under the prevailing Westphalian model are inherently in a state of stable opposition – dynamic equilibrium. metastasis.

It is the community of friendemies, (friend/enemy), dynamic, persistent, but fragile. ( nod to Carl Schmitt ) – requiring maintenance as well as opposition. It is, the most remarkable entity ! but an understanding of this entity is probably obscured by any particular solution to the “balance of power” problem  – hence the notion of “state of nature” as a possible way forward.

So as a beginning, The phenomenon is fascinating, and the rhetoric around it is illuminating.

I would like to make a start on a formal description of the domain,.

Definition 1 – Total Sovereignty == trumping, under all circumstances

• X,Y are both Parties
• and Z is a decidable Issue +z is yes, -z is no
• IsSovereign(X,Y) iff
• ForAll(Z)
• If Prefers( X,+Z) & Prefers( Y, -Z) then happens(+Z)
• Iff IsSovereign(X,Z) then TRUMPS(X,Y,Z)

 

Lemma 1 – A set of interim results outline the topology of sovereignty which might  include a kind of grading, based on variations in scope of the underlying variables. First cut – that sovereignty is constrained by :

• the horizon – Limited – is an environmental restriction
• the situation – Relative – is a scope restriction on X,Y – that is the parties
• the issue – Partial  – is a scope restriction on Z

but sovereignty as a concept appears to be absolute, so these 3 constraints will be present in any realisation of the concept.

 

Idea – 1 Sovereignty is just the name of the horizon ( nod to Badiou ) , total sovereignty just is sovereignty. there is no partial, relative or limited sovereignty. Its opposite IS anarchy, because it is about whose WILL prevails

 

Analogy 1 – sovereignty is like being pregnant. You are never a little bit pregnant. You ARE or you ARE-NOT.

 

Conclusion 1 – This is a semantic question, without significant ontological importance.it suggest that sovereignty as an analytical concept is without value, regardlesss of its rhetorical value. History has made it a rallying term but analytically, it seems unable to hold water without the support of other political concepts. So my analysis of sovereignty is deflationary. It’s function IS largely decorative.

 

Lemma 2 –  The will of the sovereign prevails

If  IsSovereign(X) &  Prefers( X , Z,) & Prefers( Y , not-Z) THEN Prevails(Z).

Slogan 1 – Trumping is sovereignty.

 

Discussion -2

Being sovereign and being treated as sovereign are probably the same thing. Claiming sovereignty entails others either acknowledging or at least failing to challenge this claim. Disputing sovereignty also entails others acknowledging the new claimant, and the incumbent relinquishing sovereignty. There is therefore a default situation where a particular distribution of sovereignty is assumed, and need not be made explicit. In fact, no one need even know who IS sovereign – it is asserted each time it is disputed. sovereignty is about ones word prevailing. It is emonstrated through tests. The only real test for sovereignty is for group X to do something that group Y opposes, and not be effectively challenged.the impotence of challengers, or even just their silence demonstrates the sovereignty of the other. If the other may act without sanction, then they are sovereign.sovereignty is not something that a group HAS. They may assert the right to decide and if this goes unchallenged, or especially if it becomes a basic regional assumption, then they have control by default. So territory where more than one groups must agree before proceeding is some form of shared sovereignty prevails – and this is essentially anarchy.

 

My aim here is to provide an an analytic definition of sovereignty that shows it to be accountable in other terms basically without residue.

There will be a number of other articles in this domain if I can maintain the interest.