Theories of Sovereignty: Reclaiming the Domain of Empirical Research

  • Ersun N. Kurtulus


Any empirical or legal analysis of state sovereignty must begin by shifting the focus of attention from the concept of sovereignty to the referent that this concept, however vaguely, denotes, and moreover, from epistemological arguments that question the validity of the basic assumptions of empirical science to the stringent application of methodological principles that derive from these assumptions. On the basis of criteria formulated with reference to these two dimensions, that is, the object of study and basic methodological principles of empirical research, it will be possible to broadly identify those meanings of sovereignty that have relevance to empirical and legal studies, and finally, to demarcate the domain within this set of meanings that constitutes the object of study of this book: the concept, the phenomenon, and the ramifications of state sovereignty.


Normative Theory Descriptive Theory Sovereign State State Sovereignty Sovereign Power 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Albert O. Hirschman, “The Search For Paradigms As A Hindrance To Understanding,” World Politics (Vol. 22 1970) pp. 330, 338, and 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cf. Thomas M. Franck, The Power of Legitimacy among Nations (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990) p. 43.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society —A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan Press Ltd., Second edition, 1995) p. 131.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, edited by Wilfrid E. Rumble (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) pp.165 and 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, Second edition, 1994) pp. 89–91.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See Hersch Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law (Cambridge: The University Press, 1947) pp. 427–428Google Scholar
  7. Ti-Chiang Chen, The International Law of Recognition—With Special Reference to Practice in Great Britain and the United States, edited by L. C. Green (London: Stevens &Sons Limited, 1951) pp.413–414.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    Cf. Ivo D. Duchacek, Power Maps: Comparative Politics of Constitution (Oxford, Santa Barbara: ABC Clio Inc., 1973) p. 224.Google Scholar
  9. 20.
    J. A. Camilleri and J. Falk, The End of Sovereignty: The Politics of a Shrinking and Fragmented World (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1992).Google Scholar
  10. 21.
    Rees, “The Theory of Sovereignty Restated,” p.57; Stanley I. Benn, “The Uses of ‘Sovereignty’, ” in Anthony Quinton (ed.), Political Philosophy (London: Oxford University Press, 1967) pp. 68–75.Google Scholar
  11. 23.
    H. W. R. Wade, “The Basis of Legal Sovereignty,” The Cambridge Law Journal (Nov. 1955) p. 189.Google Scholar
  12. 34.
    Robert H. Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and The Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) pp.3–5, 7, 38–49, 198–199. For a critical view of Jackson’s argument see Christopher Clapham. Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and The Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) pp.3–5, 7, 38–49, 198–199. For a critical view of Jackson’s argument see Christopher Clapham, “Degrees of Statehood,” Review of International Studies (Vol. 24 1998) pp. 143–157.Google Scholar
  13. 35.
    Kenneth N. Waltz, “Political Structure,” in Robert O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986) pp.84–85, 87, and 90.Google Scholar
  14. 43.
    See Ibid., pp.141–142; Hinsley, Sovereignty, p.190; Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, Fourth edition, 1990) pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
  15. 48.
    David Held, Political Theory and the Modern State-Essays on State, Power and Democracy (Oxford: Polity Press, 1989) p. 221.Google Scholar
  16. 49.
    Robert Alan Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989) p.207.Google Scholar
  17. 51.
    For such definitions see e.g. Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1983) p. 1.Google Scholar
  18. and N. MacCormick, Legal Right and Social Democracy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982) p. 260.Google Scholar
  19. 52.
    David Miller, On Nationality (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) p. 11.Google Scholar
  20. 56.
    Cf. James, Alan, Sovereign Statehood—The Basis of International Society (London: Allen Sc Unwin Publishers Ltd., 1986) p.59; Austin, John, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, pp.166–167.Google Scholar
  21. 59.
    Cf. Miller, On Nationality, pp.29–30; MacCormick, Legal Right and Social Democracy, pp.254–255. See also Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism—Five Roads to Modernity (London: Harvard University Press, 1992) pp. 3, 6–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ersun N. Kurtulus 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ersun N. Kurtulus

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations