Abstract
If the controversy as regards juridical state sovereignty is about what kind of entities are as a matter of law endowed with this type of sovereignty, the dispute concerning factual sovereignty is entirely of a different sort. Here, the main discussion is not about which type of territorial entities display those characteristics that are normally associated with factual state sovereignty, but about the precise nature of these characteristics, that is to say, about the specific features of a more general quality that usually applies equally to all states. Thus, in the contemporary literature, the issue is often raised as to whether factual state sovereignty—as such—is limited, compromised, shared, pooled, outdated, transferred, or transcended. In this terminological affluence, however, it is possible to distinguish the contours of three principal arguments: that factual sovereignty has gradually fallen into insignificance or irrelevance owing to factors restricting the independence and autonomy of states; that this is in some cases the result of institutionalized supranational integration or its mirror image, formalized infra-national disintegration; and, finally, that this is due to a lack of territorial control on the part of states and similar entities. As it shall be seen in this chapter, none of these skeptical arguments are empirically tenable. Factual state sovereignty continues to be a pivotal feature of world politics and cases where states have lost this type of sovereignty are few and exist in the margins of international relations.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Cf. Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty—Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999) p. 47.
James Crawford, “The Criteria for Statehood in International Relations,” The British Year Book of International Law (Vol.48 1976–1977) p.130.
Owen Lattimore, “Satellite Politics: The Mongolian Prototype,” The Western Political Quarterly (Vol. IX, No. 1 March 1956) p. 36.
See e.g., Alan James, Sovereign Statehood-The Basis of International Society (London: Allen & Unwin Publishers Ltd., 1986) p.140; Lattimore, “Satellite Politics,” p.36.
See e.g., James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979) pp.59–60, 62, 107–108, and passim.
Ferenc A. Vali, Rift and Revolt in Hungary (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1961) p. 15.
Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, The Soviet Bloc-Unity and Conflict (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publisher, Revised edition, 1961) pp. 51–58.
Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, “The Organization of the Communist Camp” (World Politics, Vol. 13, No. 2 1961) pp. 208–209.
H. Gordon Skilling, Communism National and International-Eastern Europe after Stalin (Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1964) pp. 17–18.
H. Gordon Skilling, The Governments of Communist East Europe (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, University of Toronto, 1966) p. 226.
Lassa Oppenheim, International Law —A Treatise edited by H. Lauterpacht (London, New York and Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co., Eighth edition, 1955) p. 243.
Cyril E. Black et al., Neutralization and World Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968) p. xi.
Georg Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International Law (Abingdon: Professional Books Ltd., Sixth edition, 1976) p. 47.
William Wallace, “The Sharing of Sovereignty: The European Paradox,” in Robert Jackson (ed.), Political Studies—Sovereignty at the Millennium (Vol.47, No.3 Special Issue 1999) p.503.
Shirley Williams, “Sovereignty and Accountability in the European Community,” The Political Quarterly (Vol. 6, No. 3 1990) p. 299.
Koen Lenaerts, “Constitutionalism and the Many Faces of Federalism,” The American Journal of Comparative Law (Vol.XXXVIII, No.1 Winter 1990) p.220.
Neil MacCormick, Questioning Sovereignty—Law, State, and Nation in the European Commonwealth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) p. 133.
Robert O. Keohane, “Hobbes’s Dilemma and Institutional Change in World Politics: Sovereignty in International Society,” in Hans-Henrik Holm and Georg Sörensen (eds.), Whose World Order? Uneven Globalization and the End of the Cold War (Boulder, San Francisco, and Oxford: Westview Press, 1995) p. 175.
Cf. Michael Newman, Democracy, Sovereignty and the European Union (London: Hurst & Company, 1996) p. 13.
Alan James, “The Practice of Sovereign Statehood in Contemporary International Society,” in Robert Jackson (ed.), Political Studies—Sovereignty at the Millennium (Vol.47, No.3 Special Issue 1999) p. 456.
A. V. Dicey, Introduction to The Study of The Law of The Constitution (Wade’s Introduction, Parts I and III) (London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., and New York: St. Martin’s Press, Tenth edition, 1959) p. 141.
K. C. Wheare, Federal Government (London, New York, and Toronto: Oxford University Press, Fourth edition, 1963) p. 40.
C. Schmitt quoted in Murray Forsyth, Union of States-The Theory and Practice of Confederation (New York: Leicester University Press, 1981) p.151; see also pp.146–159.
Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, Revolt or Revolution-The Constitutional Boundaries of the European Union (Dublin: Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell, 1997) pp.369–370 and passim. See also MacCormick’s interpretation in MacCormick, Questioning Sovereignty, pp.110–113.
H. W. R. Wade, “The Basis of Legal Sovereignty,” The Cambridge Law Journal (Nov. 1955) p. 189.
Daniel H. Deudney, “The Philadelphian System: Sovereignty, Arms Control, and Balance of Power in the American States-Union, Circa 1787–1861,” International Organization (Vol.49, No.2 Spring 1995) p. 193.
Webster referred to in Murray Forsyth, Union of States-The Theory and Practice of Confederation (New York: Leicester University Press, 1981) p. 118.
Duncan Sandys referred to in James Barber, Rhodesia: The Road to Rebellion (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1967) p. 68.
Claire Palley, The Constitutional History and Law of Southern Rhodesia 1888–1965 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966) p. 747.
Cf. H. J. Robert, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and The Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) p. 31.
Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, Fourth edition 1990) pp. 73–74.
Robert H. Jackson and Carl G. Rosberg, “Why Africa’s Weak States Persist: The Empirical and the Juridical in Statehood,” World Politics (Vol. XXXV No. 1 1982) p. 1.
Cf. Christopher Clapham, “Degrees of Statehood,” Review of International Studies (Vol. 24 1998) p. 146.
John Burton referred to in John A. Vasquez, The Power of Power Politics: A Critique (London: Frances Pinter, 1983) p. 119.
Copyright information
© 2005 Ersun N. Kurtulus
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kurtulus, E.N. (2005). Factual State Sovereignty: An Omnipresence that is Allegedly Absent. In: State Sovereignty. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403977083_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403977083_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-53155-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4039-7708-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)