Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
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
Albert O. Hirschman, “The Search For Paradigms As A Hindrance To Understanding,” World Politics (Vol. 22 1970) pp. 330, 338, and 343.
Cf. Thomas M. Franck, The Power of Legitimacy among Nations (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990) p. 43.
Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society —A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan Press Ltd., Second edition, 1995) p. 131.
John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, edited by Wilfrid E. Rumble (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) pp.165 and 285.
H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, Second edition, 1994) pp. 89–91.
See Hersch Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law (Cambridge: The University Press, 1947) pp. 427–428
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.
Cf. Ivo D. Duchacek, Power Maps: Comparative Politics of Constitution (Oxford, Santa Barbara: ABC Clio Inc., 1973) p. 224.
J. A. Camilleri and J. Falk, The End of Sovereignty: The Politics of a Shrinking and Fragmented World (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1992).
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.
H. W. R. Wade, “The Basis of Legal Sovereignty,” The Cambridge Law Journal (Nov. 1955) p. 189.
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.
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.
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.
David Held, Political Theory and the Modern State-Essays on State, Power and Democracy (Oxford: Polity Press, 1989) p. 221.
Robert Alan Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989) p.207.
For such definitions see e.g. Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1983) p. 1.
and N. MacCormick, Legal Right and Social Democracy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982) p. 260.
David Miller, On Nationality (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) p. 11.
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.
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.
Copyright information
© 2005 Ersun N. Kurtulus
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kurtulus, E.N. (2005). Theories of Sovereignty: Reclaiming the Domain of Empirical Research. In: State Sovereignty. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403977083_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403977083_3
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)