Sovereignty is among the most important phenomena for making sense of political life. But there are many mistaken assumptions associated with the concept. This book provides a new and somewhat unorthodox interpretation of it from the standpoint of a theory of practice. Sovereign Subjects is an agenda-setting book about Aboriginal sovereignty from some of Australia’s best thinkers. This book examines how Indigenous Peoples around the world are demanding greater data sovereignty, and challenging the ways in which governments have historically used Indigenous data to develop policies and programs.

Sovereignty - De Gruyter Sovereignty - De Gruyter

Interestingly, many of those new international limitations to internal sovereignty are not consent-based, but stem from customary norms or general principles. This may be explained by the fact that these norms can be understood as the reflection of the minimal common denominator to the practice of all democratic sovereign States constituting the international community and are produced as a result by accretion of the gradual recognition of those norms at the domestic level by modern democracies. Once internationalized, those norms may as a result work as a legitimate limit on the autonomy of those States to contextualize and hence to flesh out those minimal international standards in their respective jurisdictions, thereby contributing to the development of the international standards themselves bottom-up. A third sovereignty right one should mention is the sovereign’s right to constitutional or organizational autonomy. This is a consequence of the plenary jurisdiction over the State’s internal affairs ( Nicaragua Case 133). It can be equated with self-determination, at least when it pertains to the institutional autonomy of existing sovereign States. When self-determination is used to imply the right to become a sovereign State, international law remains ambivalent ( UNGA Resolution 1514 (XV) ‘Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’ [14 December 1960] GAOR 15 th Session Supp 16 vol 1, 66). Thus, questions largely unanswered to date include the relationship between State sovereignty and self-determination in case of conflict. Another difficult question is whether international law actually can set limits over the right to self-determination when it goes further than a right to institutional autonomy and is said to include the right to become a sovereign State in the first place. These issues have surfaced recently pertaining to the international legality of secession in particular (see the ICJ’s Kosovo Advisory Opinion on the nature of the question, and in particular judges’ concurring and dissenting opinions). Another connected issue pertains to the positive dimension of the right to self-determination and more particularly its democratic implications. Pushed to its full normative conclusions and in line with the values of good polity underlying modern sovereignty indeed, self-determination triggers minimal democratic duties in the laying-out of the governmental regime on the part of each sovereign. But if the referendum is the sacred moment of the exercise of sovereignty, why were the sovereign people not told in 2016 that, as Tombs insists, the only form of Brexit they were going to get was one of the most extreme imaginable? How can sovereign decisions be made in ignorance of their meaning? Next, Ryan is a successful financial advisor. Once again, I respect most people that are financial advisors. They’re usually highly intelligent, have incredible intuition, and are very sensible.The concept of treaty was presented in 1987 to draw attention to the fact that Aboriginal sovereignty has never been ceded to the British Crown or the Australian Commonwealth government. Sovereignty is a word that's used a lot in discussions about Aboriginal issues. But what does it mean? Chapter 8: Data Governance in the Basque Country: Victims and Memories of Violent Conflicts, Joxerramon Bengoetxea The analogy between authority for States or other institutional subjects of international sovereignty, on the one hand, and individuals, on the other, presupposes therefore that the value of autonomy extends to the choices and actions of States. At first sight, it seems plausible that it does, given the value of shared membership in a national political community and, as a result, of the collective self-determination of such communities. The problem is that the value of State autonomy can only be explained in terms of the autonomy of the people constituting it. States are quite unlike individuals when it comes to the value of their autonomy. Their autonomy cannot simply be equated with that of any of their domestic legal subjects, but is the product of those subjects’ autonomy as a political entity. By analogy with an individual but also because of the imperfect analogy with an individual in the service of which sovereignty actually lies, sovereign autonomy is even more clearly dependent on the purposes of being a good polity. First of all, and although this may be contested from a democratic legitimacy perspective, different institutions exercise sovereignty in both cases: the executive acts as a sovereign in external affairs, while it is usually the legislative which is regarded as sovereign in internal affairs. Hence the difficulty there can be in distinguishing between parliamentary sovereignty on the inside and State sovereignty on the outside. Secondly, their functions differ; whereas internal sovereignty pertains to all political and legal matters, external sovereignty usually only relates to questions of coexistence and/or cooperation among distinct sovereign entities. Finally, external sovereignty can less easily be described as final or ultimate as it is necessarily equal; it can only be equally ultimate since a sovereign can only coexist as an equal to other sovereigns. In internal affairs, however, sovereignty is usually final.

The Right of Sovereignty - Daniel Lee - Oxford University Press

As a matter of fact, because of its essentially contestable nature, the concept has been remarkably resilient both epistemically and normatively, and its pregnancy in contemporary legal discourse has not been undermined but rather increased by controversy. Of course, arguably that resilience may be explained in very different ways, and notably by reference to conservative political imagination (or, worse, to Stephen Krasner’s idea of ‘organized hypocrisy’; Krasner [1999]) or to a given ontological status of concepts and not necessarily by reference to the international institutional and legal reality itself. H. Kalmo and Q. Skinner, Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present, and Future of a Contested Concept (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) Tahu Kukutai (Ngāti Tiipa, Ngāti Kinohaku, Te Aupōuri) (PhD) is Professor of Demography at the National Institute of Demographic and Economic Analysis, Aotearoa New Zealand. She co-edited Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda and is a founding member of the Māori Data Sovereignty Network Te Mana Raraunga and the Global Indigenous Data Alliance. Select 4 - Sovereignty and human rights in “post-conflict” constitution-making: toward a jus post bellum for “interim occupations” The acceptance of human rights and minority rights, the increasing role of international financial institutions, and globalization have led many observers to question the continued viability of the sovereign state. Here a leading expert challenges this conclusion. Stephen Krasner contends that states have never been as sovereign as some have supposed. Throughout history, rulers have been motivated by a desire to stay in power, not by some abstract adherence to international principles. Organized hypocrisy--the presence of longstanding norms that are frequently violated--has been an enduring attribute of international relations.It rapidly became clear that public international law and sovereignty implied each other. To be fully in charge of its relations with other States in a society of equally sovereign States and to be externally sovereign, and hence in turn to be able to protect its internal sovereignty, a State needed to be submitted to public international law. However, for public international law to arise, it needed independent sovereign States to freely consent to mutual rights and obligations and to their regulation. As a result, since sovereignty implies the existence of public international law, it became self-evident that sovereignty is inherently limited. Even if, by definition, a sovereign State cannot be limited by the laws of another State, it may be limited when these laws result from the collective will of all States. As stated previously, the concept of sovereignty is an essentially contested concept whose regular determination and application imply contestation and broaching contentious issues. It means we have right to this land. It is our land. We never ceded the right to the land, the sea and the air. We have never given that right away. We never told white people in any way that we had given them this country. There are no contracts of any sort, no treaties. It is still our land.