Law,Sovereignty and the Nation

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique -     

Sovereignty and Representation

In this contribution the author explores some aspects of the relation between sovereignty, democracy and representation. After shortly focusing on the idea of sovereignty, he then questions Rousseau's refusal to take representation into account within a democratic framework, an idea that is however latent in his general approach.     

Agamben and Marx: Sovereignty, Governmentality, Economy

This essay reconsiders Marx’ prehistory of capital through the lens of the work of Giorgio Agamben, who in the wake of Foucault has proposed a bio-political theory of sovereignty that breaks down the analytical separation between sovereignty and governmentality that Foucault in his work tries to maintain. Although Agamben mentions Marx only once in his study of sovereign power, I argue that his study nevertheless contributes to our understanding of the capitalist relation as not only a governmental but also a sovereign power relation. In the first part of this essay, I show through a philological commentary on Marx’ use of the adjective ‘vogelfrei’—translated as free, rightless, without protection, outlawed—to characterise the proletariat, that the Marxian proletariat is a figure of what Agamben in his study of sovereign power calls bare life. In the second part of the essay, I show that this sovereign dimension of the capitalist relation is also substantiated by Marx’ analysis of the logic of the capitalist relation as that of the exception. After Carl Schmitt, who wrote that ‘sovereign is who decides on the state of exception’, Agamben has argued that the logic of the exception is the logic of sovereign power. Reconsidered through the lens of Agamben’s argument, Marx’ account of the prehistory of capital reveals that there is a sovereign logic of the exception at work in the capitalist relation. In the final part of the essay, I start from Agamben’s single reference to Marx in his study of sovereign power to discuss the importance of my conclusions for Agamben’s political message.     

联邦主权与州主权的迷思——麦卡洛克诉马里兰州案中的政治修辞及其法律陷阱

本文通过对麦卡洛克诉马里兰州案的政治解读,揭示出马歇尔大法官如何运用政治修辞与法律推理技术把联邦党人的政治主张变成美国宪法原则。在这个过程中,尤其细致分析了马歇尔在法律推理过程中对历史事实、宪政理论乃至法律概念的解释采取了歪曲和误读,以服务于其捍卫联邦主权、扩张联邦权力的政治主张,从而指出,法律人既要掌握修辞的技艺,也要对修辞保持高度的警惕。     

Corporations,Sovereignty and the Religion of Neoliberalism

This article seeks to contribute to the thinking of forms of corporateness, sociality and authority in the context of, but also beyond, neoliberalism, the neoliberal state and neoliberal accounts of the corporation. It considers neoliberalism in relation to the theological genealogies of modernity, politics and economy, and the way in which neoliberalism itself functions as a secular religion—one which intensifies liberal individualism and involves a blind faith in the market redefining all social interactions in terms of contract. I turn to the theological genealogies of sovereignty and economy, and of the corporation, as a way of grounding a radical consideration of collectivity and sociality. For, while the rise of neoliberalism is associated with the growth of multi-national or trans-national corporations, the privatisation of state assets and the corporatisation of public institutions, each of these involve not a diminishing of the state or the project of state sovereignty but rather its reformulation, reaffirmation and intensification. The corporation, despite being redefined as the interaction of fundamentally self-willing and contracting individuals operating in the market, is still fundamentally intertwined with state sovereignty. Attempts to address or respond to corporate power need to go beyond calls for greater regulation of corporations, increased corporate social responsibility or even the desire to eliminate corporate personhood. Rather, what is required is a greater emphasis on the notion of corporateness that undergirds the theological genealogy of the corporation—for if neoliberalism functions as a religion then part of the solution may be a theological one.     

Brexit and Parliamentary Sovereignty

This note addresses the implications of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union for the legal principle of parliamentary sovereignty, and argues that the strong restatement of the latter is the most significant feature of the decision. The aim here is to show how traditional principle in the Dicey tradition has been strongly applied against the competing claims of EU law, the royal prerogative, the referendum and devolution. However, the note also argues that the claims relating to parliamentary sovereignty could have produced a different result and that the most compelling feature of the case was the argument that was not forcefully put by the Government, namely that Parliament had already provided sufficient authority for the triggering of Article 50.     

Sovereignty and International Order

Abstract. Sovereignty may be threatened by obligations and relations with other nations, states or powers from either an “internal” or “external” perspective. In this paper, I argue that these obligations and relationships may be compatible with a state's sovereignty if we understand the proper nature of authoritative relationships. This requires a model of “rational authority” which places emphasis on the first-person perspective of the subjects to authority.     

中国主权与澳门驻军

根据《中华人民共和国澳门特别行政区基本法》规定精神,１９９９ 年６ 月２８ 日,全国人大常委会通过了《中华人民共和国澳门特别行政区驻军法》。因此说,我国政府在澳门驻军有充分法律依据。在澳门驻军是中国恢复对澳门行使主权的必要体现,是中央人民政府有效管理澳门防务的必然要求。     

States of Sovereignty

The author argues that the relocation of the Bronze Soldier in Tallinn was not a provocation intentionally staged by Estonian authorities but rather the result of efforts by the Estonian government to depoliticize the monument by diminishing its public significance and removing it to an area of private commemoration.     

Law And Sovereignty

How is it possible that the idea of sovereignty still features in legal and political philosophy? Most contemporary political philosophers have little use for the idea of ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ power, which is how sovereignty is normally defined. A closer look at sovereignty identifies two possible accounts: sovereignty as the fact of power or sovereignty as a title to govern. The first option, which was pursued by John Austin’s command theory of law, leads to an unfamiliar view of law and the state, which was justly criticised by H. L. A. Hart. The second option, leads to a paradox, because under this view sovereignty is both limited and unlimited. Hence, this argument shows that law and sovereignty are actually incompatible. Where there is law there is no sovereignty, and where there is sovereignty there is no law.     

Sovereignty as Autonomy

Many philosophers, past and present, have attempted to eradicate the notion of sovereignty. The most interesting and most ambitious attempt to do so, comes from those philosophers who claim that sovereignty is in principle incompatible with the rule of law. The purpose of this paper is to repel this latter attack. In order to do so, I investigate the analogy between sovereignty and individual autonomy. The resulting conception of sovereignty, ‘sovereignty as autonomy’, shows that sovereignty and the rule of law are utterly compatible. At the same time, this conception conserves what I believe to be the normative core of our modern notion of sovereignty: when speaking of sovereignty, we invoke the perspective from which a political community can consciously understand itself as an autonomous agent.     

Legitimizing American Indian Sovereignty: Mobilizing the Constitutive Power of Law through Institutional Entrepreneurship

Extensive sociolegal scholarship has addressed the utility of law as a mechanism through which marginalized groups may promote social change. Within this debate, scholars employing the legal mobilization approach have thus far highlighted law's indirect impact, beyond the formal arenas of law, via effects on the "legal consciousness" of reformers and would-be reformers. This article contributes to this debate, and the legal mobilization framework in particular, by theoretically identifying and empirically documenting ways through which the constitutive power of law may be effectively used by challengers to more directly pursue changes in institutionalized practices themselves. The article examines the strategic use of law by a set of American Indian tribal leaders in the state of Washington who, over a 13-year period, consciously meshed or "cohered" legal and extrajudicial efforts to gain recognition of their sovereign political status. Through a mode of agency known as "institutional entrepreneurship," they utilized the multiplicity of law and exploited resources and opportunities inhering within the state itself, but outside the courts. In the context of ambiguous legal precedent and widespread local challenges to tribal rights, they mobilized latent discourses of federal Indian law that legitimated the sovereign governmental status of tribes. Importantly, they circulated tribal sovereignty discourses well beyond the field of law, but through the authoritative activity and voice of the state, and in doing so, generated a precedent-setting recognition of tribal sovereignty.     

主权:政治现实、道德理想与法治桥梁

准确把握主权概念是清晰理解国际法与国际关系的基础。只有消除一些误解和歧义才有可能树立正确的观念。就现实而言,主权是对内的命令、调控以及以此为基础的对外代表与参与,主要功能是政府对其行为与利益的辩护与防卫。其根源是社会分工形成的人群分层,并在此基础上形成的制度惯性以及人们对治理形式的路径依赖。其内核是无涉于道德和法律的。在认清主权的非社会契约性、非神圣绝对性之后,必须承认,主权在世界上仍会长期存在。因而有必要在人本主义的价值基点上塑造其理想,即要求主权发挥引领、代表、服务人民,在相互依赖、面临共同未来的人类处境中密切合作的职能。为此,有必要进一步完善权力—权利三角形,使主权的运作受国内宪政和国际法治的引导与制约,促进社会的健康和谐发展。     

Custodial Sovereignty: Reconciling Sovereignty and Global Environmental Challenges amongst the Vestiges of Colonialism

Netherlands International Law Review -