The bilateral image of sovereignty in the mirror of scientific discussion
https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2023-3-48-66
Abstract
The fact that the evolution of the “political world” occurs together with the transformation of its conceptual and categorical apparatus does not cause serious doubts. Today, the process of irreversible changes in the area has affected the concept of sovereignty as basic for the social sciences. The article found that alternative views on the bilateral structure of sovereignty make the content of that concept more voluminous and require the use of additional tools to facilitate its understanding. One of the evidences of such state of affairs is the classification of sovereignty by S. Krasner, which is common in political science. A critical analysis of S. Krasner’s typology, however, could not secure for the typology of the famous scientist the adherence to the basic scientific principle – objectivity. Overcoming the author’s subjectivity which stimulated the selective deactivation of one of the two sides of sovereignty it was decided to theoretically construct special approaches to understanding sovereignty. A more rigorous matrix, known in political science by the phrase “The Great Debates”, was used to identify supporters/opponents of each of the formed approaches, as well as to describe the difference in their research positions. The use of the matrix of Great Debates in accordance with the axiomatic method became an example of a not unsuccessful attempt to implement methodological triangulation, which updated the versatile “vision” of sovereignty and stimulated a more comprehensive view of it.
About the Author
A. V. Malov
Russian State University for the Humanities
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexander V. Malov, Cand. of Sci. (Political Science),
6, Miusskaya Sq., Moscow, 125047
References
1. Almond, G. et al. (2002), Comparative politics today. A world view, Longman Inc., New York, USA.
2. Bredikhin, A.L. (2011), Suverenitet kak politiko-pravovoi fenomen [Sovereignty as a political and legal phenomenon], Infra-M, Moscow, Russia.
3. Bull, H. (2002), The anarchical society. A study of order in world politics, Columbia University Press. Columbia, USA.
4. Buzan B. and Little, R. (1998), International systems in world history. Remaking the study of international relations, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
5. Chernichenko, S.V. (2010), “Is sovereignty of a state divisible?”, Eurasian Law Journal, no. 12, pp. 25–31.
6. Chugrov, S.V. and Malov, A.V. (2019), “Food sovereignty and education. A Japanese type of harmonization”, RUDN Journal of Sociology, no. 4, pp. 665–677, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2019-19-4-665-677.
7. James, A. (1999), “The practice of sovereign statehood in contemporary international society”, Political Studies, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 457–473.
8. Habermas, J. (1996), “The European nation state. Its achievements and its limitations. On the past and future of sovereignty and citizenship”, Ratio Juris, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 125–137.
9. Ivanov, V.V. (2010), Teoriya gosudarstva [Theory of the state], HSE Publishing House, Moscow, Russia.
10. Karnaushenko, L.V. (2015), “The intellectual sovereignty of the state and the issue of its security in the society of the 21st century”, Society and Law, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 10–14.
11. Keohane, R. (2003), “Political authority after intervention. Gradations in sovereignty”, in Holzgrefe, J.L. and Keohane, R. (eds.), Humanitarian Intervention, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 275–298.
12. Kokoshin, A. (2015), “National interests, real sovereignty and national security”, Questions of philosophy, no. 10, pp. 5–19.
13. Krasner, S. (1995), “Compromising Westphalia”, International Security, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 115–151.
14. Krasner, S. (1999), Sovereignty. Organized hypocrisy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.
15. Krasner, S. (2004), “Sharing sovereignty. New institutions for collapsed and failing states”, International Security, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 85–120.
16. Krasner, S. (2011), “Foreword. Varieties of sovereignty”, in Cheng-yi Lin and Roy, D. (eds.), The future of United States, China, and Taiwan relations, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA, pp. VII–XVII.
17. Krasner, S. (2017), “The persistence of state sovereignty”, in Orfeo Fioretes, K. (ed.), International politics and institutions in time, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 39–59.
18. Kurek, T.E. (2016), Economic sovereignty. Prosperity in a free society, Alvarian Press, Reston, USA.
19. Lapidoth, R. (1992), “Sovereignty in transition”, Journal of International Affairs, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 325–346.
20. Leibniz, G.W. (1988), Political writings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
21. Levin, I.D. (2003), Suverenitet [Sovereignity], Legal Center Press, Saint Petersburg, Russia.
22. Leonov, A.S. (2013), “State sovereignty. Etymology and prehistory of the concept”, Bulletin of the Lobachevsky Nizhny Novgorod University, no. 3, pp. 131–135.
23. Lvov, L.V. (2012), “Designing an educational complex, from disciplinary to trans disciplinary approach”, Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk Agroengineering, vol. 62, pp. 158–167.
24. MacCormick, N. (1993), “Beyond the sovereign state”, The Modern Law Review, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 1–18.
25. Matveychev, O. (2009), Suverenitet dukha [Sovereignty of the spirit], Eksmo, Moscow, Russia.
26. Maxigas, P. (2018), “Keeping technological sovereignty. The case of internet relay chat”, in Hache, A. (ed.), Technological sovereignty, Ritimo foundation, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 67–81.
27. Moiseev, A.A. (2014), “About some views on sovereignty”, Law and State, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 74–79.
28. Ovchinnikov, S.N. (2011), “Custom sovereignty. The supremacy of state power”, State power and local government, no. 3, pp. 6–9.
29. Pastukhova, N.B. (2013), Gosudarstvennyi suverenitet: istoriya i sovremennost’ [State sovereignty. History and modern times], Aspect Press, Moscow, Russia.
30. Reut, O.Ch. (2007), “Adjectives of sovereignty. Sovereignty as an adjective”, Polis. Political Studies, no. 3, pp. 115–124.
31. Schmit, C. (1985), Political theology. Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty, MIT Press, Cambridge, UK.
32. Schrijver, N. (1997), Sovereignty over natural resources, Balancing rights and duties, CU Press, Cambridge.
33. Serdyukov, V.A. and Frolova, V.B. (2015), “The economy of Russia and legal support”, Guide of the entrepreneur, no. 26, pp. 253–258.
34. Shakhmametyev, A.A. (2013), “Tax sovereignty and tax jurisdiction of the state”, Modern Law, no. 3, pp. 76–81.
35. Simonov, K.V. (2007), Global’naya ehnergeticheskaya voina [Global energy war], Algorithm, Moscow, Russia.
36. Terentyeva, L.V. (2017), “Concept of the state sovereignty in the conditions of global and information communication processes”, Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, no. 1, pp. 187–200.
37. Tsymbursky, V.L. (1993), “The idea of sovereignty in a post-totalitarian context”, Polis. Political Studies, no. 1. pp. 194–202.
38. Yeli, H. (2017), “A three-perspective theory of cyber sovereignty”, PRISM, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 109–115.
39. Zimmermann, C.D. (2013), “The concept of monetary sovereignty revisited”, The European Journal of International Law, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 797–818.
40. Zolkin, A.L. (2016), “Civilizational sovereignty of Russia as a philosophical issue”, Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, no. 2, pp. 24–27.
Review
For citations:
Malov A.V. The bilateral image of sovereignty in the mirror of scientific discussion. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin Series "Political Science. History. International Relations". 2023;(3):48-66. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2023-3-48-66
Views:
126
Email this article 