The Concept of Sovereignty in the US International Studies at the Turn of the 21st Century

At the turn of the millennium, as the Cold War ended and the United States were striving to build a unipolar world order, academic debates about the concept of sovereignty gained new momentum in the USA. This paper examines the views on this issue of representatives of the two major schools of international relations theory at the time — neoliberalism and neorealism. The author emphasizes that at the turn of the 21 st century the US academic discourse was dominated by a desire to revise traditional approaches to sovereignty as they were considered unsuitable for new postbipolar international realities. Discussions revolved around few key issues. Firstly, both neorealists and neoliberals focused on the possible implications of globalization and integration processes for the state sovereignty. Secondly, special attention was given to the search of a proper balance between the principle of sovereignty, on the one hand, and the protection of human rights, on the other. It is against this background that the concept of humanitarian intervention came into focus. The author stresses that at that time there appeared to be a certain convergence on the issues of sovereignty between the representatives of almost all key approaches in the US IR studies. For instance, it was a predominant assumption among the neoliberals and constructivists as well as the most part of the neorealists that a limitation of sovereignty was inevitable. Some experts pointed out that the processes of globalization and integration necessarily led to a ‘dilution’ of state sovereignty. Others suggested to decompose the principle of sovereignty into several parts. Still others stressed the indisputable importance of sovereignty as a basic principle, but admitted a necessity to adapt it to the new IR realities. Moreover, the US academic community almost unanimously accepted the priority of human rights over the principle of sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs of other states. As a result, the promotion of human rights was considered to be an international responsibility rather than an internal affair of a state. This, in turn, led to the emergence of the concept of ‘responsibility to protect’, which conditioned the state sovereignty not by its inherent rights but by its capacity to effectively protect its citizens’ human rights. This review of sovereignty researches published in 1990s and 2000s seems important for understanding the dynamics of the US official stance on a range of key issues of a current IR agenda, including the problem of foreign interference in internal affairs of other states.

sovereignty, the United States, world order, globalization, international law, supranational institutions, interference in internal affairs, post-bipolarity, humanitarian intervention

1. Kokoshin A.A. 2006. Real’nyi suverenitet v sovremennoi miropoliticheskoi sisteme [Real sovereignty in the modern world-political system]. Moscow, Evropa Publ. (In Russ.)

2. Konyshev V.N. 2010. Amerikanskii neorealizm o probleme suvereniteta [American neorealism on the issue of sovereignty]. Politeks, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 68–88. Available at: http://www.politex.info/content/view/760/30/ (accessed: 13.04.2018). (In Russ.)

3. Kuznetsova E.S. 2013. Uskol’zayushchii suverenitet: status-kvo protiv ideologii peremen [Escaping sovereignty: The status quo against the ideology of change]. Moscow, Argamak-media Publ. (In Russ.)

4. Levin I.D. 2003. Suverenitet [Sovereignty]. Saint-Petersburg, Juridicial center Press Publ. (In Russ.)

5. Marchenko M.N. 2004. Teoriya gosudarstva i prava [Theory of state and law]. Moscow, Zertsalo Publ. (In Russ.)

6. Bogaturov A.D. (ed.). 2010. Sovremennaya mirovaya politika: prikladnoi analiz [Modern world politics: Applied analysis]. Moscow, Aspekt-Press Publ. (In Russ.)

7. Stroeva A.S. 2014. Mezhdunarodno-pravovoe priznanie Kosovo [International legal recognition of Kosovo]. Moscow. (In Russ.)

8. Fukuyama F. 2006. State-building: Governance and world order in the 21st century [Russ. ed.: Fukuyama F. Sil’noe gosudarstvo: Upravlenie i mirovoi poryadok v XXI veke. Moscow, AST Publ.].

9. Chernichenko S.V. 1999. Teoriya mezhdunarodnogo prava: V 2 t. T. 2. Starye i novye teoreticheskie problemy [The theory of international law. In 2 vol. Vol. 2. Old and new theoretical problems]. Moscow, NIMP Publ. (In Russ.)

10. Albright M. 2003. United Nations. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 22.03.2018).

11. Baker J.A. 1995. The politics of diplomacy: Revolution, war and peace, 1989–1992. New York, G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

12. Barkin J.S., Cronin B. 1994. The state and the nation: Changing norms and the rules of sovereignty in international relations. International Organization, no. 48 (1), pp. 107–130.

13. Bergsten F. 1999. America and Europe: Clash of the titans? Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/1999-03-01/americaand-europe-clash-titans (accessed: 13.04.2018).

14. Berman S., McNamara K. 1999. Bank on democracy. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1999-03-01/bank-democracy (accessed: 03.07.2019).

15. Biersteker T., Weber C. 1996. State sovereignty as social construct. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

16. Buzan B., Little R. 2000. International systems in world history. Remaking the study of international relations. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

17. Byers M., Chesterman S. 2003. Changing the rules about rules? In Holzgrefe J.L., Keohane R. (eds.). Humanitarian intervention: Ethical, legal, and political dilemmas. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. P. 117–203.

18. Carpenter C. 2013. Responsibility to protect — or to punish. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2013-08-29/responsibility-protect-or-punish (accessed: 06.08.2019).

19. Chopra J., Weiss T. 1992. Sovereignty is no longer sacrosanct: Codifying humanitarian intervention. Ethics and International Affairs, vol. 6, pp. 95–117.

20. Deng F., Kimaro S., Lyons T. et al. 1996. Sovereignty as responsibility: Conflict management in Africa. Washington, D.C., Brookings.

21. Dole B. 1995. Shaping America’s global future. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 28.03.2018).

22. Dornbusch R. 1996. Euro fantasies: Common currency as panacea. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/1996-09-01/euro-fantasies-common-currency-panacea (accessed: 04.07.2019).

23. Doyle M. 2015. The question of intervention: John Stuart Mill and the responsibility to protect. New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press.

24. Evans G., Naím M. 2001. True believer. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 28.03.2018).

25. Falk R. 2004. Human rights. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 22.03.2018).

26. Feinstein L., Slaughter A. 2004. A duty to prevent. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2004-01-01/duty-prevent (accessed: 05.04.2018).

27. Fukuyama F. 2006. America at the crossroads. Democracy, power, and the neoconservative legacy. New Haven, London, Yale University Press.

28. Gelb L., Rosenthal J. 2003. The rise of ethics in foreign policy: Reaching a values consensus. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2003-05-01/rise-ethics-foreign-policy-reaching-values-consensus (accessed: 03.07.2019).

29. Giddens A. 1995. Beyond left and right. Cambridge, Polity Press.

30. Gilpin R. 2000. The challenge of global capitalism: The world economy in the 21th century. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

31. Glanville L. 2013. Sovereignty and the responsibility to protect: A new history. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

32. Goodlatte B. 2004. Judges without borders. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 21.04.2018).

33. Grimm D. 2015. Sovereignty: The origin and future of a political and legal concept. New York, Columbia University Press.

34. Gross S. 2017. The Brexit vote, one year later. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2017-06-23/brexit-vote-one-yearlater (accessed: 06.08.2019).

35. Gurr T. 2000. Ethnic warfare on the wane. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2000-05-01/ethnic-warfare-wane (accessed: 03.07.2019).

36. Haass R. 1994. Intervention. The use of American military force in the postCold War world. Washington, D.C., Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

37. Haass R. 1999. What to do with American primacy. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1999-09-01/what-do-american-primacy (accessed: 03.07.2019).

38. Hannum H. 1998. The specter of secession: Responding to claims for ethnic self-determination. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1998-03-01/specter-secession-responding-claims-ethnic-self-determination (accessed: 03.07.2019).

39. Helms J. 2000. American sovereignty and the UN. The National Interest, no. 62. Available at: https://nationalinterest.org/article/american-sovereignty-andthe-un-283 (accessed: 22.05.2019).

40. Helms J. 1996. Saving the U.N.: A challenge to the next secretary-general. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1996-09-01/saving-un-challenge-next-secretary-general (accessed: 22.02.2019).

41. Hoffman S. 1995. The crisis of liberal internationalism. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 20.05.2018).

42. Holsti K. 1991. Change in the international system: Essays on the theory and practice of international relations. Brookfield, Edward Elgar.

43. Ikenberry J. 2003. America and the ambivalence of power. Current History, vol. 102, iss. 667, pp. 377–382. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/200735840/9FD3561DF7104340PQ/1?accountid=130192 (accessed: 19.04.2018).

44. Jackson R. 1999. Sovereignty in world politics: A glance at the conceptual and historical landscape. Political Studies, vol. 47, iss. 3, pp. 431–456. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9248.00211/abstract (accessed: 14.04.2018).

45. Joffe J. 1999. Rethinking the nation-state: The many meanings of sovereignty. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/1999-11-01/rethinking-nation-state-many-meanings-sovereignty (accessed: 15.03.2019).

46. Jones B. 2018. American sovereignty is safe from the UN. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-09-28/american-sovereignty-safe-un (accessed: 06.08.2019).

47. Keating M. 2002. Plurinational democracy: Stateless nations in a postsovereignty era. New York, Oxford University Press.

48. Keohane R. 1984. After hegemony. Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Oxford, Princeton University Press.

49. Keohane R. 2003. Political authority after intervention. In Holzgrefe J.L., Keohane R. (eds.). Humanitarian intervention: Ethical, legal, and political dilemmas. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. P. 275–298.

50. Kobrin S. 1997. Electronic cash and the end of national markets. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 26.03.2018).

51. Krasner S. 2001. Sovereignty. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 22.03.2018).

52. Krasner S. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

53. Kupchan C. 2018. Trump’s nineteenth-century grand strategy. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-09-26/trumpsnineteenth-century-grand-strategy (accessed: 06.08.2019).

54. Lewis F. 1991. The ‘G-7½’ directorate. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 28.03.2018).

55. MacCormick N. 2009. Questioning sovereignty. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

56. Mandelbaum M. 1994. The reluctance to intervene. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 22.03.2018).

57. Mendelson B. 2005. Sovereignty under attack: The international society meets the Al Qaeda network. Review of International Studies, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 45–68.

58. Nye J. 1999. Redefining the national interest. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1999-07-01/redefiningnational-interest (accessed: 11.04.2018).

59. Nye J. 1992. What new world order? Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1992-03-01/what-new-world-order (accessed: 03.07.2019).

60. Patrick S. 2018. The sovereignty wars: Reconciling America with the world. Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/teaching-notes/sovereignty-wars (accessed: 19.03.2018).

61. Philpott D. 1999. Westphalia, authority, and international society. Political Studies, vol. 47, iss. 3. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/14679248.00217/full (accessed: 03.07.2019).

62. Rakove J. 2003. Europe’s floundering fathers. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 22.03.2018).

63. Rodrik D. 1997. Sense and nonsense in the globalization debate. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 28.03.2018).

64. Rosenau J. 1990. Turbulence in world politics. Brighton, Harvester.

65. Rosenboim O. 2017. Globalism and nationalism: Why interconnectedness does not threaten sovereignty. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-07-10/globalism-and-nationalism (accessed: 06.08.2019).

66. Rothkopf D. 1997. In praise of cultural imperialism? Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 23.03.2018).

67. Sassen S. 1996. Losing control? Sovereignty in an age of globalization. New York, Columbia University Press.

68. Scheffer D. 1992. Toward a modern doctrine of humanitarian intervention. University of Toledo Law Review, vol. 23, pp. 253–293.

69. Slaughter A.M. 2004. A new world order. Princeton, Oxford, Princeton University Press.

70. Slaughter A.M. 1997. The real new world order. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1997-09-01/real-new-world-order (accessed: 07.08.2019).

71. Spiro P. 2004. What happened to the ‘new sovereigntism’? Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2004-07-28/what-happened-new-sovereigntism (accessed: 03.07.2019).

72. Stedman S. 1992. The new interventionists. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1993-02-01/new-interventionists (accessed: 03.07.2019).

73. Stromseth J. 2003. Rethinking humanitarian intervention. In Holzgrefe J.L., Keohane R. (eds.). Humanitarian intervention: Ethical, legal, and political dilemmas. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. P. 232–272.

74. Talbott S. 1997. Globalization and diplomacy: A practitioner’s perspective. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/Foreign-Policy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 24.03.2018).

75. Thakur R., Maley W. 2015. Theorising the responsibility to protect. Cambridge, University Printing House.

76. Waltz K. 2000. Globalization and American power. The National Interest, no. 59. Available at: https://nationalinterest.org/article/globalization-and-americanpower-1225 (accessed: 03.07.2019).

77. Waltz K. 1979. Theory of international politics. Reading, Addison-Wesley.

78. Weber C. 1992. Reconsidering statehood: Examining the sovereignty/intervention boundary. Review of International Studies, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 199–216. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20097298?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents (accessed: 07.08.2019).

79. Wendt A. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, vol. 46, no. 2. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents (accessed: 06.08.2019).

80. Wendt A. 1999. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

81. Wright R. 2000. Pax kapital. Foreign Policy. Available at: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/ForeignPolicy/Default.aspx#panel=document (accessed: 28.03.2018).

82. Zick T. 2005. Are the states sovereign? Virginia. Available at: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=facpubs (accessed: 03.07.2019).