State and Sovereignty

Gallaher 2009

Defines sovereignty as ultimate authority within territorially bounded space

Distinguishes internal and external sovereignty

Argues globalization, non-state actors, human rights and de facto versus de jure distinctions create layered and plural sovereignty regimes

Identifies classic, imperialist, integrative and globalist forms

Kosovo illustrates contested recognition and partial sovereignty;

Aretxaga 2003

Argues Westphalian sovereignty is outdated

Sovereignty is unbundled across people, local institutions, courts and supranational bodies

The state materializes power through violence, intimacy and control

Biersteker 2012

Argues states, sovereignty and territory are socially constructed and mutually constitutive; Sovereignty is dynamic and reframed through responsibility to protect; Powerful states exercise more uncontested sovereignty; Borders increasingly regulate flows rather than fixed space;

Barkan 2015

Argues sovereignty is empirically declining yet intensifying beyond territory

Concepts such as graduated sovereignty and camps show inclusion and exclusion

Ashutosh 2017

Defines sovereignty as monopoly of violence, lawmaking authority and population unification

Postcolonial and border perspectives show sovereignty detaching from territory

Sovereignty is most visible when law is suspended→ prisons, think Guatanamo Bay

Krasner 2017

Argues sovereignty persists despite international change

Introduces ‘organised hypocrisy’ where states violate norms they profess

Philpott 2011

Defines sovereignty through the singular authority over territory

Traces Westphalian state emergence through centralization and church decline

Human rights and responsibility to protect condition sovereignty by linking rights with responsibilities

McConnell 2013

Argues sovereignty is performative and socially constructed

Used to justify violence and independence claims

Operates through symbols, affect and institutions

De jure and de facto distinctions reveal hybrid sovereignty

Territoriality negotiated in extraterritorial and third spaces;

Agnew 2009

Critiques the territorial trap linking sovereignty to fixed territory; Argues sovereignty increasingly operates through flows of capital and labour; Westphalian narrative oversimplifies overlapping medieval and colonial sovereignties;

Kuus & Agnew 2007

Argues the state is a dynamic process and social construct

Defines effective sovereignty as practiced rather than naturally given

Elden 2006

Introduces contingent, earned and phased sovereignty; Postwar norms of non-intervention are challenged by responsibility-based doctrines; UN law upholds de jure sovereignty while autonomy and phased recognition complicate it; States reassert absolutism even as interventions reveal contradictions;

Elden 2013

Proposes vertical or volumetric geopolitics

Territory has depth including airspace and subterranean resources

Sovereignty must be understood three-dimensionally

Layered control shapes modern conflict and vulnerability;

McConnell 2009

Examines Tibetan Government-in-Exile as example of tacit sovereignty

Shows governance without legal recognition through institutions and welfare provision

Sovereign practices are deterritorialised and legitimised through compliance;

Wilson & McConnell 2015

Compares Western Sahara and Tibet in exile; Legitimacy is built through bureaucracy, moral claims and institutions; Western Sahara relies on armed struggle and UN processes; Tibet emphasizes nonviolence and institutional development; Legitimacy can exist without legality;

Wilson 2021

Shows everyday sovereignty among Sahrawi refugees

Sovereignty enacted through social relations, resource distribution and bureaucracy

Refugee camps function as alternative sovereign spaces governing inclusion

Jones 2009

Analyzes India–Bangladesh enclaves as stateless spaces

Absence of services and protection reveals exclusionary sovereignty

Enclaves expose vulnerability despite formal state claims

Berg & Kuusk 2010

Defines sovereignty as relative and empirically variable

Measures sovereignty across internal and external dimensions

Sovereignty varies globally and can be mapped through statehood and legitimacy

Mountz 2013

Examines sovereignty through zones of confinement and offshore governance (Guatanamo Bay)

Authority is deterritorialised through islands, seas, borders and bodies

Overlapping legal regimes reshape sovereign power

Everuss 2020

Shows mobile sovereignty in Australian asylum regime

Sovereignty performed through control of movement

Boat arrivals are denied protection yet governed

Bodies become spaces of exclusion through offshore processing

Sidaway 2003

Introduces sovereigntyscapes in postcolonial contexts

Portrayals of African states as weak obscure active sovereign practices

Sovereignty is performative and shaped by global entanglements and discourse

Jeffrey 2009

Analyzes labels of rogue and failed states in War on Terror discourse

Introduces paradoxical sovereignty where decline is narrated to uphold state-based order

Reid-Henry 2007

Uses Guantánamo Bay to illustrate exceptional sovereignty

Sovereign power exercised without legal accountability

Shelton 2015

Shows human rights norms increasingly condition sovereignty

Tensions exist between domestic supremacy and international obligation

Institutions such as UN and ICC can override state immunity in extreme cases

Johnson & Korf 2021

Examines pastoral sovereignty in Sri Lanka

Catholic Church created zones of peace exercising temporal and spiritual authority

Demonstrates non-state actors can simulate sovereign power

Authority remains conditional and precarious;

Bialasiewicz & Eckes 2021

Critiques individual sovereignty rhetoric during COVID protests; Individualized claims conflict with relational sovereignty; We are the people slogan reflects neoliberal distortion of collective sovereignty;