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Argues Westphalian sovereignty is outdated; Sovereignty is unbundled across people, local institutions, courts and supranational bodies; The state materializes power through violence, intimacy and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; Sovereignty spans histories from monarchy to Indigenous claims; Concepts such as graduated sovereignty and camps show inclusion and exclusion; Sovereignty remains a powerful ontological idea shaping political order;

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;

Krasner 2017

Argues sovereignty persists despite international change; Introduces organized hypocrisy where states violate norms they profess; Sovereignty changes through layering rather than abolition; No system has replaced state sovereignty as core organizing principle;

Philpott 2011

Defines sovereignty through authority, supremacy and 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; 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; Shows designations justify intervention; 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; Site operates as zone of indiscipline and state of exception rooted in colonial logics;

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;