We deal with the concept of sovereignty in class today. There are essentially two approaches to the issue of continued state sovereignty: those who believe that because the state is in retreat (due to globalization and other forces) then sovreignty is no longer a valid, relevant or extant concept, and those who believe that despite the profound changes going around in the world around us, the juridical core of sovereignty remains nhanged. This is an interesting debate that is not easily resolved.
One doubt that has arisen during group discussion with other students is the exact conceptual difference between sovereingty -- and the concepts of autonomy, independence, autarchy, and self-determination. This, I think, is such a good, basic question, that it should be examined more formally, perhaps in an essay. Perhaps it's something to consider for next week.
Oh, there were also some very provocative statements made in the reading, which included Jan Aart Scholte, Robert Jackson, Stephen Krasner, Christopher Clapham, Richard Haass (of the Council on Foreign Relations), and the text provided by Georg Sorensen. These are some very powerful thinkers and Sorensen is a fantastic guide to the complex and inter-related issues which they raise.
24 October 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment