_________________________________________________________________________Swansea University E-Theses A study of models of sovereignty. Rodney, Michael J How to cite: _________________________________________________________________________ Rodney, Michael J (2008) A study of models of sovereignty.. thesis, Swansea University. http://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa43136 Use policy: _________________________________________________________________________ This item is brought to you by Swansea University. Any person downloading material is agreeing to abide by the terms of the repository licence: copies of full text items may be used or reproduced in any format or medium, without prior permission for personal research or study, educational or non-commercial purposes only. The copyright for any work remains with the original author unless otherwise specified. The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder. Permission for multiple reproductions should be obtained from the original author. Authors are personally responsible for adhering to copyright and publisher restrictions when uploading content to the repository. Please link to the metadata record in the Swansea University repository, Cronfa (link given in the citation reference above.) http://www.swansea.ac.uk/library/researchsupport/ris-support/ A STUDY OF MODELS OF SOVEREIGNTY MICHAEL J RODNEY SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF WALES IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY SWANSEA UNIVERSITY 2008 ProQuest Number: 10821528 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10821528 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 LIBRARY THESIS SUMMARY This summary sheet should be completed after you have read the accompanying notes. The completed sheet should be submitted by you to your Head of Department/School at the time of submission of your work and the supporting documentation. Candidate's Surname / Family Name RODNEY....................... ......... Candidate's Forenames MICHAEL J. Candidate for the Degree of PhD Full title of thesis A STUDY OF MODELS OF SOVEREIGNTY Summary: The thesis constitutes a study of a number of models of sovereignty as a means of gaining illumination on the nature of the use of sovereignty as an explanatory idea and the practices which it is used to represent. The models studied in detail are those of Augustinus Triumphus, who provided a pre-modern model of theocratically based global governance, and of Hobbes, Austin and Schmitt, who provided models of territorially based secular governance. In the analysis of these models, the features of sovereignty that will be explored are its symbolic character, its embeddedness, the role of routine in its operation and its potentiality for rupture. In relation to the last mentioned feature, which is particularly although not solely posed in Schmitt’s model of sovereignty, a grammar of normalities is developed in response to the relationship between norm and exception lying at the centre of his model. In examining these features, a philosophical framework will be developed, drawing on the writings of Ernst Cassirer, with particular reference to his ideas concerning the structure and role of symbols. Further theoretical refinements are made by supplementing the above framework with insights taken from Ludwig Wittgenstein, Anthony Giddens and Charles Taylor, and the idea of rupture is investigated more rigorously by exploring its relationship to that of routine. At this point, a model of popular sovereignty developed by Hans Lindahl and influenced by Cassirer is critically examined and a response is made to its inadequacies. In the conclusion, the notion of a secularised chain of being is introduced as a general underlying feature of the discourse of sovereignty. It will be suggested that despite the differences between the models, they all represent particular instances of an approach dependent on this notion, which has implications for the general nature of the discourse of sovereignty. 1/267 DECLARATION This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. Signed (candidate) Date....... STATEMENT 1 This thesis is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. Where correction services have been used, the extent and nature of the correction is clearly marked in a footnote(s). Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. A bibliography is appended. (candidate) Date....... STATEMENT 2 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. ( Signed (candidate) Date 2/267 PHD Index Chapter Title Contents Pages No 1 Introduction General overview of sovereign 4-17 debate Purpose of PHD and its plan. 2 Historical Overview Brief overview of historical 18-28 processes that have given rise to concentration of power and emergence of sovereignty. 3 A Preliminary Sketch of Coverage mainly of AT, Dante 29-67 some Early Models of and Hobbes but also brief Sovereignty. reference to Machiavelli and Bodin. 4 An Introduction to Austin Initial look at Austin’s view of 68-83 sovereignty. 5 An Introduction to Discussion of Schmitt’s world 84-103 Schmitt view and methodology. 6 A Tentative Theoretical Concentration on the symbolic 104-129 Approach forms developed by Cassirer. 7 Re-examination of Looking at AT through prisms 130-139 Agustinus Triumphus provided by Cassirer. 8 Re-examination of Revealing practice upon which 140-172 Hobbes Hobbes’ model relies and foregrounding right to resist. 9 A Re-Examination of Suggestion of practice upon 173-190 Austin which model predicated. Potential centrality of ‘habit’ 10 A Re-examination of An investigation of 191-215 Schmitt norm/exception and provision of a grammar of normalities. 11 Routine and Rupture Developing further the idea of 216-226 routine and indicating its role and relationship with rupture. 12 Symbols, Transcendence, These themes are brought 227-241 Embeddedness and together and are used to explore Routine the articulation of sovereignty within a framework provided by the secularised chain of being. 13 Concluding Remarks The secularised chain of being as 242-246 a framework within which to locate the models of sovereignty explored in this thesis. Bibliography 247-267 3/267 Chapter 1: Introduction 1. To engage in an extensive literature survey of the word ‘sovereign’ or ‘sovereignty’ would result in a multi-volume work. It has been said that it is a term that has a long and troubled history.1 The reasons for this are several-fold. First it is a term that finds itself located across the boundaries of a variety of disciplines, such as for example, those of law, both domestic and international, politics, international relations, philosophy, theology, sociology, history and economics. Various attempts have been made to classify it. For example Krasner claims to attribute four meanings to it. Domestic sovereignty, the domain with which the intellectual history of sovereignty has been most clearly associated, suggests the existence of a final and absolute authority possessed with supreme power over a territorially based political community. International legal sovereignty on the other hand is captured by the idea of state sovereignty and suggests that each state has legal competence to participate on an equal footing with other states in an international community dominated by the existence of such states.3 Interdependence sovereignty is a category introduced by Krasner to reflect the deepening of globalization and the varying abilities of states to effectively exercise control over movements which are trans-national in character including those of people, capital and pollutants. A loss of interdependence sovereignty does not in itself automatically lead to a loss of domestic sovereignty perceived as the existence of what is considered within the state to be the final and absolute political authority. However, it may well progressively weaken the position of that authority, as it increasingly comes to be seen as incapable of exercising effective control over certain entities within the state’s borders.4 The last category in Krasner’s taxonomy is that of Westphalian sovereignty which embraces the principles of territoriality and the exclusion of external actors ‘from domestic authority 1 Crawford, J 2006: 32. 2 He classifies sovereignty as domestic, international, interdependence and Westphalian sovereignty. 3 Steinberge, R.H 2004: 329. 4 Krasner, S.D 1999: 12-13. Clearly it can be said that interdependence sovereignty is undermined by the growth of international phenomenon such as terrorism, climate change, the rise of aids and the growing fuel and water crisis. See also Sassen, S 1996 for a useful exploration of the ways in which internal sovereignty is being undermined by