Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics
A Distributive Justice Issue
By Jorge E. Núñez
Previously:
Chapter Three
What should ‘shared sovereignty’ mean?
Introduction
If no sovereignty is absolute, all sovereignty is limited to an extent.
Chapter Two showed that one of the ways in which sovereignty is
limited is the fact that it can be shared (e.g. representatives and
represented, the King and the Church, etc.). However, how can
sovereignty be shared when dealing with States?
Unfortunately, there is no single answer but there are various
ways in which sovereignty can be shared. That is to say, there are
various conceptions of ‘shared sovereignty’. Amongst all the
conceptions of ‘shared sovereignty’, there is one that may be
used to solve sovereignty conflicts—that is not out there this book
intends to propose. This Chapter discusses a possible way of
characterising ‘shared sovereignty’ in order to address some
sovereignty conflicts.
Many scholars in legal and political theory and international
relations use the expression ‘shared sovereignty’ and similar
terminology to refer to various different realities. It is mainly for
this reason, and in order to avoid unnecessary confusion, that
these different conceptions will be given a specific name.
The list may not be exhaustive and it does not need to be. This
is because the aim is solely to illustrate the actual vast use of
terms that at first glance appear appropriate in discussing
international conflicts. By arguing against these previous views
it will be possible to define negatively the features that should
denote ‘shared sovereignty’. As a result, this will lead to
characterising the problems that a reconceived conception should
address in order to offer a just and fair solution for sovereignty
conflicts.
