BOOK PREVIEW (Chapter 7): “Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory” [Forthcoming 2023]

 

Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics:
A Theory

By 

Jorge E. Núñez

Chapter 7

Territorial disputes

At the intersection between sovereignty and cosmopolitanism are several intricate crises that need more robust understanding and more effective answers. Examples of multi-layered crises, present at the domestic, regional and international levels, are pandemics; arms, drug and human trafficking; terrorism; the flow of refugees; territorial disputes; conflict; and war. These issues have a particular feature─their comprehension and solution require a collaborative, coherent and cohesive approach academically and politically. At present, the scholarly literature and consequent governmental actions on these issues are unidimensional because they are particular, for example, to a state or a scientific discipline. Two important consequences of this unidimensional focus are that these issues are not examined in their whole complexity and that elements common to many of them are not identified. This monograph at large is an attempt to address both these gaps in existing research by offering a new way to comprehend phenomena that involve sovereignty and cosmopolitanism. More particularly, and in order to show how this novel theory and methodology operate, this chapter applies dimensional approaches to the evaluation of a fictional territorial dispute.

[…]

In turn, this chapter will first introduce the concept of “territorial dispute” and consider the reasons how and why territorial disputes start and why some continue endlessly whilst others reach a solution. For example, the chapter will discuss how the domestic context influences the regional and international dimension and vice-versa. The following section will stage a fictional territorial dispute case that will include the hallmarks of the most controversial and difficult ongoing situations such as Kashmir, the Israel-Palestine difference, the Falklands/Malvinas Islands and Crimea. The goal is to evaluate the fictional territorial difference by reviewing its elements and features in light of the different pluralisms. In doing so, the last two sections will use unidimensional and multidimensional approaches to explain how they would assess the different relevant pluralisms at hand. By making use of the theoretical background suggested in chapter 6, both linear and nonlinear dimensional understandings coupled with time and space variables will showcase the same territorial difference under different lights. The expectation is to better discern the many elements and features that comprise a territorial dispute and, consequently, more comprehensively explain them, in particular their unresolvable and volatile nature.

The rationale to choose territorial disputes as an example of crises that offers a crossover between sovereignty and cosmopolitanism is simple. Despite their apparent peculiarities, arguably, all ongoing crises include a variety of interests and the involved agents fail to offer viable coherent and cohesive, peaceful and permanent ways to deal with them. Understandably, scholars explore crises in different ways because of, for example, the discipline of reference or the particular object or subject of study. However, it is puzzling that these studies are not integrated.

[…]

The main reason for the fragmented explanations with regard to territorial disputes and the failure to tackle their intricacy has to do with the unidimensional way of dealing with them—i.e. scholars, organizations, procedures and remedies only deal with one particular area, agent, issue, etc. To tackle these differences, understand their intricacies and, hopefully, solve them peacefully and permanently, requires a multidimensional approach. Therein, the last section will explain the significance behind the fictional territorial dispute in relation to sovereignty and cosmopolitanism. By shifting from a current unidimensional paradigm about the relationship between sovereignty and cosmopolitanism to a reconceived multidimensional paradigm where sovereignty and cosmopolitanism can (and should) operate together, it is possible to fully comprehend the complexity these disputes have and potentially address them in a more efficient way. The prospects for such a model are promising because it enables to reimagine the global order in a way that can be applied by means of analogy to other issues such as pandemics; arms, drug and human trafficking; terrorism; the flow of refugees; and war.

PRE-ORDERS

PRE-ORDER VIA AMAZON: AMAZON LINK

PRE-ORDER VIA ROUTLEDGE: ROUTLEDGE LINK

PREVIOUS POST

Chapter 6: Dimensions and variable

Chapter 6 [PREVIEW]

NEXT POST

Chapter 8: Conclusive remarks, limitations and future implications

Friday 30th June 2023

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

BOOK PREVIEW (Chapter 6): “Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory” [Forthcoming 2023]

 

Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics:
A Theory

By 

Jorge E. Núñez

Chapter 6

Dimensions and variables

This chapter brings together the different pluralisms already introduced that are characteristic of sovereignty and cosmopolitanism by proposing a way to further comprehend and, arguably, accurately understand their multiple possible interrelations. The first part will suggest a shift in legal and political sciences and international relations by moving from unidimensional views to the notion of multidimensionality. Thereafter, the next two sections will refer to the two key variables of time and space that influence pluralisms in various manners.

[…]

Depending on how and where they happen, these pluralisms and their interrelations may become, i.e. emerge, manifest, in different dimensions such as linear and nonlinear. While the linear dimensional model understands the interrelations between pluralities in a more orderly manner and may help foresee conventional effects, the nonlinear dimensional model accepts the unusual interrelations of the same pluralities and offers other possible outcomes.

[…]

Applying the dimensional understanding to sovereignty in relation to states as a type of agent, the traditional understanding has to do with a linear vertical view—i.e. that one who has a superior cannot be a sovereign as sovereignty means supreme, the highest authority on a scale. In that sense, when dealing with international agents, a state is sovereign as long as it has supreme authority over its territory and population. If it does not, it may be something else, e.g. a colony, a member of a federal state, etc., but not a sovereign state. This understanding, although clear at the time of putting together classifications, fails to recognize other interrelations on both linear and nonlinear dimensions which results in a partial or incomplete comprehension.

[…]

More comprehensively, a multidimensional understanding of sovereignty and cosmopolitanism acknowledges that different agents play different roles in different contexts, realms and use different modes of existence. These pluralities may interrelate with each other in linear and nonlinear ways.

[…]

Consider various issues that affect different individuals and communities within Kashmir such as the case of LGBT+ people in this context. Indeed, to resolve Kashmir as a territorial dispute is not solely a question about, for example, natural resources or legal jurisdictions between China, India and Pakistan if the aim is to guarantee a final peaceful and permanent settlement beneficial to all agents, in particular, those whom the decision that the parties will arrive at in the negotiations may make a difference, legally or morally, on how they may be treated.

In addition to the different pluralisms, linear and nonlinear multidimensional analyses should account for several possible influences. For instance, what sovereignty and cosmopolitanism mean, their nature and their assessment will differ depending on variables such as time and space. Broadly, sovereignty and cosmopolitanism may be considered as having factual existence that may exist in time and space—i.e. non-eternalists. They may as well be considered as having normative existence and, depending on whether the normative system is law or religion, they may not necessarily have an actual presence in time and space or their existence may not be conditioned by them—i.e. eternalists.

[…]

More precisely, time, as a variable, conditions both sovereignty and cosmopolitanism in reference to the different pluralities. For example, applied to agents and contexts, time suggests a distinction between finitists and infinitists in the sense, depending on the historical era, that the modern notion of state sovereignty according to Bodin and Hobbes may be considered absolute or infinite while cosmopolitanism might have had to accept finitude—i.e. at the time of the Colonial Empires, the sovereign agent, whether an individual, a community or the state had exclusive and the highest power over the domestic and, arguably, regional and international contexts. In more recent times, however, there seems to be a tendency to the opposite view with more inclusive and permeable understandings of sovereignty in law and politics allowing for infinitude in terms of cosmopolitanism—i.e. sovereign agents accept limitations in law and fact given by the mere presence of other agents, agreements of different kinds with them and the factual and normative environments.

In turn, these pluralities may appear in different areas such as land, water, outer space and, possibly, cyberspace and even cut across them. In addition to the evident factual peculiar characteristics of each kind of area, normatively they present their own elements and features and, in some instances, they may overlap. Consider the case of an agent, whether an individual, a community or a state with physical and virtual presence in the domestic, regional and international contexts. For example, Vietnam as a sovereign state has presence in land, water, outer space and cyberspace […]

PRE-ORDERS

PRE-ORDER VIA AMAZON: AMAZON LINK

PRE-ORDER VIA ROUTLEDGE: ROUTLEDGE LINK

PREVIOUS POST

Chapter 5: Contexts, realms and modes of existence

Chapter 5 [PREVIEW]

NEXT POST

Chapter 7: Territorial disputes

Friday 23rd June 2023

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

 

Juris North+: “Queer Theory, Leadership and Inclusion” 

Call for Expressions of Interest

We invite expressions of interest to participate as a speaker and/or engage as part of our panel of experts. 

We will start next term with a set of conversational events around the same theme. The aim is to bring academics and non-academics together (e.g. activists, policymakers, people at large). 

By moving away from the “traditional” presenting a paper style, we will conduct an actual exercise in which we will have a speaker or two introducing their own experiences as individuals as well as “leaders” in their field and others participating in the form of a panel of experts together with an open audience. 

Led by

Dr Jorge E. Núñez, Manchester Law School

Dr Anna Chronopoulou, Westminster Law School

What/When/Where

Our first theme will be “Queer Theory, Leadership and Inclusion.” Starting next term in October, all the events will be in person in Manchester, United Kingdom. We may consider hybrid participation. 

Our key objectives

• To critically assess domestic, regional and/or global crossovers with a specific thematic area. 
• To explore different stakeholder journeys and views. 
• To seek different perspectives and exchanges about the same theme and explore possibilities for collaboration in terms of research, practice and education. 

Participants

Open to all. Ideally, multi-disciplinary, transversal and inclusive (academics, policymakers, people at large from different states, religions, genders, ethnicities, etc.). 

Participation

Please send your expression of interest either as a speaker or to be a member of our expert panel (up to 500 words) and a short bio for consideration to j.nunez@mmu.ac.uk by Friday 22nd September 2023.  

Wednesday 21st June 2023

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

 

Juris North 2023 Roundtables “Contemporary non/anti-positivist legal theory” 

Following successful roundtable events exploring the work of Hans Kelsen in 2021 and 2022, Juris North is pleased to announce the theme of our 2023 Roundtable Series: Contemporary non/anti-positivist legal theory.

We invite participants to present work-in-progress that engages with an aspect of any theory that may be described as anti-/non-positivist, or of the natural law tradition. Papers may approach this theme from either a doctrinal or theoretical perspective in how they seek to defend, develop or critique non/anti-positivist positions. 

Led by:

Dr Joshua Jowitt, Newcastle Law School

Participants:

We invite submissions from all interested parties, but are particularly keen to provide a platform to Early Career Researchers (those currently enrolled on a postgraduate research programme or who graduated from such a programme no earlier than 2018) and other under-represented groups.  

Format:

The purpose of these roundtable events is to showcase and develop works-in-progress rather than completed papers. Each session will start with a keynote presentation and Q&A, which we expect to last around one hour. Following a short break, we will then begin the work-in-progress roundtable during which we will hear from up to three speakers. Each speaker will be given a short period of time (5-10minutes) to summarise the key position of their paper, before the floor is opened to a general discussion amongst all attendees to discuss themes and links that emerge from the presentations.

Though in-person attendance is encouraged, each event will be hosted in a hybrid-format at Newcastle Law School, Newcastle University. Travel bursaries of up to £120 per speaker are available to support in-person attendance for those with limited or no access to institutional support.

Languages:

All papers should be presented in English.

Dates/Times:

It is expected that initial events will take place on a Wednesday afternoon in October, November and December of 2023.

Final event:

The series will culminate in a one-day event in February/March 2024 where attendees can present papers that have been updated as a result of the series. A conference dinner will be provided free of charge to all presenters, and – as with work in progress events – travel bursaries of up to £120 per speaker are available to support in-person attendance for speakers with limited or no access to institutional support.

We are currently in discussions with Hart as to the possibility of publishing presented papers as an edited collection.

Participation:

Please send an anonymised abstract (up to 500 words) for consideration to law.research@newcastle.ac.uk by 17h00 BST on Wednesday 30th August 2023.

The e-mail accompanying your abstract should also contain the following information:

• Name;
• Institutional affiliation (if any);
• Whether you hope to present in-person or online;
• A ranked indication of your preference with regards to the month of your participation (if applicable); and
•  Whether you wish to be considered for a travel bursary to assist with in-person attendance.

Wednesday 21st June 2023

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

BOOK PREVIEW (Chapter 5): “Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory” [Forthcoming 2023]

 

Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics:
A Theory

By 

Jorge E. Núñez

Chapter 5

Contexts, realms and modes of existence

Chapter Five distinguishes the contexts[1] in which sovereignty and cosmopolitanism may take place and adds the realms through where these contexts and, consequently, agents and players and their interrelations, may be explored while introducing the different modes of existence any subject or object of study may have. 

While sovereignty seems to give preeminence to the local context because there must be a single sovereign power over the same population and territory in order to have a sovereign state, cosmopolitanism appears to bring a polar opposite view with its claims to universality and generality. These assumptions are as simplistic as erroneous.

[…]

Regardless of the relevance in the local, regional or international contexts, sovereignty and cosmopolitanism are always present to a different degree. Whether they are more concentrated or dispersed, centralized or des-centralized, it is a matter of degree, but not of lacking. 

There is a further angle to the pluralism of pluralisms present that deserves more detailed exploration when referring to sovereignty and cosmopolitanism: the realms from which they are evaluated and, consequently, the intentionally and non-intentionally concealed assumptions and beliefs behind them. A subject or an object of study may be assessed with reference to how it ought to be, how it is and how it should/could be. Realms refer to the way in which a subject or an object of study may be perceived either normatively, factually or axiologically. Different disciplines, academics, policy makers and people at large may apply the same concepts but because they do so in a different way controversy appears. This kind of controversy is not based on the case itself but on the way in which the speakers apply their pre-conceptions, assumptions and beliefs. To that extent, it is of utmost importance to recognize the kind of arguments used and differentiate those that are determined by normative authorities, those that are dependent on nature and those that imply an assessment based on a value judgement.

[…]

Finally, a subject or an object of study may have different modes of existence and, therefore, be ideal, natural, cultural or metaphysical. Ideal subjects or objects are unreal. That is, they simply “are” but do not properly exist. 

[…]

For instance, any definition of sovereignty includes the concept of the highest, supreme, absolute authority in a territory and over a population. Within a territory, it means that lawmakers—i.e. the government—have the exclusive prerogative to create laws for these people. Externally, any other agent has the obligation not to interfere. From this very brief characterization, it is self-evident that sovereignty refers to ideal and cultural elements such as national legal order and international legal agreements as well as natural ones such as territory and population. To a similar extent cosmopolitanism, for example, may refer to a moral or a legal set of rules as well as a sociological characteristic present in a domestic, regional or international context.

Consequently, if scholars in legal science aimed to evaluate a territorial dispute from, for example, the public international law perspective (normative realm, ideal or cultural objects) they might find it hard to come to an agreement with scholars in political science or sociology who could assess the same territorial dispute based on historical, ethnic or even linguistic elements (factual realm, natural or cultural objects). Indeed, all these scholars would be exploring the same territorial dispute but from different realms of reference or assessing the issue according to different modes of existence and their results would be determined (or, at least influenced and, arguably, biased) by a priori concepts, assumptions and beliefs.

---

[1] Context may refer to several notions such as geographical placement, historical background, sociological and financial influences. This monograph applies the term “context” with reference to geographical placement only. All other notions are dealt with in other chapters; e.g. chapter 4 refers to agents and players and, therefore, covers the sociological aspect.

PRE-ORDERS

PRE-ORDER VIA AMAZON: AMAZON LINK

PRE-ORDER VIA ROUTLEDGE: ROUTLEDGE LINK

PREVIOUS POST

Chapter 4: Agents and players

Chapter 4 [PREVIEW]

NEXT POST

Chapter 6: Dimensions and variables

Friday 16th June 2023

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

BOOK PREVIEW (Chapter 4): “Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory” [Forthcoming 2023]

 

Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics:
A Theory

By 

Jorge E. Núñez

Chapter 4

Agents and players

This chapter exposes an often-overlooked situation in relation to both sovereignty and cosmopolitanism─there are several different agents and each of them may play different roles in different capacities. Therefore, to argue that a particular agent or player is the main (and at times, sole) subject to be considered in, for example, territorial disputes, pandemics or trafficking of any kind, is both a mistake and an oversimplification.

[…]

At the level of civil societies, individuals have common and conflicting interests; similarly, individuals in communities have similar and conflicting interests. Consider, for example, issues related to gender, minorities, internal migrations, differently-abled people, children and young adults and many other intra-community subgroups. At the level of the international society, these individuals and communities are a single legal and political entity, i.e. the state, that also has common and conflicting interests with their peers. A classic example of the intersection between common and conflicting interests in the international society is the case of territorial disputes. Despite the internal differences within states about individual and community interests, when there is a territorial dispute, internationally, states seem to be a single agent.

This is indeed a simplified view. Cases such as the difference between Israel and Palestine or Catalonia clearly show that there are other agents at play in addition to the states. For example, the Israel-Palestine difference includes diaspora, settlements, Hamas and other individual and community interests.

[…]

Sovereignty and cosmopolitanism include different agents that, similar to a board game, may “play” in different capacities. For instance, an individual or a community may play different roles within and in their interrelation with other agents ranging from, for example, a two-people egalitarian relationship to a dictatorship, with or without political parties. Furthermore, the role of political parties and political leaders may or may not operate in favor of their community. Therein, borrowing from game theory and board games, sovereignty and cosmopolitanism present different agents that, as players, may be broadly classified into hosts, participants, attendees and viewers. Consider the cases of territorial disputes where there are at least two players, i.e. the challenger and the challenged. These two players act as hosts of the dispute in the sense that without them there would not be a quarrel. In some situations, there may be other players such as participants in question. For example, in the cases of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands and Gibraltar the hosts would be the UK and Argentina and the UK and Spain, respectively. In turn, Falkland Islanders and Gibraltarians might be the participants. There is, however, a difference between being a participant and an attendee. Whilst participants have a certain degree of interaction generally allowed by the hosts, attendees are merely present in the dispute without much legal or political ability to participate. In the case of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, the islanders are mere attendees for Argentina because the Argentinian government has systematically neglected their right to participate in any negotiation about the sovereignty over the territory in question. On the contrary, in the case of Gibraltar, the UK and Spain have moved towards accepting a certain degree of participation, in light of the principle of “Two Flags, Three Voices.” Finally, viewers refer to any other player related to the territorial dispute, but without any actual or hypothetical legal and political connection. Regional players such as neighboring states are an example.

[…]

PRE-ORDERS

PRE-ORDER VIA AMAZON: AMAZON LINK

PRE-ORDER VIA ROUTLEDGE: ROUTLEDGE LINK

PREVIOUS POST

Chapter 3: Cosmopolitanism

Chapter 3 [PREVIEW]

NEXT POST

Chapter 5: Contexts, realms and modes of existence

Friday 09th June 2023

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

BOOK PREVIEW (Chapter 3): “Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory” [Forthcoming 2023]

 

Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics:
A Theory

By 

Jorge E. Núñez

Chapter 3

Cosmopolitanism

The overarching theme of this monograph is to illustrate how sovereignty and cosmopolitanism can work together. While on the surface, sovereignty appears to be absolute and, therefore, imply otherhood and exclusionary relationships between agents, cosmopolitanism seems to embrace diversity and bring different agents together. In order to achieve a theoretical change in the existing paradigm that may result in legal and political evolution, it is crucial to acknowledge the different options sovereignty and cosmopolitanism offer. The previous chapter demonstrates that an absolute understanding of sovereignty is one of several choices. Normatively and factually, sovereignty always includes limitations and it is because of these limitations that sovereignty may be enhanced. In a similar fashion, there are various kinds of cosmopolitanism. Moral cosmopolitanism can influence law and politics, and conversely, legal cosmopolitanism centers on the legal rights and obligations of the individual as a subject of a global legal order. By accepting the fact that states will not give up their sovereignty and by acknowledging that individuals should have a minimum set of guarantees protected by law, regardless of their particular circumstances and the different jurisdictions at play, the author proposes to embrace a coordination between the different national legal orders and international law.

[…]

Cosmopolitanism assumes a plurality of agents; however, it is crucial to differentiate between the various types of cosmopolitanism, such as legal and moral cosmopolitanism and focus on the former if the aim is to offer a set of legal guarantees recognized beyond jurisdictional differences. While moral cosmopolitanism may have a degree of influence in law and politics, legal cosmopolitanism is where individuals are acknowledged as legal subjects of a global legal order, and consequently, it is possible to discuss their legal rights and obligations. More precisely, although relevant for theoretical argumentation, one problem associated with moral cosmopolitanism is the tension between ideal and non-ideal or realist theory in the conception of cosmopolitanism as applied to the rights and obligations associated with sovereignty.

[…]

Any notion of legal cosmopolitanism should, therefore, facilitate the means to incorporate this plurality of concepts and characterizations if it intends to have binding force or efficacy in addition to legal validity. Consider democratic regimes versus others in which individual liberties may be curtailed by the legal and political order. Furthermore, consider only democratic regimes and their many differences despite the recognition of individual liberties.

[…]

Practically, any version of legal cosmopolitanism should make room for these differences and somehow accommodate them. Compromise may be required, but the result could be counterintuitive, i.e. domination, because strong democratic regimes may and can overpower their weaker peers. Obviously, there is another option: legal cosmopolitanism may claim to define globally key legal concepts and their characterizations.

[…]

Evidently, it may prove impossible to accommodate all legal regimes (even if they were all democratic) under one sole strict arrangement of legal cosmopolitanism. To gain complete acceptance by all involved agents, any arrangement should incorporate pluralism.

[…]

The author suggests that a theoretical change of the paradigm would facilitate an acknowledgment of (limited) sovereignty and (legal) cosmopolitanism as compatible, despite the prima facie tension between the two concepts. In practice, this would mean that states could retain their sovereignty, and at the same time, individuals would enjoy a minimum set of legal guarantees recognized beyond jurisdictional differences. According to the author, moving from the absolute sovereignty versus moral cosmopolitanism dichotomy and accepting the notion that limited sovereignty and legal cosmopolitanism can (and should) work together, would make it possible to embrace the different national orders and international law. The most important consequence is that it might be conceivable to combine state sovereignty with a minimum set of enforceable legal guarantees for each and every individual, in addition to a level of coordination between national legal orders and international law.

---

[1] By strong democratic regimes, the author applies the adjective “strong” in an ample sense including financial, legal, political, social and any other comparative circumstance.

PRE-ORDERS

PRE-ORDER VIA AMAZON: AMAZON LINK

PRE-ORDER VIA ROUTLEDGE: ROUTLEDGE LINK

PREVIOUS POST

Chapter 2: Sovereignty

Chapter 2 [PREVIEW]

NEXT POST

Chapter 4: Agents and players

Friday 02nd June 2023

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world