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
NEXT POST
Chapter 7: Territorial disputes
Friday 23rd June 2023
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World
No comments:
Post a Comment