You are on page 1of 4

In this sense, Krasner' s work does not take us very far beyond the insights about state sovereignty

contained in the pioneering work of Carl Schmitt or in the work of F.H. Hinsley and Alan James. For Schmitt, '[S]overeign is he who decides the exception' (Schmitt, 1985: 5). For Hinsley, sovereignty is 'the idea that there is a final and absolute political authority in the political community' and that 'no final and absolute authority exists elsewhere' (Hinsley, 1986: 26). For James, sovereignty is defined in terms of constitutional independence, an authority derived from a state's constitution, 'which exists in its own right' (James, 1986: 40). While each of these works defines the essence of the concept of sovereignty, like Krasner, they concentrate on its transcendent characteristics rather than its variation in form, its change in operational meaning across time and space, or the possibility of its transformation. We need a framework and an approach to help us understand this phenomenon, something I will propose later. Like the previous discussion of changing forms of state, I will also il1ustrate changing states or forms of sovereignty across time and place. While it would be easier to demonstrate the magnitude of

as in the preceding discussion. effective control over territorial space is essential. the practices of recognition show important variation over the course of the twentieth century. . govemment and a capacity to enter into relations with other states as minimal criteria for statehood under intemational law (Shaw. In order to be recognized as a sovereign state. along with a permanent population. As wil1 be evident from the discussion that fol1ows.changes by contrasting the sovereignty of the absolutist state with that ofthe contemporary state. Although there can be important differences in the cri teria for recognition across different states .a brief case study of changes in US recognition criteria wel1 il1ustrates important changes in the operational meaning of sovereignty over time.including differences between countries sharing fairly similar legal traditions like the United Kingdom and the United States . Article I of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States identifies a defined territory. 1997: 140). I will illustrate important. qualitative transformations in the operational meaning of state sovereignty with reference primarily to the twentieth century. One ofthe best ways to track important changes in the meaning of sovereignty is by examining the criteria explicitly articulated by states when they decide to recognize other states as sovereign.

substantially declared' (Hackworth. as well as fledgling democracies. 1931: 122-3). the first American Secretary of State. The crucial point for recognition purposes was that the state maintain effective territorial control and that it be accorded some form ofpopular legitimacy. Jefferson wrote: 'It accords with our principies to acknowledge any Govemment to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation. especially as they related to property rights. employed a conception of legitimacy borrowed from the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 1931: 120). By thc beginning of the twentieth century. The addition of this criterion is an important illustration of American convergence with established European criteria and is indicative of changing American concems once the United States began to emerge as a major power . States were recognized as legitimate if they were capable of fulfil1ing their intemational commitments and obligations.Thomas Jefferson. when he was first confronted with the question of the new republic's criteria for the recognition of another state. to Honduras and the Dominican Republic in 1903 and to Haiti in 1911 (Hackworth. the particular form of govemance did not matter. This criterion was applied to Colombia in 1900. an additional criterion was added to the list of recognition criteria. In practice. and the United States recognized monarchies. In response to an inquiry from the American Minister to Paris in 1792 about recognition during the course of the French Revolution.

with substantial economic interests of its own. The concern with a state's capacity to fulfill international commitrnents and obligations was especially prominent in the 1920s debate over the recognition of the revolutionary regime that had assumed control in Russia.on the world stage. The revolutionary ideology ofthe new regime was not viewed as consistent with the standards of the major powers of the time .