Territorial integrity 4: statehood, rule of law and peoples - Publication - Jamie Scudder (self-determination, social construct, statehood, weak, strong states)

All Pages in this Section

Cartography

Conflict resolution

International Relations - external links

Nationalism

Leonhardt van Efferink: Nation, nationalism and state 1 - Greek city-states, Max Weber, Peace of Westphalia
Leonhardt van Efferink: Nation, nationalism and state 2 - Modernism, Ethno-Symbolism, Primordialism
Leonhardt van Efferink: Nation, nationalism and state 3 - process, sentiment, language, movement, ideology?
Jon Fox: Nationalism, social constructivism, modernists, ethno-symbolists
Jon Fox: Nationalist elites, representations, reception theory, social media, sports
Michael Skey: National identity, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, globalisation
Michael Skey: Nation, media representations, audiences, models, studies, influence

Sovereignty

Territory

More information about pictured books

After clicking with left mouse button on book cover, an Amazon page (or publisher's) with book info appears in a new browser window.

Jamie Scudder

Photo courtesy of the interviewee

Jamie Scudder (King's College London, December 2010)

Article

Jamie Scudder

Jamie Scudder is a Country Risk Analyst for Maplecroft. She obtained a Masters degree in Geopolitics from King's College London where she secured a distinction.

Conclusion

Territorial integrity as a core principle of international law and the sovereign state system has come under increased pressure. On the one hand territorial sovereignty is increasingly seen as contingent, and other theoretical arguments are being advanced in favour of territorial preservation. As both of the above aspects are constitutive of the territorial integrity principle, this tension demonstrates a particularly problematic intersection at the heart of the territory-sovereignty nexus (Elden 2009). The war on terror is perhaps the latest example of this, although it can be argued that there is a continuity with events before 2001 and thus is part of a wider trend to impact state sovereignty.

The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is an example of how an absence of effective territorial control facilitated alternative concentrations of power and as a result necessitated intervention. The production of a new functioning state out the ruins of a destroyed one, where a territorial vacuum without authority has enabled non-state actors to move in, was an unrealistic prospect if one is to look at other ‘failed states’. A policy review by the Obama administration has renewed the debate on how to defeat terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda and its protectors, the Taliban by facilitating the growth of institutions involved in assisting the rule of law and legitimate governance. A departure from the narrow focus of counter-terrorism measures of the previous administration must be reformed if current efforts are to succeed (ICG 2009).

An examination of the concept of ‘contingent sovereignty’ and its impact has shed light on the nature of intervention in so-called ‘weak states’. The argument can also be extended to the treatment of other states that fit into the category of ‘strong-states’ where considerable amounts of resources have been invested in the build-up of weapons arsenals. The 2003 Iraq war, it could be argued, was built on this premise but Iraq showed both strong and weak characteristics in this sense (Elden 2009). In conclusion it may be of use to mention the status of international law as imperfect in its reconciliation of territorial integrity with self-determination.

Given that sovereignty has been taken to apply to states rather than peoples the question of how to deal with states that fail to follow particular norms is of pressing concern. In this sense a reading of international law has led some to argue that political theory should be rethought.

References

Acharya, A. (2007) ‘State Sovereignty After 9/11: Disorganised Hypocrisy’, Political Studies. 55 p.274-296.
Agnew, J. (1994) ‘The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory’, Review of International Political Economy. 1 (1) p. 53-80.
Agnew, J. (2005) ‘Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality and State Authority in Contemporary World Politics’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 95 (2) p.437-461.
Annan, K. A. (1999) ‘Two Concepts of Sovereignty’ The Economist. [Online]. Available from: http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/articleFull.asp?TID=33&Type=Article [Accessed 22 March 2010].
Barnett, N. M. and Finnemore, M. (1999) ‘The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations’, International Organization. 53 (4) p. 713.
BBC (2010) Afghanistan - Timeline. [Online]. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1162108.stm [Accessed 10 March 2010].
Behr, H. (2008) ‘Deterritorialisation and the Transformation of Statehood: The Paradox of Globalisation’, Geopolitics. 13 p.359-382.
Bierstecker, T. J. and Weber, C. (eds.) (1996) State Sovereignty as Social Construct. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Brownlie, I. (1998) The Rule of Law in International Affairs. Boston, Martinus Nijhoff.
Carter, A. B., Deutch, J. M., Zelikow, P. D. (1998) ‘Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy’, Cambridge MA: Visions of Governance in the Twenty-First Century. [Online]. Available from: www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/publication/terrorism.htm [Accessed 15 March 2010].
Central Intelligence Agency (2004) Afghanistan Districts. [Online]. Available from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/maps/765275.jpg [Accessed 24 March 2010].
Chopra, J. and Weiss (1992) ‘Sovereignty In No Longer Sacrosanct: Codifying Humanitarian Intervention’, Ethics and International Affairs. 6 p. 95-117.
Elden, S. (2005) ‘Missing the point: globalization, deterritorialization and the space of the world’, Transactions of the British Institute of Geographers. 30 p. 8-19.
Elden, S. (2006) ‘Contingent Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and the Sanctity of Borders’, SAIS Review. XXVI (1) p. 11-24.
Elden, S. (2009) Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty. London, University of Minnesota Press.
Eudaily, S. P. and Smith, S. (2008) ‘Sovereign Geopolitics? – Uncovering the “Sovereignty Paradox”’, Geopolitics. 13 p. 309-334.
Greenwood, C. (2003) ‘International Law and the Pre-emptive Use of Force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, and Iraq’, San Diego International Law Journal. 4 p. 7-38.
Hinsley, F. H. (1966) Sovereignty. New York, Basic Books.
Hendrix, B. A. (2001) ‘International law as a moral theory of state territory?’, Geopolitics. 6 (2) p. 141-162.
International Crisis Group (2006) Countering Afghanistan’s Insurgency: No Quick Fixes. Asia Report Nº 123. Kabul/Brussels, 2 November 2006.
International Crisis Group (2009) Afghanistan: New U.S. Administration, New Directions. Asia Briefing Nº 89. Kabul/Washington/Brussels, 13 March 2009.
Jackson, R. (2007) ‘Sovereignty and its Presupposition: Before 9/11 and After’, Political Studies. 35 p.297-317.
Krasner, S. D. (2001) ‘Rethinking the sovereign state model’, Review of International Studies. 27 p. 17-42.
Mustafa, D. (2005) ‘The Terrible Geographicalness of Terrorism: Reflections of the Hazards Geographer’ Antipode. 37 (1) p. 72-92.
Onuf, N. G. (1991) ‘Sovereignty: Outline of a conceptual history’, Alternatives. 16 (4) p. 425-446.
Rubin, B. R. (2007) ‘Saving Afghanistan’, Foreign Affairs. January/February.
Shaw, M. N. (2003) International Law. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
United Nations Security Council (2001) Resolution 1368. [Online]. Available from: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement [Accessed 23 March 2010].
Vollaard, H. (2009) ‘The Logic of Political Territoriality’, Geopolitics. 14 p. 687-706.