Search Results

No Access

Mikhail Antonov

This article examines the correlation between the concepts of sovereignty, human rights, and democracy in Russian legal and political debate, analyzing this correlation in the context of Russian philosophical discourse. It argues that sovereignty often is used as a powerful argument which allows the setting aside of international humanitarian standards and the formal constitutional guarantees of human rights. This conflict between sovereignty and human rights also recurs in other countries, and many legal scholars are demanding the revision or even abandonment of the concept of sovereignty. In Russia, this conflict is aggravated by some characteristic features of the traditional mentality frequently favoring statism and collective interests over individual ones, and by the state building a ‘power vertical’ subordinating regional and other particularistic interests to the central power. These features and policies are studied in the context of the Slavophile-Westernizer philosophical divide. This divide reveals the pros and contras put forward by the Russian supporters of the isolationist (conservative) policy throughout contemporary history—especially in the sovereignty debates in recent years. The 1993 Russian Constitution contains many declaratory statements about human rights and democracy, but their formulations are vague and, thus far, have had little concrete effect in court battles where the application of international humanitarian law from time to time has been counterbalanced by the concerns of the protection of sovereignty. These concerns coincide with isolationist and authoritarian policies, which in 2006 led to their amalgamation in the concept of ‘sovereign democracy’. This concept is considered in this article to be a recurrence of the Russian conservative tradition. Even though the concept in its literal meaning has been abandoned by its author and supporters, most of its ideas remain on the cusp of the official political discourse which reproduces the pivotal axes of Russian political philosophy of the XIX century.

No Access

John Smolenski

“Brother Onas,” i.e. provincial founder William Penn and his successors. But as Lauren Benton has recently reminded us, colonial sovereignty in the early modern period always existed as a patchwork of claims and obligations within a limited spatial reach. If Pennsylvania occupied an exceptional place in

No Access

John L. Meloy

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/156852010X539159 Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 53 (2010) 712-738 Money and Sovereignty in Mecca: Issues of the Sharifs in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries John L. Meloy * Abstract The sharifs of

No Access

Owen McIntyre

differ- ent and less progressive stance. The principal difference in the Draft Articles, and one which can be linked to most of the other deviations, is the inclusion of an express reference to the sovereignty of aquifer States in a manner implying that this is the key guiding principle of the instrument

No Access

Why Hobbes Cannot Limit the Leviathan

A Critical Commentary on Larry May’s Limiting Leviathan

Marcus Arvan

Larry May’s stated aims in Limiting Leviathan are two-fold. First, May argues that Hobbes is much more amenable to moral and legal limits on sovereignty and lawmaking than traditionally portrayed. (p. 1) Second, May endeavors to show that Hobbes’ theory provides a “solid grounding” for these

Karl Ubl

Concept "Sovereignty" represents a key category of medieval studies in German-speaking countries, where it is customary to speak of royal, episcopal, ecclesiastical, municipal, feudal, juridical, and territorial dominion (or manorialism) when attempting to characterize specifically medieval

Herms, Eilert

[German Version] The term sovereignty – as defined by J. Bodin after antique and medieval precursors – does not denote a legal title but a social reality, the reality of an effective social power to preserve external and internal peace in the territory over which it holds sway, a “commonwealth

Khir, Bustami

(Sole) authority and power, rulership. In exploring the notion of sovereignty much care should be given to terminology. Sovereignty generally means authority (q.v.) and power (see power and impotence ) but it lacks precise definition and has many divergent interpretations in English usage as do its

No Access

Hee Eun Lee

Peninsula … For Koreans, Dokdo is a symbol of the complete recovery of sovereignty. Along with homage by the Japanese leaders to the Yaskuni Shrine and Japanese history textbooks, Dokdo is a touchstone of Japan’s recognition of its past history as well as its determination for Korea-Japan relations of

No Access


Brendan Gillis

, jurisdiction, and sovereignty. The Conestoga might conceivably have claimed rights and privileges akin to those of colonial subjects, but any such assertion rested on ill-defined promises in decades-old treaties. In a series of “Conditions or Concessions” placed on the earliest settlers of the colony in July