Editing Sovereignty (section)

==Concepts==
The concept of sovereignty has had multiple conflicting components, varying definitions, and diverse and inconsistent applications throughout history.<ref name="Krasner">{{cite book|last1=Krasner|first1=Professor Stephen D.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ISqwQIBQff4C&pg=PA7|title=Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities|year=2001|isbn=9780231121798|pages=6–12|publisher=Columbia University Press }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Korff|first=Baron S. A.|date=1923|title=The Problem of Sovereignty|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400107555/type/journal_article|journal=American Political Science Review|language=en|volume=17|issue=3|pages=404–414|doi=10.2307/1944043|jstor=1944043|s2cid=147037039 |issn=0003-0554}}</ref><ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://repository.graduateinstitute.ch/record/14620?ln=en|title=Handbook of international relations|publisher=Sage|year=2013|editor-last=Biersteker|editor-first=Thomas J.|pages=245–272|chapter=State, sovereignty, and territory}}</ref> The current notion of [[sovereign state|state sovereignty]] contains four aspects:  territory, population, authority and recognition.<ref name=":2">{{cite book|last1=Biersteker|first1=Thomas|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qy97O2Eon0gC|title=State Sovereignty as Social Construct|last2=Weber|first2=Cynthia|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1996|isbn=9780521565998}}</ref> According to [[Stephen D. Krasner]], the term could also be understood in four different ways:
* '''Domestic sovereignty''' – actual control over a state exercised by an authority organized within this state
* '''Interdependence sovereignty''' – actual control of movement across the state's borders
* '''International legal sovereignty''' – formal recognition by other sovereign states
* '''[[Westphalian sovereignty]]''' – there is no other authority in the state aside from the domestic sovereign (such other authorities might be e.g. a political organization or any other external agent).<ref name=Krasner/>

Often, these four aspects all appear together, but this is not necessarily the case – they are not affected by one another, and there are historical examples of states that were non-sovereign in one aspect while at the same time being sovereign in another of these aspects.<ref name=Krasner/> According to [[Immanuel Wallerstein]], another fundamental feature of sovereignty is that it is a claim that must be recognized if it is to have any meaning: {{cquote|Sovereignty is a hypothetical trade, in which two potentially (or really) conflicting sides, respecting de facto realities of power, exchange such recognitions as their least costly strategy.<ref>{{cite book|last=Wallerstein|first=Immanuel|title=World-Systems Analysis|url=https://archive.org/details/worldsystemsanal0000wall|url-access=registration|year=2004|publisher=Duke University Press|isbn=9780822334422|page=[https://archive.org/details/worldsystemsanal0000wall/page/44 44]}}</ref>}}There are two additional components of sovereignty that should be discussed, empirical sovereignty and juridical sovereignty.<ref name="Barnett 1995 79–97">{{Cite journal |last=Barnett |first=Michael |date=1995 |title=The New United Nations Politics of Peace: From Juridical Sovereignty to Empirical Sovereignty |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/27800102 |journal=Global Governance |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=79–97 |doi=10.1163/19426720-001-01-90000007 |jstor=27800102 |issn=1075-2846}}</ref> Empirical sovereignty deals with the legitimacy of who is in control of a state and the legitimacy of how they exercise their power.<ref name="Barnett 1995 79–97"/> Tilly references an example where nobles in parts of Europe were allowed to engage in private rights and ''Ustages'', a constitution by Catalonia recognized that right which demonstrates empirical sovereignty.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Tilly |first=Charles |title=Coercion, Capital and European States |pages=67–95}}</ref> As David Samuel points out, this is an important aspect of a state because there has to be a designated individual or group of individuals that are acting on behalf of the people of the state.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Samuels |first=David |title=Comparative Politics |pages=33–42}}</ref> Juridical sovereignty emphasizes the importance of other states recognizing the rights of a state to exercise their control freely with little interference.<ref name="Barnett 1995 79–97"/> For example, Jackson, Rosberg and Jones explain how the sovereignty and survival of African states were more largely influenced by legal recognition rather than material aid.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Jackson |first1=Robert H. |last2=Rosberg |first2=Carl G. |date=1986 |title=Sovereignty and Underdevelopment: Juridical Statehood in the African Crisis |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/160511 |journal=The Journal of Modern African Studies |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=1–31 |doi=10.1017/S0022278X0000673X |jstor=160511 |s2cid=251060908 |issn=0022-278X}}</ref>  Douglass North identifies that institutions want structure and these two forms of sovereignty can be a method for developing structure.<ref>{{Cite book |last=North |first=Douglass |title=Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance |year=1990 |isbn=9780521397346 |pages=3–10|publisher=Cambridge University Press }}</ref>

For a while, the United Nations highly valued juridical sovereignty and attempted to reinforce its principle often.<ref name="Barnett 1995 79–97"/> More recently, the United Nations is shifting away and focusing on establishing empirical sovereignty.<ref name="Barnett 1995 79–97"/> Michael Barnett notes that this is largely due to the effects of the post Cold War era because the United Nations believed that to have peaceful relations states should establish peace within their territory.<ref name="Barnett 1995 79–97"/> As a matter of fact, theorists found that during the post Cold War era many people focused on how stronger internal structures promote inter-state peace.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pietrzyk |first=Mark E. |title=Explaining the Post-Cold War Order: An International Society Approach |date=2001 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20753316 |journal=International Journal on World Peace |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=31–54 |jstor=20753316 |issn=0742-3640}}</ref> For instance, Zaum argues that many weak and impoverished countries that were affected by the Cold War were given assistance to develop their lacking sovereignty through this sub-concept of "empirical statehood".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Zaum |first=Dominik |date=February 2007 |title=1 Sovereignty in International Society |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/5635/chapter-abstract/148653568?redirectedFrom=fulltext |access-date=March 3, 2023 |website=Oxford Academic}}</ref>