Remnants

This chapter presents the current dilemma brought about by the classic theory of sovereignty. It argues that this theory is not timeless, and that it has run its course. As such, the dilemma is presented as a choice between forswearing all the classic concept's criteria, in which case the concept is meaningless, or clinging to one or more of them, in which case the concept is pernicious. The chapter then goes on to address three attempts to escape the dilemma by reframing the concept. The first to be addressed is popular sovereignty. Another approach to reconstructing the concept lies in focusing on marks (an older locution) or incidents of sovereignty. Finally, there is the so-called “Schmittian Exception,” which relies on Carl Schmitt's claim that “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”

Limited

This chapter focuses on limiting sovereignty. If unlimited sovereignty once looked plausible, even inviting, as a strategy for securing social order, the chapter reveals how the acts of the Stuart monarchs had made it look repellent. Strictly speaking, no European state ever attained full sovereignty as described by the classic theories. But efforts by some state actors to pursue such sovereignty inspired their opponents not just to rethink the theory, but also to engineer actual limits on political authority. In addition, the chapter turns to the American example—particularly on its applications of constitutional limits and restraints to sovereignty, and how these bear upon the classic theory.

Accountable

This chapter explores attempts to hold sovereign actors accountable in the legal sense. At the same time, the chapter shows that legal accountability is precisely what the classic theory of sovereignty rules out—and precisely what people have struggled for, in episode after episode. It also explores startling cases where mere criticism is reviled as an outrageous affront to sovereignty. These two matters are tied: legal accountability turns out to be another kind of affront. The chapter also addresses accountability in terms of international law and politics. It considers the actions of diplomats in the face of sovereign authority, and also discusses the United Nations under this context.

Divided

This chapter is about dividing sovereignty. It explores the next criterion of the classic concept of sovereignty—that sovereign authority is indivisible. The chapter illustrates a series of episodes in which partisans adamantly deny that political authority can be divided. Essentially, it is a tour of episodes where the theory of sovereignty occluded many people's view of valuable political options; and where it also served not as any kind of peace treaty, but actually caused conflict, even war. History has already seen bids to divide sovereign authority, especially in the Founders' embracing the separation of powers and ongoing rivalry between state and federal governments. Dividing political authority is in fact a classic strategy for limiting it.