State sovereignty reimagined: between relativism and absolutism

In a time of disruptive technological advancement, contested identities within and between states, and divisive relativism in the public sphere, the idea of (state) sovereignty has returned to the spotlight. However, sovereignty’s meaning is highly contested. On one extreme, some commentators dismiss sovereignty as lacking genuine semantic reference. At the other end of the spectrum, we find essentialist claims about the "true" meaning of sovereignty, often linked to policies that are meant to restore "real" sovereignty. This paper argues that these positions - sovereignty is an empty concept or it has one essential meaning - are both mistaken and exploitable. The former creates a vacuum readily filled by nationalist sentiments; the latter allows absolutist tendencies to masquerade as descriptive truth.

By exploring the central case of state sovereignty, this paper charts a middle ground between the two extremes above. The purpose of the paper is to develop a clear conceptual framework capable of accommodating sovereignty's complexity without abandoning the concept or reifying a single “correct” conception of sovereignty. Such conceptual clarity has theoretical and practical significance, as it prevents sovereignty from becoming mere rhetorical ammunition for exclusionary or authoritarian projects.

Reimagining state sovereignty for our fractured world requires us to articulate an idea of sovereignty that can empower political communities to respond to the challenges of our time (internally and externally). To do so, we must be mindful of the dangers associated with the exercise of sovereignty but also appreciate the values that underpin this key concept in public law discourse.