Competing perceptions of state sovereignty: Synthesizing differing approaches in international relations and international law.

摘要

I argue that international relations and international legal scholars tend to take different approaches to the study of state sovereignty. Specifically, I suggest that international relations scholars generally define sovereignty in absolute terms, while international legal scholars generally assume a variable view of sovereignty. I test this hypothesis using two different methodologies. First, I survey 335 randomly selected international relations and international legal scholars for their opinions on both the original and contemporary meanings of state sovereignty. Second, I analyze the best-selling introductory international relations and international legal textbooks to determine what images of sovereignty are promoted there. Then, to determine which field's view is more reflective of actual state practice, I analyze the international community's formal instruments and behavior in case studies of the law of sea and the UN-Iraq-Kuwait conflict. I conclude that the dichotomy between most international relations and international legal scholars is upheld in the first two tests, and that the case studies indicate it is the international legal scholar's view of sovereignty as variable that is the more accurate representation of contemporary state sovereignty. I propose increased utilization of the variable model of sovereignty in conflicts in order to promote peace by satisfying politically active community groups' demands for greater autonomy without the higher costs for all parties to the conflict that may occur by pursuing absolute sovereignty. I also suggest that international relations scholars increase their awareness and use of the variable model of sovereignty so that they better fulfill their fundamental task of describing the nature of the international system. Lastly, I propose the institution of a required, inter-disciplinary research methods course in graduate programs to sensitize international relations and international legal scholars to the differences in their sources and methods in order to promote fruitful collaboration between these two fields in the future.