This article applies E. H. Carr’s analysis of utopia and reality, and a Searleanconstructivist analysis of rules and norms, to the concept of ‘sovereignty’ in general, andudStephen Krasner’s argument in Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy in particular. In doing this, the article charts a theoretical space that incorporates insights from classical realism, scientific realism, and philosophical (social) constructivism. To view ‘utopia’ and ‘reality’ as distinct yet equally important planes of International Relations (IR) inquiry, thereby treating ‘sovereignty’udas a single concept with descriptive and normative elements, highlights both the merits and the shortcomings of Krasner’s approach. Furthermore, this type of analysis suggests a fruitful way to continue a contemporary normative discussion about what sovereign entities ought to do.
展开▼
机译：本文将E. H. Carr对乌托邦和现实的分析，以及对规则和规范的Searlean建构主义分析，应用于一般的“主权”概念，以及udStephen Krasner在“主权：特别是有组织的伪善”中的论点。为此，本文绘制了一个理论空间，其中融合了来自古典现实主义，科学现实主义和哲学（社会）建构主义的见解。将“乌托邦”和“现实”视为国际关系（IR）调查的不同但同等重要的平面，从而将“主权”与具有描述性和规范性元素的单个概念相提并论，强调了克拉斯纳方法的优点和缺点。此外，这种类型的分析提出了一种富有成效的方式，可以继续进行有关主权实体应做什么的当代规范性讨论。
展开▼
