Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:45:41.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking sovereignty with reference to history and anthropology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2009

Megan Wachspress
Megan Wachspress*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While legal practice and scholarship are driven by the use and understanding of complex legal terminology, there has been little effort to incorporate the humanistic scholarship of anthropologists and historians into theoretical or practical accounts of these words and their usages. This paper attempts to historicise and complicate a term that serves as a bridge or meeting point between the legal and the political; sovereignty has been conceptualised since the sixteenth century as both a framing device that produces unity within the state while establishing mutual equality within the interstate order, and as the capacity to make law without being subject to that law. Recent anthropological literature has challenged the personification implicit in political–theoretical definitions of sovereignty, arguing instead for a theory of sovereignty that can be applied to ‘complicated’, post-colonial contexts, where legal orders are plural or overlapping and the state is weak or non-existent. What such critiques cannot explain, however, is how the concept of the ‘sovereign state’ became so central to political discourse on a global scale. This paper draws upon legal historical case-studies concerned with the production of the colonial or post-colonial state or the deployment of ‘sovereignty’ as a justificatory concept in colonial settings. In doing so, this paper argues for understanding sovereignty both as a practice across time and space that organises legal institutions and as a justificatory strategy in the intellectual and social history of those institutions, an approach that allows scholars to draw upon the insights of political theorists, anthropologists and historians. While primarily intended to instigate a broader interdisciplinary conversation, this paper also suggests a preliminary conclusion: sovereignty has historically been deployed as a means of including that which cannot be considered the same, mediating the colonial tension between ‘otherness’ and legal homogeneity.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 315 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agamben, Giorgio (1995/1998) Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Heller-Roazan, Daniel. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Agamben, Giorgio (2003/2005) State of Exception, trans. Attell, Kevin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Anghie, Antony (2004) Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aretxaga, Begoña (2001) Shattering Silence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Benton, Lauren (1999) ‘Colonial Law and Cultural Difference: Jurisdictional Politics and the Formation of the Colonial State’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 41: 563–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, Lauren (2002) Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bodin, Jean (1576/1992) On Sovereignty: Four Chapters on Six Books on the Commonwealth ed. and trans. Franklin, Julian H.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Wendy (2006) Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Wendy (2008) ‘Sovereignty and the Return of the Repressed’ in Campbell, David and Schoolman, Morton (eds) The New Pluralism: William Connolly and the Contemporary Global Condition. Durham: Duke University Press, 250–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith (2004) Precarious Life. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Chanock, Martin (1991) ‘Paradigms, Policies, and Property: A Review of the Customary Law of Land Tenure’ in Mann, Kristin and Roberts, Richard (eds) Law in Colonial Africa. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, 61–84.Google Scholar
Comaroff, Jean and Comaroff, John (1992) Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Cotterrell, R. (ed.) (2001) Sociological Perspectives on Law, Vol. 1: Classical Foundations; Vol. 2: Contemporary Debates. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Devji, Faisal (2005) Landscapes of the Jihad: Militancy, Morality, Modernity. London: Hurst.Google Scholar
Evans, Julie (2005) ‘Colonialism and the Rule of Law: The Case of South Australia’ in Godfrey, Barry S. and Dunstall, Graeme (eds) Crime and Empire, 1840–1940: Criminal Justice in Local and Global Context. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 57–75.Google Scholar
Ewick, Patricia and Silbey, Susan (1998) The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Feuchtwang, Stephan (2004) ‘Comment’ in Clifford Geertz ‘What Is a State If It is Not a Sovereign?’ Current Anthropology 45(5): 587.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel (1976/1990) History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction, trans. Hurley, Robert. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Fuller, Chris (1994) ‘Legal Anthropology, Legal Pluralism, and Legal Thought’, Anthropology Today 10 (3): 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, Clifford (2004) ‘What Is a State If It is Not a Sovereign?’, Current Anthropology, 45: 577–93.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Daniel M. (2004) ‘Comment’ in Clifford Geertz ‘What Is a State If It is Not a Sovereign?’, Current Anthropology 45: 587–88.Google Scholar
Gomez, Laura (2004) ‘A Tale of Two Genres: On the Real and Ideal Links between Law and Society and Critical Race Theory’ in Sarat, Austin (ed.) Blackwell Companion to Law and Society. London: Blackwell: 453–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Thomas Blom and Stepputat, Finn (2006) ‘Sovereignty Revisited’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 35: 295–315.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas (1651/1994) Leviathan. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hussain, Nasser (2003) The Jurisprudence of Emergency: Colonialism and the Rule of Law. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Duncan and Klare, Karl E. (1984) ‘A Bibliography of Critical Legal Studies’, Yale Law Journal 94: 461–90.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, David D. and Herszenhorn, David M. (2009) ‘Guantánamo Closing Hands Republicans a Wedge Issue’ The New York Times, 24 May: A1.Google Scholar
Kugle, Scott Alan (2001) ‘Framed, Blamed, and Renamed: The Recasting of Islamic Jurisprudence in Colonial South Asia’, Modern Asian Studies, 35: 257–313.Google Scholar
Macmillan, Ken (2006) Sovereignty and Possession in the English New World: The Legal Foundations of Empire, 1576–1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mamdani, Mahmood (1996) Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mbembe, Achille (2003) ‘Necropolitics’, Public Culture 15: 11–40.Google Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle (1988) ‘Legal Pluralism’, Law and Society Review 22: 869–96.Google Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle (1992) ‘Anthropology, Law, and Transnational Processes’, Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 357–79.Google Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle (2000) Colonizing Hawai’i: The Cultural Power of Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Timothy (2002) Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-politics, Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mnookin, Robert and Kornhauser, L. (1979) ‘Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce’, Yale Law Journal 88: 950–97.Google Scholar
Pospisil, Leopold (1971) Anthropology of Law: A Comparative Theory. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1762/1997) ‘The Social Contract’ in Rousseau, Jean-Jacques The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings, ed. and trans. Gourevitch, Victor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin (ed.) (2004) Blackwell Companion to Law and Society. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sassen, Saskia (1996) Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl (1922/1985) Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. Schwab, George. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl (1932/1996) The Concept of the Political, trans. Schwab, George. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scott, James (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Seed, Patricia (1995) Ceremonies of Possession in Europe’s Conquest of the New World, 1492–1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seron, Carroll and Silbey, Susan S. (2004) ‘Profession, Science, and Culture: An Emergent Canon of Law and Society Research’ in Sarat, Austin (ed.) Blackwell Companion to Law and Society. London: Blackwell, 30–60.Google Scholar
Unger, Roberto Mangabeira (1983) ‘The Critical Legal Studies Movement’, Harvard Law Review 96: 561–75.Google Scholar