Balkinization  

Thursday, April 23, 2020

Sovereignty RIP

Sandy Levinson

This is the title of an extraordinary new book published by University of Michigan political theorist (and member of the University of Michigan Law School faculty) Don Herzog.  Tacking an immensely important subject, Herzog writes with a mordant wit that makes its pages fly by.  He has a flair for telling quotations that illustrate exactly what is at stake in debates about the notion of "sovereignty."

His basic thesis, captured in the title, is that sovereignty as a concept has long outlived its usefulness, save as something for historians of political thought to refer to when trying to understand the end of religious wars in the 16th and 17th centuries and the (false) belief that stability, security, and relative calm would be provided by conceptualizing an all-powerful state. Although that state might be conceived, along lines laid out by Romans 13:1, as the creation of the true super-Sovereign God, a view argued vigorously by Charles I, among others, before he went to the scaffold during the English Revolution, Thomas Hobbes realized that the mythic "popular sovereign" could be viewed as authorizing an all-powerful monarch in the belief that that would indeed supply the security that the demos craved.  The point about "sovereignty," after all, is that there are no internal limits to what the supposed sovereign can do, including ceding all governmental power to a king.  (We can put to one side for now whether the then-"sleeping sovereign" can awaken and overthrow the king or any other existing government, as, indeed, was suggested by the secessionists who wrote the Declaration of Independence.)

Herzog demonstrates that "sovereignty" was originally thought to require limitless power, indivisibility, and a concomitant lack of accountability to anyone (save, perhaps God).  He also argues, passionately and eloquently--this is, at bottom, a book generated at least by passionate outrage at the implications of "sovereignty" as by a simple desire to put our intellectual house in order--that no sane person today should be committed to these ideas, even if they might have seemed to make political sense (at least to some) in the seventeenth century.  More to the point, almost no sane person does exhibit a desire to have an unlimited, indivisible, and unaccountable government, even if sane persons can and do argue vigorously about the specific limits, levels of divisibility, and methods of accountability that are desirable.

What this adds up to, Herzog convincingly argues, is that we should simply excise the term "sovereignty" from our vocabulary.  It does not positive good (save to authoritarians who wish to bully people into believing that "sovereignty" does indeed require submitting to their uninhibited power grabs) and sows much confusion.  To argue about the "true meaning" of sovereignty, in the 21st century, he suggests, is a bit like arguing about the interior structure of a unicorn's body or even whether unicorn's horns have certain medicinal (or aphrodisiac) properties.  We get along just fine without conversations about unicorns, even if we need to have the concept of "unicorn" in our heads in order to under certain poems or even one of Charles Addams most searing cartoons showing two unicorns looking plaintively at Noah's Ark in the distance.  So it should be with "sovereignty."

One implication of Herzog's argument, of course, is that the Supreme Court should stop its own use of such terms as "state sovereignty," which serves mainly to confuse generations of law students (and their professors).  Justice Thomas's perhaps best opinion is in the Lara case in which he correctly noted that the Court's treatment of the "sovereignty" of American Indian tribes was basically "schizophrenic."  What we really should be discussing is what degree of power we as polity wish to allocate to Indian tribes or, for that matter, states or the national government.  If one wishes to refer to "popular sovereignty" as the background condition for such authorization, Herzog has no real objection so long as we recognize that nothing actually rides on that designation in terms of the merits of any actual proposal for allocating power (or what he often calls "jurisdiction").

For some readers, Herzog's book will no doubt be treated with the same degree of horror as greeted a famous Time magazine cover in the 1960s about those theologians who were pronouncing "the death of God."  But just as more and more people, to the dismay of some, find it altogether possible to get through the day (and their lives) without using "God" as anything more than a cultural reference, so could we liberate ourselves from the intellectual confusions and at time truly evil practical implications of believing in Sovereignty.

On principle, I open my postings for reader comments.  But I see no particular value to such comments in this case unless posters first read the book (available from the Yale Press).  I suppose the only exception should be if someone really wants to defend the idea that government (and governors) really should be all-powerful and accountable to no one (and that George Washington and his friends should have been hung as the traitors they were for rejecting the sovereignty of His Royal Majesty King George III and the British Parliament).  Otherwise, read the book.

Comments:

"the death of God"

I plan to try to re-read an old book by Karen Armstrong about God & one thing of particular interest was how the concept changed over time. Many, she notes, follow the view of the philosopher Paul Tillich, who spoke of an "ultimate concern." Armstrong recently wrote a book on scriptual interpretation. I have long felt scriptual and constitutional interpretation overlaps. Our host seems to as well ("Constitutional Faith"). Perhaps, "sovereignty" is of this caliber.

So, perhaps I'd push back some. But, haven't read the book. Will leave it at that.
 

"Popular sovereignty" is actually the terrible term.

"Sovereignty" describes something. Yes, I understand, it doesn't really describe the relationship between the US and the states, or the US and Indian tribes (although in the latter example part of what is going on is some recognition of the historical wrongs involved). But it still describes the relationships between nations very very well. Indeed, there's been a whole bunch of horrible wars and disasterous US military interventions that have been egged on by people who pretend national sovereignty no longer exists.

But "popular sovereignty" was always complete BS. The Constitution, or more generally the formation of the United states was not, in any real sense, the work of "the People". Nor do "the People" have any particular right to run the government. Some portions of the public (which originally excluded blacks, Indians, women, and non-property owners, as well as foreign subjects, but which have become more inclusive over time) have some right to vote in elections for candidates, some of which are not counted according to one person one vote. Heck, we don't even have an initiative process at the federal level- at least my state (California) takes a bit of a shot at "we the People".

But the bottom line is that the reason the US government runs the country is not because of any permission or authorization of the people- it's because if you rebel against it, they will shoot you or imprison you. It has absolutely nothing to do with "the People", and there is no such thing as "popular sovereignty". One of the major reasons government has to exist is precisely that the people can NEVER be sovereign- actual popular sovereignty looks like "Lord of the Flies".
 

Interesting and important as well. I didn't read the book, however, whether has been mentioned there or not, worth to note, that sovereignty is indeed source for too many troubles in the International arena. Yet, it has one important advantage:

It dictates the principle that all states are equal. The sovereignty of big state, super power, and even tiny one, has the same significance. Such perception or doctrine, legally, and effectively, contribute to stability and peace indeed. Those days, where big one, swallows the tiny one, and you couldn't even notice the bid ( or the bite) are far behind us. Among others, thanks to sovereignty.

Thanks
 

"Herzog demonstrates that "sovereignty" was originally thought to require limitless power, indivisibility, and a concomitant lack of accountability to anyone (save, perhaps God)."

Clearly the term doesn't mean that in the context of the United States, where power is officially quite limited, and divided.
 

Brett is correct. But Herzog argues that the very correctness of his comment makes it simply silly to continue to use the term, which, as "originalists" should appreciate, was viewed as entailing limitless, undivided, and unaccountable power.

I have no idea what it means to say that the UN is composed of "equal sovereign states." The little fish are often, empirically, at the mercy of the larger ones (including, of course, the US), and the rise of conceptions of international law that include "humanitarian intervention" or the "responsibility to protect" those who are being genocidally oppressed by the home regime makes hash to Westphalian sovereignty, which required simply looking the other way so long as country A was not trying to invade country B. This is one of the reasons that almost no political scientist these days finds "sovereignty" to be useful as an analytical concept, even if it is certainly the case that one can't understand a lot of contemporary political rhetoric without accounting for the fact that a lot of people, usually but not always on the right, use the concept as if it has genuine meaning. For the record, I note that my "introduction" to a reading course that I gave at Harvard a couple of years ago included quotes from both Donald J. Trump and Elizabeth Warren (my preferred candidate to succeed the egregious Donald J. Trump) that took issue with the Transpacific Trade Agreement because of its incursions on American "sovereignty."


 

Personally, I think "sovereignty of the people" makes perfectly good sense as a theoretical concept. I'd suggest, in fact, that without that concept the proposal of a Constitutional Convention is hard to justify. :)
 


It means Sandy, that genuine legal claim, may be raised, and be evoked by a state, that its sovereignty has been violated, as such, the state is entitled for:

Aggressive action against another state, violating its sovereignty ( self defense). Or:

It may demand action by other states, by the UN assembly, or by the Security council, to condemn other state, or, to take action and intervene militarily.

Put simply, at least, legal basis, de jure at least, for International justice and action.

Also, without sovereignty, no diplomatic immunity would exist. This could be hell.

I shall illustrate later maybe.

Thanks






 

And of course, equal voting. Each state has a right to vote, a vote, equal to any other state ( in the UN assembly at least, and being member in very important UN agencies of all sorts).
 

I quote from the UN Charter ( which is the most fundamental document or legal text, touching all UN members as such). Here:

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

So, here we get the basic idea ( legally).

Here ( to the Charter):

https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/

 

" But Herzog argues that the very correctness of his comment makes it simply silly to continue to use the term, which, as "originalists" should appreciate, was viewed as entailing limitless, undivided, and unaccountable power."

The founders understood themselves to be creating a new sort of state, a new order for the ages. "Sovereignty" can be understood as "unaccountable" power in the sense that the sovereign doesn't legally have to justify itself to anybody else, it's not subject to outside authority, though it may be as a practical matter to exercises of force or practicality.

They rejected "limitless", declaring certain things to be beyond the reach of any rightful sovereign, and "undivided" as well.

While definitions are a good guide to usage, you have to recognize when they're being deliberately rejected by someone using a word, and understand what THEY meant by it, not what somebody who disagreed with them would have meant in using the word. The founders were perfectly entitled to use the term "sovereign" and not mean by it what Herzog relates, because they were clear about what they DID mean by it.
 

That's more than a bit libertarian for the Framers. They all knew their Blackstone, who said that sovereignty was a power “so transcendent and absolute, that it cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds. … [It consists of an] uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal : … the place where that absolute [despotic] power, which must in all governments reside somewhere…. All mischiefs and grievances, operations and remedies, that transcend the ordinary course of the laws, are within the reach of this extraordinary tribunal. … It can change and create afresh even the constitution of the kingdom and of parliaments themselves…. It can, in short, do everything that is not naturally impossible….”

To this compare what James Wilson told the PA ratifying convention:

“There necessarily exists in every government a power from which there is no appeal; and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable [meaning “sovereignty”]. Sir William Blackstone will tell you that in Britain the power is lodged in the British Parliament; that the parliament may alter the form of the government; and that its power is absolute and without control. The idea of a constitution, limiting and superintending the operations of legislative authority, seems not to have been accurately understood in Britain. …. The British constitution is just what the British parliament pleases. …

To control the power and conduct of the legislature, by an overruling constitution, was an improvement in the science and practice of government reserved to the American States.

Perhaps some politician who has not considered, with sufficient accuracy, our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions. This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is that in our governments the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power [sovereignty] remains in the People. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions…. The consequence is that the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please.” My emphasis.

Here's Charles Cotesworth Pinkney at the SC ratifying convention:

“In every government there necessarily exists a power from which there is no appeal, and which for that reason may be termed absolute and uncontrollable.

The person or assembly in whom this power resides is called the sovereign or supreme power of the state. With us, the Sovereignty of the union is in the People.”

 

Yes, there was a Lockean strain which offered natural rights as a limitation on the idea of sovereignty, but not all the people back then were Lockeans.
 

And here I quote from " Vienna convention on Diplomatic relations 1961" ( from the preamble):


" Having in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations,

Believing that an international convention on diplomatic intercourse, privileges and immunities would contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems, "

 

Mark, I don't think that really disagrees with what I said. Not fundamentally.

As far as the founders were concerned, the sovereign was the people. As sovereign, there was no appeal, no going 'above' the people. But being absolute in that sense isn't the same as being absolute in the sense of being entitled to do anything you pleased, not being bound my morality or rights. Not everybody back then (or now!) was a Lockean, but it was a strong strain in the founders.

In terms of "undivided", the sovereignty of the people is that in a sense, but only in the sense of origins, the people delegate a portion of it to the state and federal governments. Which can then be considered secondary, limited "sovereigns"; Sovereign, but only contingently and in a limited domain.
 

You should take a look at Paul Sagar's The Opinion of Mankind: Sociability and the Theory of the State from Hobbes to Smith, Princeton UP, 2018. Also his earlier paper: The state without sovereignty: authority and obligation in Hume’s political philosophy – History of Political Thought, 2016 (37:2), pp. 271-305. Full text available here: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/248325
 

"Personally, I think "sovereignty of the people" makes perfectly good sense as a theoretical concept."

Why do you think the constitutional convention was justified? Did anyone ask slaves, Indians, women, or poor people if they should have a constitutional convention?

The constitutional convention was justified because the people in charge decided to have one.
 

It's worth noting that every military intervention without a state's consent or UN Security Council authorization violates the Charter.

I think that's fine because I think Responsibility to Protect is militarist claptrap. But lots of US policymakers don't.
 

It's worth noting that every military intervention without a state's consent or UN Security Council authorization violates the Charter.

I think that's fine because I think Responsibility to Protect is militarist claptrap. But lots of US policymakers don't.
 

Brett, you're omitting the "absolute" part of their definition.
 

"As far as the founders were concerned, the sovereign was the people."

If you guys really believe this, you are some of the most gullible people on earth.

Not one person in that convention actually believed that blacks, women, Indians, or poor whites were sovereign over anything. Not one.

They said that crap because it sells better than saying the truth. It was propaganda. Indeed, EVERY constitution, including those of the most repressive countries on earth, says that. Ever hear of the PEOPLE'S Republic of China?

And apparently you guys are so dumb you fell for the con.
 

It's important to note that this "popular sovereignty" bunk has consequences. Because we are not honest about the framers' actual theory of government or the actual realities of how governments work and indoctrinate schoolchildren with this "popular sovereignty" garbage, we have a whole movements of right wingers who stockpile weapons and assert radical theories about how the government has no authority over them. Every once in awhile these things blow up into violent stand-offs against the government or terrorist attacks that kill hundreds of people.

That's a pretty high cost to pay so that American liberals can feel good about themselves for liking awful people like Thomas Jefferson.

We might be able to make some progress against these hate groups if we excised "the people are in charge" from our national vocabulary, and just admit that our government works like any government on earth and has the exact same legitimacy- it controls the use of force.
 

Man, you really think just coming out and saying, "Forget all this declaration of independence and popular sovereignty bunk, we rule you peons because we can kill you if you refuse to be ruled, and never forget it!" is a recipe for settling things down on that front?

I'd say that's likely to bring a pretty high price itself, because our government does not, in fact, "control the use of force", not remotely. Most don't really, and ours is further from that nightmarish ideal than most.

Yes, the founders were rather hypocritical when they talked about "the people", and they knew it. But, "Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue." and if that tribute offends you, better to abandon the vice than the virtue. Make the noble lie into a reality, instead of abandoning it for the ignoble truth.

Further, as I always try to point out when people start talking about the founders this way, they come off pretty bad by modern standards, but we'll come off pretty bad by tomorrow's standards, too. If your measure of virtue is whether somebody totally rises above their age and shines for all ages as a pure example of rectitude, you're going to be disappointed a lot. The best you can ask of anybody who has the slightest chance of being influential is that they rise above their own era somewhat, not that they achieve the Platonic ideal of virtue. Anybody who was Platonically good would be such a poor fit for their era that they'd accomplish nothing.
 

A state has a right not to be invaded because, usually, that is unjust. It's prattling about "sovereignty" adds nothing to the argument. If it's a beastly state, there's nothing wrong with invading it. This is the basis of "humanitarian intervention," after all. One might well believe that humanitarian intervention, like the so-called "responsibility to protect," is a terrible idea because it in fact promotes violence rather than limits it, but that's a political argument using consequentialist reasoning. It does not edify to say that State X, though committing genocide with regard to a group of its residents, has the "sovereign" power to do so because of some mumbo-jumbo in the United Nations Charter.

Similarly, the arguments for diplomatic immunity are entirely consequentialist. It might be a good idea, though we all know that too many people are covered by it and some of them do really awful things for which they deserve punishment. Calling them representatives of a "sovereign" state, instead of "merely" a political entity with which we wish to maintain good relations (and make sure that our own diplomats get similar levels of protection when they behave badly) is equally unedifying.

Not surprisingly, Herzog has several pages detailing the abuses attached to diplomatic immunity and the heartfelt invocation of "sovereign dignity" that are used to justify it.
 

The idea of "state sovereignty" strikes me as useless and wrong. States, whether those in a federal system or those calling themselves "nation states", should never be treated as "sovereign". That's just a bad consequence of proclaiming "we have the power and a monopoly on force so you have to obey". Divorcing "sovereignty" from the immediate exercise of power seems like a much better protection than Schmittian pseudo-realism.
 


Sandy,

Humanitarian intervention ( by force) has nothing to do here. In fact , it is not an obligation or duty under customary International law.

And immunity is not made for shielding diplomats, on the contrary, it is stated in all relevant conventions, that meant for fulfilling duty, not for personal benefits, surly, not for committing crimes or wrongdoings. One diplomat, must obey and respect the law of the state where he resides and act, stated clearly in Vienna convention.

Without equal sovereignty, diplomats, would become helpless. They don't have any independent capacity, since they reside in foreign territory. So, in order to avoid , arbitrary and capricious acts of the state of the forum, there is such immunity.

Yet, if state wouldn't be granted equal immunity, that could affect their diplomats in the foreign state, having local advantage, and greater power simply.

So, tiny African state like Gambia, has the same sovereignty and shield and immunity, like the one of the Russian or American diplomats, in given foreign state.

There are problems with sovereignty , but not those mentioned. It is much more complicated than that.

Thanks



 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Interesting OP. I guess I've always thought of the concept of 'sovereign' as just being about who or what has the right to make choices for whatever they're the 'sovereign' is, not about what choices that who or what can make. But I can see how it seems to involve the latter. Perhaps I'll check out the book which sounds interesting on the subject.
 

t's always amusing to see modern conservatives like Bircher Brett who are so uncharitable towards, and quick to toss the most extreme hyperbole around about, those present political opponents that they think are doing relatively mild bad things but who are then so quick to hand wave around even the most terrible behavior by US historical figures because, hey, they were just a product of their times, and who are we to judge?

Hillary Clinton supports slightly higher taxes and regulation and engaged in negligent email practices? HILDEBEAST, LOCK HER UP! Robert E. Lee puts his talents towards defending the institution of mass chattel slavery (and in his personal life once personally went out of his way to have a slave who tried to leave his in-laws under a provision of a will which certainly could have been read favorably to the slave whipped )? Hey, why do you wanna take monuments to this guy's greatness down, he was just a man of his time, so much judgement!
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"Hillary Clinton supports slightly higher taxes and regulation and engaged in negligent email practices? HILDEBEAST, LOCK HER UP!"

Riiight. All the talk about her having committed crimes was just pretext, we wanted her locked up over her proposed tax and regulatory policies...

Her 'negligent' email practices were not negligent, that would imply inadvertence. On the contrary, she went to considerable lengths and expense to avoid complying with the government's email regulations, so as to be able to do exactly what she did do: Delete emails if anybody got curious about them. If she'd complied with the regulations, they'd have all been archived and available for other people to look at without her having a chance to sanitize them first.

She violated the regulations to exactly the purpose the regulations existed to frustrate: Making secret what was supposed to be subject to government review. That's precisely the sort of offense for which prosecution would be appropriate.
 

I'm such a pushover that I give some benefit of doubt to both [per 7:12 comment] and was called out by more than one person here for it. Ha ha.

As my comment about God suggests, I probably have less passion on "sovereignty" than some and would not take an all/nothing approach. So, I see some logic to state "sovereignty," which is not an absolute term for me.

The debate seems to be not a specific term as such on a basic level.
 

Brett makes Mr. W's point again putting HRC to a very high standard (that on the merits is dubious) while handwaving Trump's actions repeatedly.
 

"She violated the regulations to exactly the purpose the regulations existed to frustrate: Making secret what was supposed to be subject to government review. That's precisely the sort of offense for which prosecution would be appropriate."

Yeah, we all know how hot and bothered Bircher Brett is about issues of freedom of information and government transparency (how's Trump on that btw?). And I thought the argument was that her negligence put our national security at risk?

Either way, Bircher Brett makes my point: he immediately and at length weighed in to bolster his stance re: Hillary, but of course even if she was 100% trying to hide her communications that's *exponentially* less bad than what Lee did throughout his life.
 

Yes joe, he's nothing if not absolutely predictable in his partisan incoherence. I think we all could have written that response for him.
 

"All the talk about her having committed crimes was just pretext, we wanted her locked up over her proposed tax and regulatory policies..."

Well, yes. This is actually much closer to the truth. The same conservatives that gnashed their teeth and rent their robes in fury about the travesty that was Clinton's offense don't act like they give a fig about the issue of government transparency in general. The hate for Clinton is because she was going to make it slightly less easy for Birchers to get whatever gun they wanted when they wanted and her education department was going to tell white people their sons were privileged and had to pee sitting down or something.

But that's never enough for an extremist, that someone be wrong politically. They want to demonize that person. So anything they could lay hands on becomes 'lock her up' material. They want her locked up because they want her *stopped,* and as you know Birchers like Brett are very suspicious that a majority of voters will do that for them.


 

"As my comment about God suggests"
joe, reading Sandy's OP made me think of Romans 13:1-2, which I think one of the most easily perverted in history, used to lay a foundation for the 'divine right of kings' which I thought of, perhaps incorrectly, reading Sandy's description of 'sovereignty.'

And I think you're on to something about the overlapping of scriptural and constitutional interpretation. A 'strict constructionist' reading of Romans 13:1-2 would likely find support for a government whose limits one should not resist. A 'higher critic' reading would note that this is better read as Paul's situational prudential advise to the then persecuted Christian groups to not provoke the Roman authorities (or perhaps better yet, the scripture itself could be seen as a pr statement to that government to demonstrate that Christians were being told to be good Roman citizens). Living scripturalism?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

And, to quote the predecessor of Trump's favorite epistle, "For now we see through a glass, darkly."

As Mark might say, perhaps scripturalism, full stop, is more accurate.
 

Heh.
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home