What do you think?
Rate this book
The Sovereignty Wars: Reconciling America with the World
Protecting sovereignty while advancing American interests in the global age
Americans have long been protective of the country's sovereignty--beginning when George Washington retired as president with the admonition for his successors to avoid "permanent" alliances with foreign powers. Ever since, the nation has faced periodic, often heated, debates about how to maintain that sovereignty, and whether and when it's appropriate to cede some of it in the form of treaties and the alliances about which Washington warned.
As the recent election made clear, sovereignty is also one of the most frequently invoked, polemical, and misunderstood concepts in politics--particularly American politics. The concept wields symbolic power, implying something sacred and inalienable: the right of the people to control their fate without subordination to outside authorities. Given its emotional pull, however, the concept is easily highjacked by political opportunists. By playing the sovereignty card, they can curtail more reasoned debates over the merits of proposed international commitments by portraying supporters of global treaties or organizations as enemies of motherhood and apple pie.
Such polemics distract Americans from what is really at stake in the sovereignty debate: namely, the ability of the United States to shape its destiny in a global age. The United States cannot successfully manage globalization, much less insulate itself from cross-border threats, on its own. As global integration deepens and cross-border challenges grow, the nation's fate is increasingly tied to that of other countries, whose cooperation will be needed to exploit the shared opportunities and mitigate the common risks of interdependence.
Sovereignty Reimagined is intended to help today's policymakers think more clearly about what is actually at stake in the sovereignty debate and to provide some criteria for determining when it is appropriate to make bargains over sovereignty--and how to make them.
Americans have long been protective of the country's sovereignty--beginning when George Washington retired as president with the admonition for his successors to avoid "permanent" alliances with foreign powers. Ever since, the nation has faced periodic, often heated, debates about how to maintain that sovereignty, and whether and when it's appropriate to cede some of it in the form of treaties and the alliances about which Washington warned.
As the recent election made clear, sovereignty is also one of the most frequently invoked, polemical, and misunderstood concepts in politics--particularly American politics. The concept wields symbolic power, implying something sacred and inalienable: the right of the people to control their fate without subordination to outside authorities. Given its emotional pull, however, the concept is easily highjacked by political opportunists. By playing the sovereignty card, they can curtail more reasoned debates over the merits of proposed international commitments by portraying supporters of global treaties or organizations as enemies of motherhood and apple pie.
Such polemics distract Americans from what is really at stake in the sovereignty debate: namely, the ability of the United States to shape its destiny in a global age. The United States cannot successfully manage globalization, much less insulate itself from cross-border threats, on its own. As global integration deepens and cross-border challenges grow, the nation's fate is increasingly tied to that of other countries, whose cooperation will be needed to exploit the shared opportunities and mitigate the common risks of interdependence.
Sovereignty Reimagined is intended to help today's policymakers think more clearly about what is actually at stake in the sovereignty debate and to provide some criteria for determining when it is appropriate to make bargains over sovereignty--and how to make them.
- GenresNonfictionPolitics
352 pages, Hardcover
Published October 31, 2017
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 1, 2018
The book depicts sovereignty as a function of 3 intangible dimensions namely autonomy , authority and influence (‘sovereignty triangle’) . Succinctly, the 3 attributes are often in tension and advancing one attribute may require trade offs between one or both of the others.
For example, the trump administrations principle of abdication (his doctrine is not of isolationism) concedes global influence in favor of autonomy and authority.
The author takes a more conventional view, arguing that relinquishing some sovereignty-as-autonomy in favor of sovereignty-as-influence is in the interest of the US, and that entering and ratifying multilateral treaties are an exercise of a nation’s sovereign right.
The book gets a bit dry and arduous towards the middle to the end as the scope of the topic is limited. As such the author tends to repeat some points. In terms of readability it deserves a 3/5. But the data and the concept of the sovereignty triangle provided was invaluable and greatly expanded my view on the topic. Definitely a value adding read. Hence 4/5 is warranted.
For example, the trump administrations principle of abdication (his doctrine is not of isolationism) concedes global influence in favor of autonomy and authority.
The author takes a more conventional view, arguing that relinquishing some sovereignty-as-autonomy in favor of sovereignty-as-influence is in the interest of the US, and that entering and ratifying multilateral treaties are an exercise of a nation’s sovereign right.
The book gets a bit dry and arduous towards the middle to the end as the scope of the topic is limited. As such the author tends to repeat some points. In terms of readability it deserves a 3/5. But the data and the concept of the sovereignty triangle provided was invaluable and greatly expanded my view on the topic. Definitely a value adding read. Hence 4/5 is warranted.
December 12, 2022
Overview:
Sovereignty enabled different states to recognize each other’s legitimacy. Sovereignty is the ability to shape the state identity. Usually seen as zero-sum, whether a state can or cannot make certain decisions. When sovereignty is threatened, conflict ensues, with many claims made to defend sovereignty. But sovereignty has multiple dimensions, and trade-offs between them are positive-sum. The aspects of sovereignty are authority, autonomy, and influence. Authority is the ability of the state to legitimately make rules. Autonomy is the ability to make and implement decisions independently. Influence is the capacity of the state to advance its interests.
States can advance their interests and values through international institutions and treaty obligations, or through state efforts and more flexible cooperative arrangements. It can be desirable to voluntary trade an aspect of sovereignty for another aspect because of the superior benefits. Defending an aspect of sovereignty can be very counterproductive. Governments have been making trade-offs between the sovereignty aspects. International obligations would require trading off autonomy, the freedom of action, for influence, the benefits of cooperation. Many global issues cannot be resolved with just state efforts. Changing and trading sovereignty enables for more effective use of sovereignty, and facilitates adjustments to different contexts.
The Act of Sovereignty:
Recognition of state sovereignty changed how political agents interact with each other. Credit for the sovereignty movement usually goes to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. Before sovereignty, personal bonds defined political relations, and a complex system of overlapping authorities and jurisdictions. Sovereignty brought order to Europe, ended various wars, and enabled conflict to be resolved through diplomacy and international law. What sovereignty did was legitimate the rights of state relative to other states. As other states recognized each other’s legitimacy. Bringing about a stable society of states.
Sovereignty has 5 characteristics which are: 1) Supreme political authority within a given territory, which includes the only accepted use of armed force. 2) International legal recognition, as the states mutually recognize their political independence. 3) Autonomy in policy choices without external intervention. 4) Interdependence influence such as controlling cross-border flows. 5) Rule by consent of the governed, as people have delegated some of their power to chosen agents.
Sovereign authority is malleable, as authority can be aggregated by states, and shared through international administration. Authority is not absolute and unitary. Authority claims are not fixed, but evolve with state functions. To protect sovereignty, a state can optout of participating in treaties, or gain special privileges.
U.S. Sovereignty:
Transnational threats require international cooperation, but America takes a narrow self-interested posture. United States has been a global leader since WW2, but has relegated the responsibility. U.S. had a large role in the development of international cooperation, but also very defensive about its sovereignty. Using international law to make others behave more predictably, with appropriate enforcement, but resists subjecting themselves to the same constraints. A hypocrisy that makes Americans within the U.S. be seen as benevolent, while seen by foreigners with skepticism.
America needs to figure out a balance between independence and cooperation. To consider what commitments, and constraints it is willing to accept for a more rule-bound international order. What is needed to is understand how to shape America internally, while advancing interests globally.
As sovereignty has three dimensions, for the U.S. this means difficult trade-offs between defending the U.S. constitution, protecting U.S. freedom of action, and having control over outcomes. Historically, there were times that the U.S. has exercised restraint which facilitated security and economic stability, which also helped legitimize its own power and leadership. The U.S. has historically integrated itself international systems of rules for its own interest. America has gained special privileges within international rules to keep their sovereignty.
Caveats?
Examples of the aspects of sovereignty come primarily from the U.S. experience. Other states are referenced, but not enough. The aspects of sovereignty can be applied not only to states, but also to personal and business experiences. For individuals and businesses delegated certain decisions for cooperative benefits.
The book references many U.S. politically sensitive issues, which can make it hard to read parts of the book given the reader’s prior thoughts about the issues. As the author recognizes the sensitivity of the issues, some claims are counterproductive such as seeming readiness to dismiss claims that others find legitimate. The dismissal of certain views can make the reader defensive.
U.S. history is generally well represented, but world history seems to be lacking. Prioritizing sovereignty aspects and what they have enabled. But the features were available before sovereignty as well. The source of sovereignty might have enabled further promotion of legitimacy and negotiation ability, but those tactics have existed much earlier.
Sovereignty enabled different states to recognize each other’s legitimacy. Sovereignty is the ability to shape the state identity. Usually seen as zero-sum, whether a state can or cannot make certain decisions. When sovereignty is threatened, conflict ensues, with many claims made to defend sovereignty. But sovereignty has multiple dimensions, and trade-offs between them are positive-sum. The aspects of sovereignty are authority, autonomy, and influence. Authority is the ability of the state to legitimately make rules. Autonomy is the ability to make and implement decisions independently. Influence is the capacity of the state to advance its interests.
States can advance their interests and values through international institutions and treaty obligations, or through state efforts and more flexible cooperative arrangements. It can be desirable to voluntary trade an aspect of sovereignty for another aspect because of the superior benefits. Defending an aspect of sovereignty can be very counterproductive. Governments have been making trade-offs between the sovereignty aspects. International obligations would require trading off autonomy, the freedom of action, for influence, the benefits of cooperation. Many global issues cannot be resolved with just state efforts. Changing and trading sovereignty enables for more effective use of sovereignty, and facilitates adjustments to different contexts.
The Act of Sovereignty:
Recognition of state sovereignty changed how political agents interact with each other. Credit for the sovereignty movement usually goes to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. Before sovereignty, personal bonds defined political relations, and a complex system of overlapping authorities and jurisdictions. Sovereignty brought order to Europe, ended various wars, and enabled conflict to be resolved through diplomacy and international law. What sovereignty did was legitimate the rights of state relative to other states. As other states recognized each other’s legitimacy. Bringing about a stable society of states.
Sovereignty has 5 characteristics which are: 1) Supreme political authority within a given territory, which includes the only accepted use of armed force. 2) International legal recognition, as the states mutually recognize their political independence. 3) Autonomy in policy choices without external intervention. 4) Interdependence influence such as controlling cross-border flows. 5) Rule by consent of the governed, as people have delegated some of their power to chosen agents.
Sovereign authority is malleable, as authority can be aggregated by states, and shared through international administration. Authority is not absolute and unitary. Authority claims are not fixed, but evolve with state functions. To protect sovereignty, a state can optout of participating in treaties, or gain special privileges.
U.S. Sovereignty:
Transnational threats require international cooperation, but America takes a narrow self-interested posture. United States has been a global leader since WW2, but has relegated the responsibility. U.S. had a large role in the development of international cooperation, but also very defensive about its sovereignty. Using international law to make others behave more predictably, with appropriate enforcement, but resists subjecting themselves to the same constraints. A hypocrisy that makes Americans within the U.S. be seen as benevolent, while seen by foreigners with skepticism.
America needs to figure out a balance between independence and cooperation. To consider what commitments, and constraints it is willing to accept for a more rule-bound international order. What is needed to is understand how to shape America internally, while advancing interests globally.
As sovereignty has three dimensions, for the U.S. this means difficult trade-offs between defending the U.S. constitution, protecting U.S. freedom of action, and having control over outcomes. Historically, there were times that the U.S. has exercised restraint which facilitated security and economic stability, which also helped legitimize its own power and leadership. The U.S. has historically integrated itself international systems of rules for its own interest. America has gained special privileges within international rules to keep their sovereignty.
Caveats?
Examples of the aspects of sovereignty come primarily from the U.S. experience. Other states are referenced, but not enough. The aspects of sovereignty can be applied not only to states, but also to personal and business experiences. For individuals and businesses delegated certain decisions for cooperative benefits.
The book references many U.S. politically sensitive issues, which can make it hard to read parts of the book given the reader’s prior thoughts about the issues. As the author recognizes the sensitivity of the issues, some claims are counterproductive such as seeming readiness to dismiss claims that others find legitimate. The dismissal of certain views can make the reader defensive.
U.S. history is generally well represented, but world history seems to be lacking. Prioritizing sovereignty aspects and what they have enabled. But the features were available before sovereignty as well. The source of sovereignty might have enabled further promotion of legitimacy and negotiation ability, but those tactics have existed much earlier.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews