We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 October 2009
International relations scholars have long enjoyed an uncomfortable relationship with the concept of sovereignty. It has appeared as conceptually forbidding territory, journeys into which are likely to yield only a formalistic or unduly legalistic understanding of international relations, too close to the dignified trappings, and too remote from the efficient workings, of the international system.
1. e.g. Vernon, Raymond, Sovereignty at Bay (New York, 1971)Google Scholar; Wallace, W., ‘What price independence? Sovereignty and independence in British polities’, International Affairs, 62 (1986), pp. 367–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Sampson, A., The Sovereign State: The Secret History of ITT (London, 1973).Google Scholar
3. Miller, J. D. B., The World of States (London, 1981), p. 16.Google Scholar He singles out the first edition of Kinsley's Sovereignty as an honourable exception.
4. Bull, H., The Anarchical Society (London, 1977), p. 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Brierly, J. L., The Law of Nations (Oxford, 6th edition, 1963), p. 10.Google Scholar
6. Miller, J. D. B., ‘Sovereignty as a source of vitality for the state’, Review of International Studies, 12 (1986), p. 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Vincent, R. J., Nonintervention and International Order (Princeton, 1974).Google Scholar
8. Manning, C., ‘The Legal Framework in a World of Change’ in Porter, B. (ed.), The Aberystwyth Papers (London, 1972), p. 307.Google Scholar
9. These points had already been made by James in a critical note on Miller (supra, note 6). See ‘Comment on J. D. B. Miller’ in Ibid., pp. 91–3.
10. Vincent, R. J., Human Rights in International Relations (Cambridge, 1986), p. 99.Google Scholar
