Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorClunan, Anne L.
dc.dateFebruary 28-March 3, 2007
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-11T20:53:35Z
dc.date.available2016-05-11T20:53:35Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10945/48665
dc.descriptionPrepared for delivery at the 2007 Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, February 28-March 3, 2007en_US
dc.description.abstractState sovereignty is at root a set of rules about institutional boundaries that divide political and territorial space. Institutional boundaries permit actors to organize the world around them into categories and groups and to establish arenas of authority or jurisdiction. In this paper, I suggest that the boundaries of external and internal sovereignty have become more permeable over the course of the past 150 years as a result of the blurring of the boundaries of international humanitarian and human rights law. The changes in institutional boundaries demarcating human rights and humanitarian law have reconfigured state authority to organize domestic and interstate affairs. I argue that these changes have made the boundary of state sovereignty more permeable in two ways. First, they have reduced the legitimate scope of all state's internal sovereignty. On the one hand, states appear to be increasingly subjecting themselves to a reduced sphere of exclusive sovereign authority and to greater international accountability. On the other, states have expanded their claims to domestically adjudicate cases that have traditionally been beyond the boundary of sovereign immunity. Second, the change in boundaries of international humanitarian and human rights law has given individual human beings the legal authority to confront states. As a result, individuals have much greater ability to access national and international courts to seek redress for acts committed by state officials. This shift allows new actors to take on rights and responsibility once the sole domain of states, and subsequently to limit the authority of states domestically as well as globally. These changes and their consequences are explored through historical analyses of the humanitarian and human rights regimes and the recent political struggles over the Pinochet case and the International Criminal Court.en_US
dc.format.extent40 p.en_US
dc.publisherInternational Studies Associationen_US
dc.rightsThis publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States. Distributed with permission.en_US
dc.titleBounding the Sovereign: Humanitarianism and the Decline of Sovereign Immunityen_US
dc.typeConference Paperen_US
dc.contributor.corporateNaval Postgraduate School (U.S.)en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record