PDA

View Full Version : multiple sovereignties



Afrix
23-03-2007, 05:20 PM
doing research for an essay the other day i came across the concept that a state of multiple sovereignties is in existence before all revolutions. so i'm wondering, what are the possibilities for the creation of these within britain, perhaps along the lines of self sufficient "settlements" designed to provoke a response from the state, towards a much wider rejection of the authorities. this isn't actually for my essay, i'm not trying to get anyone to answer it for me. just wondering what people's thoughts on this are?

and hello by the way, i'm new.

Mr. Tea
23-03-2007, 05:45 PM
Sounds a little bit like the situation during the so-called 'heptarchy' - the period in early-to-mid Anglo-Saxon history before the kingdoms were united in the 9th/10th century in the face of the growing threat from Danish invaders. Basically, there were seven(ish) kingdoms, but the power relationship was in a constant state of flux: at any one time, one of the kingdoms would be more or less pre-eminent, and its king would be called 'bretwalda' ('wide-ruler'), and recongnised as a sort of over-king, while the other kings would have authority in their own kingdoms and there were also several 'sub-kingdoms', smaller political units whose kings were effectively tribal chieftains.

This situation lasted from (very roughly) 550 to 850, evolving from the chaos of post-Roman Britain and the Anlgo-Saxon conquest until the emergence of Wessex as the main power to contest the Danish presence in the north-east of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptarchy

Townley
21-04-2007, 12:45 PM
Sounds a little bit like the situation during the so-called 'heptarchy' - the period in early-to-mid Anglo-Saxon history before the kingdoms were united in the 9th/10th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptarchy

Surely not - Sovereignty is surely a modern development that emerged with the birth of nation states after the Peace of Westphalia? I don't think you can have sovereignty (multiple or otherwise) without a nation state.

If by multiple sovereignty you mean that there has to be a sufficient body of support for any post-revolutionary power structure and that this develops under the previous regime, so there are two sets of social alegiances operating at once in the pre-revolution period, then I suppose that's sometimes the case, but I can't see how this could constitute a situation of multiple sovereignties. For that to occur both power structures would have to be internationally recognised as being in control of the territory, but that seems impossible: either neither would be recognised and the territory wouldn't regarded as a proper nation, or one would be recognised pre-revolution and another after (or both in the case of a nation splitting into two nations).

Mr. Tea
21-04-2007, 01:51 PM
Meh, I thought 'soverignty' just meant, more or less, 'who rules a particular country/region'. Just because the term was coined relatively recently doesn't mean it can't be applied to the more distant past, surely?

Townley
21-04-2007, 02:37 PM
Meh, I thought 'soverignty' just meant, more or less, 'who rules a particular country/region'. Just because the term was coined relatively recently doesn't mean it can't be applied to the more distant past, surely?

Not sure but I think it may infact be an OLD word rather than a recent coinage. But as far as I'm aware it's currently used exclusively in connection to nation states, though I may be wrong...

vimothy
23-04-2007, 03:10 PM
Has anyone read "The Fate of the State"? Totally relevant to all the WoT, 4GW stuff, IMHO.

http://www.d-n-i.net/creveld/the_fate_of_the_state.htm

Townley
24-04-2007, 12:53 PM
Nah, states aren't in decline. Financial globalisation has caused some states to cede power to OTHER states, or perhaps to commecial interests IN other states; but the idea that there's some zero sum balance of power between states and markets/tech in which states are uniformly losing out is daft. It exagerates the past power of states and ignores the interdependence between states and markets.

Have you read...?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Myth-Powerless-State-Governing-Economy/dp/0745615821/ref=sr_1_4/203-7364407-8543130?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177414550&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sovereignty-Organized-Hypocrisy-Stephen-Krasner/dp/069100711X/ref=sr_1_8/203-7364407-8543130?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177414729&sr=1-8

vimothy
24-04-2007, 01:06 PM
Nah, states aren't in decline. Financial globalisation has caused some states to cede power to OTHER states, or perhaps to commecial interests IN other states; but the idea that there's some zero sum balance of power between states and markets/tech in which states are uniformly losing out is daft. It exagerates the past power of states and ignores the interdependence between states and markets.

Well, it's only an idea, and by a slightly moonbat-ish professor so we can probably discount it wholesale. It'd certainly make your conservative types like Frum or Steyn or Philips happy if the state was in-fact not declining in power.

And I'm not sure if you're not going to far in the other direction, and de-emphasising the massive changes that have taken place under late capitalism (or whatever we call the contemporary and near contemporary era).


Have you read...?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Myth-Powerless-State-Governing-Economy/dp/0745615821/ref=sr_1_4/203-7364407-8543130?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177414550&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sovereignty-Organized-Hypocrisy-Stephen-Krasner/dp/069100711X/ref=sr_1_8/203-7364407-8543130?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177414729&sr=1-8

Hmm... Probably not my bag.

Townley
24-04-2007, 01:15 PM
And I'm not sure if you're not going to far in the other direction, and de-emphasising the massive changes that have taken place under late capitalism (or whatever we call the contemporary and near contemporary era).


Point taken, big changes, sure; but acknowledging this isn't to say states are in decline. In ascendance if anything.

Out of interest, why not your bag?