Postmodern trends in state sovereignty: a theoretical approach to the concepts of authority, legitimacy and autonomy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25057/2500672X.1724Keywords:
State, Sovereignty, Authority, Legitimacy, AutonomyAbstract
The article examines the evolution of the concept of sovereignty in the context of postmodernity, focusing on the distinction between internal and external sovereignty of a State. It highlights how the intervention of non-state actors has reconfigured the traditional role of the State as the sole sovereign agent, raising questions about whether sovereignty remains an unrestricted quality in contemporary state models. The influence of postmodern forces in the erosion of state sovereignty is analyzed, demonstrating how international organizations, transnational companies, and NGOs have taken on functions previously exclusive to the State, posing a challenge to traditional state authority. Furthermore, the decrease in conflict resolution through classical legal mechanisms is addressed, noting that fewer disputes between individuals are resolved through formal judicial processes. This trend, based on increasing individualization and focused on personal over collective, presents challenges for the application of the law and the protection of the rights of the parties involved. In the economic context, the article examines how neoliberalism has influenced the predominant economic narrative, affecting state sovereignty and reshaping power relations in the postmodern society. In summary, the article offers a profound reflection on the transformation of sovereignty in the postmodern era, highlighting the significant challenges and changes that States face in a globalized and constantly evolving environment.
Downloads
References
Allott, P. (1990). Parliamentary sovereignty. From austin to hart. The Cambridge Law Journal, 49(3), 377–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300122135
Austin, J. (1995). Austin: the province of jurisprudence determined (W. E. Rumble, Ed.). Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521546
Barkin, J. S. (2006). International Organization: Theories and Institutions. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22559-8
Barkin, J. S. y Cronin, B. (1994). The state and the nation: changing norms and the rules of sovereignty in international relations. International Organization, 48(1), 107-130. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300000837
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation (S. F., Glaser, Trans). The University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9904
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Polity Press.
Beardsworth, R. (2015). From Moral to Political Responsibility in a Globalized Age. Ethics & International Affairs, 29(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679414000781
Bertsou, E. (2019). Rethinking political distrust. European Political Science Review, 11(2), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773919000080
Bevir, M. (2009). Key concepts in governance. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446214817
Bevir, M. (Ed.). (2010). The SAGE handbook of governance. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200964
Biebricher, T. (2019). The political theory of neoliberalism. Stanford University Press.
Biersteker, T. J. y Weber, C. (Eds.). (1996). State Sovereignty as Social Construct. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598685
Breyer, S. G., Stewart, R. B., Sunstein, C. R. y Vermeule, A. (2006). Administrative law and regulatory policy: problems, text, and cases (6.a ed.). Aspen Publishers.
Bryan, F. M. (2003). Real democracy: the new england town meeting and how it works. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo3641466.html
Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society. Macmillan Education UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24028-9
Cahill, D., Cooper, M., Konings, M. y Primrose, D. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of neoliberalism. SAGE.
Capella, J.-R. (2008). Fruta prohibida: una aproximación histórico-teorética al estudio del derecho y del estado (5.a ed.). Trotta.
Cassese, S. (2015). Global administrative law: The state of the art. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 13(2), 465-468. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mov022
Castells, M. (Ed.). (2004). The network society: a cross-cultural perspective. Edward Elgar.
Chayes, A. y Chayes, A. H. (1998). The new sovereignty: Compliance with international regulatory agreements. Harvard University Press.
Coicaud, J.-M. (2002). Legitimacy and politics: A contribution to the study of political right and political responsibility. Cambridge University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (2020). On democracy. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv18zhcs4
Derrida, J. (2005). De la gramatología (8.a ed.). Siglo XXI.
Dunn, J. (1990). Interpreting political responsibility: Essays 1981-1989. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400861453
Finer, S. E. (1997). The history of government from the earliest times: Vol. I: ancient monarchies and empires. Oxford University Press.
Frognier, A. P. (2001). Nation: sociological aspects. En N. J. Smelser y P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social y Behavioral Sciences (pp. 10292-10296). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-08-043076-7/01932-x
Gargarella, R. (1997). Crisis de la representación política. Fontamara.
Garner, J. W. (1925). Limitations on national sovereignty in international relations. American Political Science Review, 19(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938889
Garrett, G. (1995). Capital mobility, trade, and the domestic politics of economic policy. International Organization, 49(4), 657-687. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300028472
Giabardo, C. V. (2020). Private justice: The privatisation of dispute resolution and the crisis of law. Wolverhampton Law Journal, 4, 14-31. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3679932.
Grinin, L. E. (2012). State sovereignty in the age of globalization: Will it survive? Globalistics and Globalization Studies, 211-237.
Guitián, E. G. (2001). Crisis de la representación política: Las exigencias de la política de la presencia. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 111, 215-226.
Habermas, J. (1997). Más allá del Estado nacional. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Han, B. C. (2015). The burnout society. Stanford University Press.
Hardin, R. (Ed.). (2004). Distrust. Russell Sage Foundation. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/9781610442695
Harlow, C. (2006). Global administrative law: The quest for principles and values. European Journal of International Law, 17(1), 187-214. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chi158
Harvey, D. (2007). A Brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
Hinsley, F. H. (1986). Sovereignty (2.a ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, R. (2007). Sovereignty: The evolution of an idea. Polity.
Kingsbury, B., Krisch, N. y Stewart, R. B. (2005). The emergence of global administrative law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 68(3/4), 15-61. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.692628
Korff, B. S. A. (1923). The problem of sovereignty. American Political Science Review, 17(3), 404-414. https://doi.org/10.2307/1944043
Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.
Lansford, T. (2010). Sovereignty. En G. T. Kurian, J. E. Alt, S. Chambers, G. Garrett, M. Levi y P. D. Mcclain (Eds.), The encyclopedia of political science (pp. 1580-1584). CQ Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781608712434.n1463
Lansford, T. (2021). Evolution and devolution: The dynamics of sovereignty and security in post-Cold War Europe. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315196992
Lindblom, P. H. (1992). The privatization of justice: Some aspects of recent developments in American and Swedish procedural law. Netherlands International Law Review, 39(S1), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X00035464
Lindsay, S. M. (1915). Constitutional limitations on government powers. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York, 5(2), 93-97. https://doi.org/10.2307/1193381
Lipovetsky, G. (2003). La era del vacío: Ensayos sobre el individualismo contemporáneo. Anagrama.
Lowell, A. L. (1888). The limits of sovereignty. Harvard Law Review, 2(2), 70-87. https://doi.org/10.2307/1322069
MacCormick, N. (1999). Questioning sovereignty. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268765.001.0001
Marcilla Córdoba, G. (2005). Desregulación, Estado social y proceso de globalización. Doxa: Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 28, 239-263. https://doi.org/10.14198/doxa2005.28.16
Maritain, J. (1950). The Concept of sovereignty. The American Political Science Review, 44(2), 343-357. https://doi.org/10.2307/1950275
Marsonet, M. (2017). National sovereignty vs. globalization. Academicus International Scientific Journal, 15, 47-57. https://doi.org/10.7336/academicus.2017.15.03
McBeth, A., Nolan, J. y Rice, S. (2017). The international law of human rights (2.a ed.). Oxford University Press.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). The problem of sovereignty reconsidered. Columbia Law Review, 48(3), 341-365. https://doi.org/10.2307/1118308
Morgenthau, H. J. (1967). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
Morris, L. (1997). Globalization, migration and the nation-state: The path to a post-national Europe? The British Journal of Sociology, 48(2), 192-209. https://doi.org/10.2307/591748
Murray, P. L. (2007). Privatization of civil justice. Willamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution, 15(2), 133-154.
Ortega, R. R. (2007). Potestad normativa y servicios públicos locales: Los servicios regulados. Revista de Estudios Locales. Cunal, Extra 1, 125-132.
Ortega, R. R. (2010). Paradojas de la intervención administrativa económica: El bucle de la mejora regulatoria. La administración pública entre dos siglos: (Ciencia de la Administración, Ciencia Política y Derecho Administrativo). Homenaje a Mariano Baena del Alcázar. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3735568
Ortega, R. R. (2016). Novedades en la regulación de las entidades instrumentales de naturaleza pública. Innovaciones en el procedimiento administrativo común y en el régimen jurídico del sector público. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5800819
Ortega, R. R. (2021). Derecho administrativo económico (9a ed.). Marcial Pons.
Pascual, J. J. M. (2014). La actividad administrativa de regulación: Definición y régimen jurídico. Revista Digital de Derecho Administrativo, 12.
Perrineau, P. (2009). The crisis in political representation. En P. Perrineau y L. Rouban (Eds.), Politics in France and Europe (pp. 3-14). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230101890_2
Philpott, D. (1995). Sovereignty: An introduction and brief history. Journal of International Affairs, 48(2), 353-368.
Pierson, C. (2011). The modern state (3.a ed.). Routledge.
Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation. University of California Press.
Puentes, J. C. (2022a). Lo posmoderno, una clarificación conceptual. Revista humanidades, 12(2), e51303. https://doi.org/10.15517/h.v12i2.51303
Puentes, J. C. (2022b). Del gobierno a la gobernanza: Una aproximación normativa desde lo posmoderno. Nuevo Derecho, 18(31), Article 31. https://doi.org/10.25057/2500672X.1471
Puentes, J. C. (2022c). La nación en la era posmoderna: ¿Existe todavía? Advocatus, 19(38), 135-158. https://doi.org/10.18041/0124-0102/a.38.9751
Puentes, J. C. (2024). El territorio posmoderno: Un acercamiento normativo a los procesos de producción, organización y orientación del espacio. Revista Humanidades, 14(1), e56278. https://doi.org/10.15517/h.v14i1.56278
Rieger, E. y Leibfried, S. (2003). Limits to globalization: Welfare states and the world economy. Polity.
Risse, T. (2015). Limited statehood: A critical perspective. En S. Leibfried, E. Huber, M. Lange, J. D. Levy, F. Nullmeier y J. D. Stephens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State (pp. 152-168). Oxford University Press.
Rudalevige, A. (2021). By Executive order: Bureaucratic management and the limits of presidential power. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv17nmzjz
Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control? Sovereignty in the age of globalization. Columbia University Press.
Schyns, P. y Koop, C. (2010). Political distrust and social capital in Europe and the USA. Social Indicators Research, 96(1), 145-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9471-4
Scutt, J. A. (1988). The privatisation of justice: Power differentials, inequality, and the palliative of counselling and mediation. Women’s Studies International Forum, 11(5), 503-520. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395(88)90025-8
Shinoda, H. (2000). Re-examining sovereignty. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333981764
Steger, M. B. y Roy, R. K. (2021). Neoliberalism: A very short introduction (2.a ed.). Oxford University Press.
Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. W.W. Norton y Company.
Susen, S. (2015). The ‘postmodern turn’ in the social sciences. Palgrave Macmillan.
Torcal, M. y Montero, J. R. (Eds.). (2006). Political disaffection in contemporary democracies: social capital, institutions, and politics. Routledge.
Utaker, A. (1974). On the binary opposition. Linguistics, 12(134), 73-93. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1974.12.134.73
Walters, M. D. (2020). A. V. dicey and the common law constitutional tradition: A legal turn of mind. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139236249
Weinstein, J. B. (1996). Some benefits and risks of privatization of justice through ADR. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 11(2), 241-296.
Wenqi, Z. (2006). On co-operation by states not party to the International Criminal Court. International Review of the Red Cross, 88(861), 87-110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383106000063
Zagrebelsky, G., Marcenò, V. y Pallante, F. (2020). Manual de Derecho constitucional. Zela Grupo Editorial.
Zürn, M. y Deitelhoff, N. (2015). Internationalization and the State: Sovereignty as the External Side of Modern Statehood. En S. Leibfried, E. Huber, M. Lange, J. D. Levy, F. Nullmeier, y J. D. Stephens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State (pp. 193-217). OUP.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Nuevo Derecho
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors should declare that the article is an original work that has not been totally or partially published in any print or electronic media, which has not been submitted simultaneously to another publication and that is not currently under evaluation in another publication. On the other hand, I leave (we) evidence that the statements made therein are the sole responsibility of the / the authors / is.
All data and references to already published material are properly identified with their respective credit and included in the bibliographical notes and appointments that stand out as such and, in cases that require it, I have the proper authorizations for those with the respective rights; in case of any dispute or claim relating to intellectual property rights, we take responsibility exonerating responsibility to Nuevo Derecho.
If the article is approved for publication, the authors transfer the copyright to the journal New law to publish, distribute electronic copies and included in indexing services, directories or databases of national and international data on Open Access under the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution-Noncommercial (CC bY-NC-SA) by which the authors retain their copyrights and allow them to others copy and distribute your work provided they recognize the corresponding authorship and the work is not used for purposes commercial.
Therefore, new law does not retain the rights to reproduce or copy (copyright), so the authors will have the final versions, to disseminate them in institutional repositories, personal blogs or any other electronic or print media, with the sole condition to make mention of the original source of publication, in this case Nuevo Derecho.
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |
