Abstract

The terms “sovereignty” and “state” are used very loosely in scholarly literature. “State sovereignty” is central to many scholarly disciplines and controversial real case scenarios, including territorial disputes; pandemics; arms, drug and human trafficking; terrorism; and the flow of refugees. Unsurprisingly, when academics apply the term “state sovereignty” disagreements can be expected. This paper reviews a series of conceptions pertaining to “state sovereignty” and proposes a shift from the current unidimensional understanding to a multidimensional approach. This is because state sovereignty is an intricate concept that includes several pluralisms, such as agents and the roles they play in their interrelations (e.g. individuals, communities and states), contexts (i.e. domestic, regional and international), realms (e.g. factual, normative and axiological) and modes of existence (i.e. ideal, natural, cultural and metaphysical elements and features). Hence, this paper argues that different understandings on state sovereignty are not due to ontological discrepancies but relate to either epistemological choices because different scholars and scientific disciplines are interested in a particular pluralism pertaining to state sovereignty rather than the concept as a whole, or to axiological choices tightly linked to individuals, communities and/or states often ignored or undisclosed views and perceptions. By applying a multidimensional approach and taking into account two variables—time and space—the paper explains why the different conceptions on state sovereignty are connected with value judgments that still refer to the same concept applied to the object or subject of study (ontology) but from particular epistemological presuppositions often hidden, ignored or neglected.