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. (shrink)

State sovereignty is often thought to be absolute, unlimited. This paper argues that there is no such a thing as absolute State sovereignty. Indeed, absolute sovereignty is impossible because all sovereignty is necessarily underpinned by its conditions of possibility—i.e. limited sovereignty is the norm, though the nature of the limitations varies. The article consists of two main sections: the concept of sovereignty: this section is focused on some of the limitations the concept of sovereignty itself presents; and a historical account (...) of the notion of sovereignty as it was used in the Ancient Times. The particular focus on early notions of a modern concept such as sovereignty has to do with the fact that this early notion has been anthropomorphised with societal evolution. Therein, the current concept of State sovereignty embraces the same limitations it had in its ancient form as a non-fully developed conceptual idea. The implications of understanding State sovereignty as limited rather than absolute are several, both directly and indirectly. A main immediate consequence is that sovereign States can cooperate together, limit their sovereignty and still be considered sovereign. (shrink)