As is evident, the concept of sovereignty has faced several societal changes and a
lot of criticism. Nevertheless, both the nation-state and the theory of sovereignty
have proved persistent concepts. Despite fundamental and rigorous criticism, both
concepts still act as a starting point for theorisations on power relations in the
globalised world. Mutanen considers this endurance of the debate on sovereignty
as a sign that the concept itself has not lost its significance. According to Mutanen,
this persistence can be at least partly explained by the ambiguity and contextual
nature of the concept itself, as interpretative flexibility enables its adaptability to
changing societal environment.
40
The question I am asking departs from here. Is the interpretative flexibility of
sovereignty sufficiently adaptable to fit the concept of sovereignty with the
changed environment of dispute resolution? Is there an interpretation of sovereignty that would uphold its position as a source of justification for dispute
resolution? If we change the context from European integration to global dispute
resolution technology, what are the roles of the state and the scope of its
sovereign power?
5.2 Sovereignty in dispute resolution
5.2.1 Sovereignty as state monopoly of dispute resolution
We have reached a point where the question of ownership of conflicts collides
with the question of justification, the latter of which is raised once again by the
consequences of implementing technology to dispute resolution. The social
element of conflicts has directed the doctrine towards state sovereignty as the
constitutive principle, from which justification is derived. After this, I demonstrated
how the concept of sovereignty emerged, was interpreted and reinterpreted during
the centuries after the Westphalian Treaty. Next, the question of sovereignty needs
to be reframed in the context of dispute resolution technology and as a source of
justification, before discussing whether the flexibility of the principle of sovereignty
enables us to reinterpret it to accommodate the needs for justification in the era of
dispute resolution technology.
This leads us to question what state sovereignty means in dispute resolution.
As state politics rarely take a stance in individual resolution processes, the close
link between law and the state is realised through legislation and state-governed
court systems. Direct references to state sovereignty are rarely made, but instead
the principle is filtered through the doctrine as the state monopoly on dispute
resolution. In order to examine state sovereignty as a source of justification, as a
structural coupling between the legal system and the political system, we need to
define this state monopoly, how it has reacted to the new irritant challenging it,
and where it draws its power.
The changes in the position of the state are linked with the emergence of
diverse phenomena such as globalisation, private enforcement, the introduction
of technology and emergence of the Internet. Still, the objective of this study is
not to adopt a stance for or against sovereignty as such, but to describe how
116 Three quests for justification
lot of criticism. Nevertheless, both the nation-state and the theory of sovereignty
have proved persistent concepts. Despite fundamental and rigorous criticism, both
concepts still act as a starting point for theorisations on power relations in the
globalised world. Mutanen considers this endurance of the debate on sovereignty
as a sign that the concept itself has not lost its significance. According to Mutanen,
this persistence can be at least partly explained by the ambiguity and contextual
nature of the concept itself, as interpretative flexibility enables its adaptability to
changing societal environment.
40
The question I am asking departs from here. Is the interpretative flexibility of
sovereignty sufficiently adaptable to fit the concept of sovereignty with the
changed environment of dispute resolution? Is there an interpretation of sovereignty that would uphold its position as a source of justification for dispute
resolution? If we change the context from European integration to global dispute
resolution technology, what are the roles of the state and the scope of its
sovereign power?
5.2 Sovereignty in dispute resolution
5.2.1 Sovereignty as state monopoly of dispute resolution
We have reached a point where the question of ownership of conflicts collides
with the question of justification, the latter of which is raised once again by the
consequences of implementing technology to dispute resolution. The social
element of conflicts has directed the doctrine towards state sovereignty as the
constitutive principle, from which justification is derived. After this, I demonstrated
how the concept of sovereignty emerged, was interpreted and reinterpreted during
the centuries after the Westphalian Treaty. Next, the question of sovereignty needs
to be reframed in the context of dispute resolution technology and as a source of
justification, before discussing whether the flexibility of the principle of sovereignty
enables us to reinterpret it to accommodate the needs for justification in the era of
dispute resolution technology.
This leads us to question what state sovereignty means in dispute resolution.
As state politics rarely take a stance in individual resolution processes, the close
link between law and the state is realised through legislation and state-governed
court systems. Direct references to state sovereignty are rarely made, but instead
the principle is filtered through the doctrine as the state monopoly on dispute
resolution. In order to examine state sovereignty as a source of justification, as a
structural coupling between the legal system and the political system, we need to
define this state monopoly, how it has reacted to the new irritant challenging it,
and where it draws its power.
The changes in the position of the state are linked with the emergence of
diverse phenomena such as globalisation, private enforcement, the introduction
of technology and emergence of the Internet. Still, the objective of this study is
not to adopt a stance for or against sovereignty as such, but to describe how
116 Three quests for justification