Share
Reported by: Meg Buckley, CSaP Policy Intern
From Greenland to Gaza: Roots and consequences of sovereignty in flux
Talk by Dr Moritz A. Mihatsch
Dr Moritz Mihatsch, Assistant Professor in Global History at the University of Cambridge, and co-author of the recent book ‘Shifting Sovereignties’, shared his insights into the evolving nature of sovereignty. In his talk, Dr Mihatsch explored his book’s key concepts, challenging conventional understandings of sovereignty as being fixed and unchanging.
Sovereignty is a key concept in political science and international relations, and global disorder is transforming the role of sovereignty in international relations. Dr Mihatsch described how conceptions of sovereignty have changed throughout history and argued that we cannot simply apply present understanding of sovereignty to the past. Instead, sovereignty should be recognised as ‘fuzzy, compromised, fragmented and layered.
Misconceptions of sovereignty
According to Dr Mihatsch, there are two reasons for widespread misunderstanding of sovereignty: the conflation of normative and analytical categories and a tendency to project present-day norms onto historical contexts.
He traced the early conceptualisation of sovereignty to Jean Bodin in the sixteenth century. Bodin, much like Thomas Hobbes in 'Leviathan’, envisioned sovereignty as an absolute authority centralised in the monarchy with the aim of bringing about peace and order. However, this normative ideal has always been at odds with reality; indeed, in Bodin’s France, authority was split between the Church and the State.
A second misunderstanding arises from the tendency to assume that sovereignty in the past worked like it does today. He cited Hendrik Spruyt’s work, highlighting how a ruler’s control over the weights and measures system was once a crucial aspect of sovereignty – a notion far-removed from international power dynamics today. This historical shift highlights that sovereignty is a changing concept.
The sovereignty regime and systems sovereignty
Dr Mihatsch proposed the idea of ‘sovereignty regimes’ to describe the norms and rules that define sovereignty at any given time. After the French Revolution, the Congress of Vienna determined who could be a sovereign entity; one criterion was that rulers had to be from specific noble families, which led to Venice’s sovereignty being disregarded. As part of the Versailles peace negotiations after World War I, new states were based on ethnic communities and subsequently, the League of Nations took responsibility for overseeing these new entities, leading to overall ‘systems sovereignty’. Today, states, international organisations like the EU, and even private companies can exercise sovereign powers, which creates complexity and a blurring of the system.
Challenges to a weakening system
During the post-Cold War era, the US has carried systems sovereignty, particularly in areas like finance and justice, with the globalisation of the economic system and formation of the International Criminal Court. However, regional organisations like the EU and ECOWAS in West Africa present challenges to the legitimacy of US-centric rulemaking.
President Trump’s recent proposals regarding Greenland, Canada and Gaza are frequently described as ‘unprecedented’; but these too echo historical patterns. The US has a history of purchasing territory, having bought Alaska in 1867 and Water Island in 1944. Dr Mihatsch points out that Trump’s suggestion to empty land for settlement in Gaza also resonates with colonial notions of sovereignty. Trump is calling upon ‘layers’ of previous sovereignty regimes which can be used by states and individuals rejecting the status quo. This is a sign of post-Cold War sovereignty becoming weaker.
China’s claims over the South China Sea superseding UN agreements, or Turkey’s intervention in Libya based on historical Ottoman ties, are further examples of a global sovereignty regime under threat.
A dangerous time for smaller states
The current confrontation between Europe and Russia is fundamentally changing the sovereign infrastructure, the sovereignty regime and systems sovereignty. The fading of the post-Cold War system reopens fundamental questions such as: who gets to be a state, what powers do states have, how is territory distributed, and to what extent can systems sovereignty intervene in other states?
During questions and discussion, Dr Mihatsch explained that major shifts in sovereignty regimes frequently followed conflicts and this historical pattern suggests that the current period of instability might be a precursor to a redefinition of sovereignty. A potential US-Russia agreement on Greenland’s status illustrates how powerful states can define a new set of rules with profound consequences for other territories without requiring wider consensus.
When asked about the influence of high-net-worth individuals wielding power comparable to some states, Dr Mihatsch drew parallels to colonial companies to demonstrate the history of non-state actors exerting sovereignty. New avenues for power are emerging outside of state-centric influences. These are present in new frontiers like space, cyberspace and ‘zones’ such as Neom in Saudi Arabia. In these unregulated areas, private companies can impose their own rules to create ‘micro-sovereignties’ that evade global governance.
Dr Mihatsch concluded his talk by warning of a dangerous time, particularly for smaller, weaker states in the global hierarchy.
You read more about Dr Moritz Mihatsch and the book, 'Shifting Sovereignties', on his webpage here.
Megan Buckley
Centre for Science and Policy, University of Cambridge
Dr Moritz Mihatsch
Faculty of History, University of Cambridge