Liminal sovereignty practices: Rethinking the inside/outside dichotomy
| Author | Jaakko Heiskanen,Dylan MH Loh |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836720911391 |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836720911391
Cooperation and Conflict
2020, Vol. 55(3) 284 –304
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0010836720911391
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Liminal sovereignty practices:
Rethinking the inside/outside
dichotomy
Dylan MH Loh and Jaakko Heiskanen
Abstract
Sovereignty is the core concept of international relations. Almost without exception, approaches
to sovereignty in IR have followed a binary framing where sovereignty is seen to consist of two
components: ‘internal’ versus ‘external’ sovereignty, ‘positive’ versus ‘negative’ sovereignty, and
so on. These dichotomies stem from the prevailing understanding of sovereignty as the boundary
between the inside and the outside of the state. This article builds on and expands these existing
approaches by reconceptualizing the sovereignborder line as a liminal border space. Relatedly, we
theorize the concept of liminality in greater depth by distinguishing between four distinct kinds
of liminality: marginal, hybrid, interstitial, and external. Each of these problematizes the dividing
line of sovereignty in unique but comparable ways. We empirically illustrate these four kinds
of liminality with reference to contested states, ‘tribal’ or ‘indigenous’ groups, NGOs such as
Amnesty International, and extremist groups such as ISIS, respectively. Each of these types of
liminality entails unique actors, practices, and consequences for the concept of sovereignty. We
suggest that liminal sovereignty practices represent the most radical source of change for the
concept of sovereignty, yet at the same time, somewhat counterintuitively, they also serve as the
best means of clarifying existing, established meanings and practices of sovereignty.
Keywords
Liminality, poststructuralism, practices, sovereignty, state
Introduction
Sovereignty is the core concept of international relations. By drawing a line between the
inside and the outside of the state, the concept of sovereignty creates the international
realm both as a distinct space of action and as an object of analysis in its own right
(Walker, 1993). Yet, as poststructuralist scholars such as Walker demonstrate, the line
drawn by sovereignty is very much a line drawn in the sand: sovereignty is historically
contingent rather than necessary, ephemeral rather than permanent. The concept of
Corresponding author:
Dylan MH Loh, Nanyang Technological University, 48 Nanyang Ave, Singapore 639818.
Email: dylan@ntu.edu.sg
911391CAC0010.1177/0010836720911391Cooperation and ConflictLoh and Heiskanen
research-article2020
Article
Loh and Heiskanen 285
sovereignty is not pre-given, but a social construction that must be continually main-
tained through a multitude of sociopolitical practices.
That being said, the poststructuralist insistence on the socially constructed nature of
sovereignty tends to impose a restrictive either/or choice on the scholar: sovereignty can
either be taken as given or placed ‘under erasure’ (Weber, 1994: 9). Likewise, it seems
that the practices through which sovereignty is constructed and maintained can either be
accepted or resisted. For example, Biersteker and Weber (1996: 3) suggest that ‘the ideal
of state sovereignty is a product of the actions of powerful agents and the resistances to
those actions by those located at the margins of power.’ What tends to be lost in this
binary framing of acceptance and resistance is the fuzziness of sovereignty itself: the line
between the inside and the outside has a strange ‘thickness’ of its own (Heiskanen, 2019:
318–320). With this in mind, we reconceptualize the sovereign border line as a border
space. This allows us to theorize the concept of sovereignty as a liminal space, pregnant
with unique and innovative sovereignty practices that the vocabulary of ‘line’ struggles
to analytically access.
In contrast to the usual inside/outside framing, we propose an understanding of sov-
ereignty grounded on three distinct spaces: the domestic society, the international realm,
and a liminal space. The liminal space is a border zone that exists ‘betwixt and between’
the inside and the outside (Turner, 1969: 95). The picture that emerges from this three-
part framing is a more complex mosaic of practices than existing state-centric approaches
to IR have generally been able to grasp. In addition to nuancing existing poststructuralist
and practice-based approaches to sovereignty, we also theorize the concept of liminality
in greater depth, thereby contributing to a growing literature on this concept in IR.
Specifically, we distinguish between four distinct kinds of liminality: marginal, hybrid,
interstitial, and external. Each of these types of liminality entails unique actors, practices,
and consequences for the concept of sovereignty. While some liminal practices are pro-
foundly disturbing for IR’s conception of sovereignty, others actually serve to reinforce
the inside/outside dichotomy. Indeed, a central theme running through the article is how
the idea of a liminal space at once both undermines and underlines the sovereign bound-
ary: the border line and the border space coexist in perpetual tension.
The article is organized into six sections. In the next section, we build on the work of
poststructuralist IR theorists in order to conceptualize sovereignty as a set of practices
that maintains an ontological distinction between the inside and the outside of the state.
After outlining an understanding of sovereignty-as-practice, we proceed in the following
section to elaborate the notion of a third space of sovereignty, a liminal space that exists
neither inside nor outside the state but on the border line between the two. To gain further
analytical traction on this liminal space, we differentiate between four kinds of liminal-
ity: marginal, hybrid, interstitial, and external. Each of these four types of liminality is
then explored in separate sections, with reference to empirical examples.
Understanding sovereignty as practice
Sovereignty is widely recognized as a concept that is difficult, perhaps impossible, to
properly define. In their authoritative works, Walker (1993: 166), Weber (1994: 9), and
Bartelson (1995: 49) have all been hesitant to offer a definition: ‘We can only challenge
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations