The following comparative case study of Iraqi Kurdistan and Democratic Federation of Northern Syria-Rojava seeks to fill a gap in literature on the viability of democracy in cases of de facto statehood. There is yet to be an assessment of the potential influence of support from patron states on the degree to which democratization in de facto states is possible. This research expands upon on the argument that the decision to recognize de facto states is at least partially dependent upon the national interests of influential third party states. Syria Rojava has relied heavily on the strength of its internal sovereignty for survival where Iraqi Kurdistan received significant external support in vital phases of the state building process and was not reliant entirely on the strength of its internal unity. Where Kurdistan received essential major power support from permanent UN Security Council members early in the state-building process, as well as afterwards in constructing a divided system of governance, Syria Rojava has received little external support and faces an international community that denies its existence. It is estimated that in the following research the support of Major Powers early in the state-building process fundamentally changes the nature of internal sovereignty. More specifically the strength and weakness of conditions of internal sovereignty influence the type of governance that is practiced in the cases under analysis. Where the conditions of internal sovereignty are strong, the viability for democratization decreases; where the conditions of internal sovereignty are weak, the viability for democratization increases. In the case of Iraqi Kurdistan, the relatively weak conditions of internal sovereignty, while resulting in conditions that are more conducive to democratization, subjects the region to increased dependence on external powers for survival. Whereas in Syria Rojava, the relatively strong conditions of internal sovereignty while resulting in conditions that are less conducive to democratization, subjects the region to less dependence on external powers for survival. Theories that seek to affirm the possibility of democratization in de facto states have so far eschewed consideration of the military and diplomatic support of patron states in the early de facto state building process. There is a need for research that takes into consideration the specific events that lead to the creation of de facto states so as not to overlook the possibility that external actors play a role in shaping conditions of internal sovereignty.

The purpose of this thesis is to explore how different versions of sovereignty manifestthemselves in the central founding documents relating to the Sámi parliament in bothNorway and Sweden. This analysis of the different approaches to sovereignty could beused to give an explanation to the differences between the Sámi parliaments in Norwayand Sweden. The research questions of this thesis were: Within central foundingdocuments can one see different versions of sovereignty between Sweden and Norway?What differences can one observe between the countries in relation to ideas regardinginternal and external sovereignty? To answer these questions, different theories ofsovereignty were presented and evaluated. This thesis used content analysis with adeductive approach and the primary materials that were analysed were the founding legaldocuments and law propositions to the Sámi parliaments. The major finding of this thesispaper were that Norway and Sweden were observably different when it came to theirversions of sovereignty, in conclusion Sweden had a stricter adherence to internalsovereignty and Norway was exceedingly more orthodox and put more effort into theirexternal sovereignty.

L'émancipation de la pensée politique américaine de ses sources européennes était un processus à plusieurs facettes. Au cœur de ce processus d'émancipation intellectuelle des jeunes États-Unis était la notion de la souveraineté, qui doit être selon l'historien Gordon Wood considérée comme l'abstraction la plus important de la politique dans l'ère révolutionnaire. Un des contributeurs les plus important au débat sur la notion de la souveraineté était James Madison (1751-1836), surtout connu comme le père de la constitution américaine, comme l'auteur du Fédéraliste avec Hamilton et Jay et comme le quatrième Président des États-Unis. La thèse cherche à reconstituer la contribution de Madison à l'américanisation de la souveraineté en s'appuyant sur ses propres discours et écrits. Les analyses montrent qu'il proposait notamment une souveraineté à double face : quant à la dimension intérieure, il défendait l'idée d'une souveraineté limitée, qui s’avérerait dans sa forme spécifique comme une particularité : le constitutionnalisme américaine. Quant à la politique extérieure, il concevait en revanche une souveraineté plutôt illimitée et en plein extension, qui se développait au cours de sa carrière petit à petit à une conception largement en accord avec les postulats du système westphalien des États européennes. Pour éclairer les implications politiques pratiques de ce raisonnement, on peut formuler un « théorème de Madison », qui récapitule le rapport particulier entre souveraineté interne et souveraineté externe dans sa pensée politique : L'état libérale et sécularisé vit des conditions, qu'il doit garantir par sa politique étrangère. Cette reformulation d'une citation fameux du juriste allemand Böckenförde décrit non seulement la sensibilité de Madison pour la nature précaire de la liberté dans une démocratie constitutionnelle, mais aussi sa conviction que la probabilité de la violence des factions dans la république américaine peut non seulement être réduite par les remèdes républicains de la politique intérieure comme la constitutionnalisation, la démocratisation, la séparation des pouvoirs, le principe de la représentation ou la fédéralisation, mais aussi par les valves de sécurité fournis par la politique étrangers, notamment la disponibilité d'un grande nombre des terrains pour le développement du peuple américaine et les conditions commerciales favorables qui facilitent l'accès aux marchés étrangères pour les produits américaines. / The emancipation of American political thought from its European origins was a multi-layered process. The concept of sovereignty which was according to the renowned historian Gordon Wood the "single most important abstractions of politics in the entire Revolutionary era", was at the heart of this intellectual emancipation process in the early years of United States of America. One of the most important contributors to this debate was James Madison (1751-1836), a politician known as the father of the American constitution, revered as one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, alongside Hamilton and Jay, and remembered as the fourth President of the United States of America. The thesis aims to reconstruct the contribution of Madison to the Americanization of sovereignty by analyzing his speeches, essays and private correspondence. These analyses suggest that Madison proposed a double-faced concept of sovereignty. Concerning the internal dimension of sovereignty, he defended the idea of a limited sovereignty in the form of American constitutionnalism. Concerning the external dimension of sovereignty, he imagined a sovereignty without those limits and in continuous extension, an idea he developed during the course of his career into a concept which was in line with the postulates of the westphalian system of the European nation states. To illustrate the political implications of this line of reasoning, I suggest one can formulate a "Madison theorem" characterizing the particular link between internal and external sovereignty in his political thought: The liberal secularized state lives by prerequisites, that he should guarantee through his foreign policy. This reformulation of a statement by the renowned German jurist Böckenförde does not only describe Madison's consciousness for the precarious nature of liberty in constitutional democracies, but also his conviction that the probability of the violence of factions in the American republic cannot only be reduced by republican remedies in the field of domestic policy, like constitutionnalisation, democratization, the separation of powers, the principle of representation or Federalisation. But that the probability of the violence of factions can also be reduced by safety valves provided by foreign policy, like the availability of land for the development of the American people or favorable commercial conditions facilitating the access for american products to foreign markets.