This thesis concerns itself with the changes wrought by the movement from analog to digital spaces. These changes are mirrored by changes in the way states practice sovereignty. Examples of new practices of sovereignty are found in the documents of the National Information Infrastrucure Advisory Council. Close analysis of these examples reveals the disciplinary projects of spatial (re)construction implied by these new practices. The effects of these types of spatial disciplinarity on individual subjectivities are also discussed. / Master of Arts

No description available.

Among the core concerns with the extraordinary proliferation of land deals in Africa - often referred to as "land grabs" - is that the signing of contracts between host states and foreign companies and/or other states for large swaths of territory and associated agribusinesses could represent an erosion of the host state's sovereignty powers. This concern reveals a double characterisation of the state, as weak in its sovereignty and, yet, as very able to negotiate and implement deals. Host states have been shown to be able to exercise sovereignty in those deals, what type of sovereignty - and whose -, however, remains in dispute. This thesis seeks to address this issue through a case study that focuses on the question how sovereignties are shaping and being shaped by land deals in Mozambique's Limpopo Valley. It specifically investigates the rice and sugar projects in areas of the Chokwe and Xai-Xai regadios. It considers land deals as a set of processes for international-domestic negotiation of goals and funding, followed by processes in the areas of decision-making, policy-making, and project implementation. Based on critical reappraisals of the concept of sovereignty, the thesis understands sovereignty as a set of powers that a state effectively has, beyond mere legal sovereignty, rather than an a priori attribute that a state does or does not possess, in zero-sum terms. As such it is an outcome of relational, inter-subjective processes and, thus, dynamic and historically contingent. Consequently, rather than absolute power over its territory and population, sovereignty is considered in terms of degrees of two types of political power practices, "command" power and "infrastructural" power, according to multiple and not always congruent state functions. To this, the thesis brings a notion of socially constructed state such that it is never neutral because a part of society and, thus socially embedded and produced. This allows me to move past the assumption of 'common good' and the moralist discussions of 'elite capture' and corruption. Based on this theoretical and analytical framework, the thesis posits irrigated agriculture and the state schemes hosting foreign projects as "sites" where actors' interests and powers are shaped relationally: the state (in different capacities), other states and their development agencies, foreign private sector actors and multiple domestic groups. The processes are studied at two levels. The first concerns how state "command" power is used to harness and/or defend against different international developments, negotiating international narratives and domestic needs, resulting in agricultural and water regulations, with ODA dependence for budgets. A subset of regulatory activity is the revisions to by-laws of management irrigation-scheme companies, as new representatives of central power locally. At the second level, the research focuses on interaction with Western equity and Chinese cooperation projects, two of the main types of investors, which come with different foreign management and funding models. Further, processes are embedded in historical trajectories of elite groups' moving away from agriculture since the 1980s, yet holding on to land entitlements, and of producers' displacement. This analytical framework allows research to effectively go beyond the notion of the state as either weak or able, considering it as polymorphous and acting in specific dimensions that no longer seem contradictory. Further, it illuminates the mutually constitutive nature of (sub)national and international dimensions of sovereignty, which tend to be exiled from each other in mainstream approaches to the notion, as well as the inextricability of political and economic powers in the 'sovereignty frontier' of post-conditionality states.

This dissertation presents an analytical study of the evolution of the right of political selfdetermination and the influence of the principle of non-interference on promotion of this right. The intellectual and legal interests in democracy, good governance and social justice have contributed to the development of this right and its realisation for peoples lacking the least degree of good governance. The right of political self-determination is strongly associated with international intervention because governments facing popular demands for this right often resort to repression and military means to suppress such claims. Such interventions have also been driven by contemporary interest in supporting collective rights through international organisations that monitor and identify violations of various political rights. Thus, this dissertation focuses on the tension between the principle of non-interference and the modern legal trend to promote the political rights of all peoples. This research contributes considerable insights into the transformation of the principle of non-interference from an absolute obligation into a flexible concept by tracing the contributing legal changes both in international practices and in emerging rules and principles in international law. It is concluded that the promotion of the right of self-determination has resulted in international practices that have dramatically influenced and caused tension with the principle of noninterference. Keywords: right of political self-determination, democracy, statehood, the principle of noninterference, international intervention, sovereignty.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This research analyses the link between the practice and rhetoric of deportation and the South African state’s understanding of state sovereignty. Through this inquiry, I argue that although state agents often portray the political rationale for deportation and exclusion, economic interests equally form a crucial part in the practice of deportation policy in South Africa. The prominence of private economic interests reveals that the imperative to embrace the population or exercise exclusive political jurisdiction over state territory may be less influential than state officials assert when describing and justifying deportation. These findings have implications for how we think about the increasing dependence on deportation by states throughout the world. Keywords: Deportation, rhetoric, practice, policy, immigration, state, nation, sovereignty, politics, economics

In the last decade of last century, the advent of the Internet as the predominant medium of communication for the masses prompted countless observers and social sciences scholars to predict the end of physical borders; a revolution in the way we understood the nation-state and the concept of sovereignty. The Internet, a medium that seemed not to be confined to the same territorial delimitations that traditional media was subjected to, would simultaneously represent and promote the achievement of the “one world” scenario that globalization promised; a world in which information could flow free from governmental control and official censorship. Thus, the ideological foundation of authoritarian regimes, such as that of the People’s Republic of China, faced a dire threat – or so the theory went. Today, fifteen years after the Chinese incursion into cyberspace, the veil of idealism and simplistic thinking that elicited those initial claims has been lifted from our eyes, and recent events have further demonstrated that the web is still subject, and will continue to be subject, to territorial delimitation. This reality was further illustrated in June 2010 with the publication of the first Chinese White Paper entirely dedicated to the Internet, which revealed the overarching principle guiding Beijing’s Internet control efforts: the assertion of what it calls “Internet sovereignty”, the supreme authority by the Chinese Communist Party to control which kind of information enters its borders through the Internet and is spread within. While China is not the only country trying to restrict the access of online information from abroad to its borders, it is the first country in the world to actually make an official plea sovereignty over the Web. However, despite the boldness of its content, Section V of the Internet White Paper sparked “outrage, concern, but surprisingly not much discussion”. Ever since the first connection was established in the country, the examination of the political aspects of the Chinese Internet has mainly revolved around the issues of censorship and surveillance. Yet, the spat between the Chinese government and Internet giant Google raised the stakes in the debate considerably, as it prompted the Chinese Communist Party to make explicit its claims of sovereignty over the Internet and advance its strategy of fragmentation of the Web; something that a few years ago was considered nearly impossible. For this reason, this study seeks to answer the question: How does the Chinese government intend to apply its national sovereignty, which has traditionally been understood primarily in geographical terms, to a medium that seems to be exempt of geographical location?

Sovereignty has long been deemed an unchallengeable concept. However, starting from end of twentieth century, this concept is severely impacted by the trend of Globalization. And now, it becomes a debatable issue that whether or not the core characters of the traditional Sovereignty theory: i.e. supremacy, inalienability and indivisibility remain. By way of methodologies of documentary analysis and comparative analysis, I intend to start with introducing the traditional Sovereignty theory, examining how this Sovereignty socio-science was structured by the traditional Sovereignty theory, which includes how the core concept, ie. Freedom, Capitalism and modernity impacted the traditional Sovereignty theory. Then, I would like to introduce Zygmunt Bauman¡¦s view, who is one of the contemporary socio-science masters, toward Freedom, Capitalism and Modernity, and to compare the difference implied between these two views. And last, I tried to critique this artificial Sovereignty concept, although it long been adopted, with Bauman¡¦s view from the following dimensions: (a) the structural error of Sovereignty theory; and (b) in reality, the collapse led by modernity of the 3 pillars, ie. Economy, Culture and Military of Sovereignty theory.