What Is Wrong With Sovereignty? A Critical Approach Through the Limitations of Legal Violence

This article provides a critical perspective on current debates about sovereignty through the structural limitations of legal violence. A central discussion revolves around the question of whether the disaggregation of sovereignty as a result of international and global developments should be welcomed or resisted. While some argue that this provides better protection for human rights and international cooperation, others defend sovereignty as it ultimately means self-determination and democratic rule. However, being able to evaluate these arguments and developments requires an understanding of how sovereignty functions and what is problematic with it. To achieve this, the article grasps sovereignty from its two interrelated facets: Sovereignty signifies, on the one hand, that the legitimacy of law and political power comes from a popular source. On the other hand, it points to the supremacy of the authority that creates and enforces law through violence if necessary. Hence, the instrumentalization of violence is integral to its functioning. However, this method has structural drawbacks as the legal order built by violence requires its further instrumentalization, compelling the sovereign to compete with the people as the constituent source rather than just representing it. This endangers the promises of sovereignty, such as self-determination and democracy, and the article maps out these drawbacks by following Walter Benjamin’s analysis of legal violence. Hence, the real problem of sovereignty lies in its functioning rather than its territorial configurations. This awareness of the problem inherent in sovereignty provides critical guidance in evaluating the arguments and developments about the concept’s future.