Rainer Bauböck's work on popular
sovereignty, citizenship and the demos problem is an important touchstone for
contemporary political, and especially democratic, theory. Grounded in
attention to both the theoretical and empirical circumstances of individual and
collective political agency, Bauböck offers a highly sophisticated and, in
many ways, compelling approach to thinking through the philosophical and
investigate the clash between these two meanings of territoriality, the chapter highlights the case of trans-border minorities and minorities that have been present on a territory before current borders were formed. It specifically examines how states move away from the ideal of ethical territoriality and deem not only migrants but some of their citizens as having ‘less-than-complete-membership’ (Bosniak, 2007 : 392) with a position closer to that of foreign residents. Echoing Nyers' ( 2019 ) theory on irregular citizenship, the chapter examines acts of sovereignty (Nyers
the current state system, but my critique is more fundamental than this in
challenging the dominant interpretation of state sovereignty that underpins the
current state system. I should have stated this more clearly than I did.
Carens puts much weight on how the state system contributes to
global social injustice. I have little disagreement with him on this point.
What I would like to point out is again that we need to distinguish the
colonial dependency to territorial sovereignty.
The result for the past sixty years has been the bequeathing of state
management to a predominantly black and (particularly in Trinidad and
Tobago and Guyana) East Indian political class controlling a host of
individual islands and smaller island groupings of various sizes: among
the latter is SVG, a politically independent multi-island state. The
emphasized the link between individual and collective self-government. Pettit's
exclusive focus on domination defined as vulnerability to arbitrary
interference that fails to track one's interests (Pettit 1997, 2012 ) risks losing sight of the regulatory ideal of popular
sovereignty and its – always imperfect – realization through
democratic procedures for electing – rather than only controlling –
governments. This shortcoming makes neo-Roman republicanism a somewhat
comparison with another less-examined case of minority statelessness in Europe, the children of the Windrush generation in the UK.
The contexts in which these minorities have become stateless are very diverse – both geographically and politically – yet I claim that the mechanisms that states used to render them stateless were very similar: state authorities applied their ‘acts of sovereignty’ (Nyers, 2006 ) to construct these minorities as stateless by introducing legislation, discourses and practices that retroactively transformed them from citizens
citizenship as non-activists in their everyday lives (Sigona, 2015 ; Sardelić, 2017b ; Humphries, 2019 ). Third, there is an assumption that within the struggles on citizenship fringes, there are activists contesting the invisible edges of citizenship, whilst the side of law and policies remains static. In the case of Romani minorities, very few studies have shown that this is not the case (van Baar, 2017 ; Magazzini, 2017 ; Kostka, 2018 ). It is also the policymakers and state representatives who interpret and apply the law and policies through ‘acts of sovereignty
, Lithuanian and Romanian states accountable after finding interrogators at several CIA sites in those countries had used torture (Carey 2013 : 431). Kosovo's different configuration of sovereignty and accountability, with civil administration performed by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo in 1999–2007, created an ‘accountability gap’ (Visoka 2012 : 190) in international governance and an even more ambiguous space into which detainees might disappear.
Other post-Yugoslav states were implicated in secret detention. The first
alienation. But the newer writings register modernity’s magic
– and the interplay between the magical and the modern –
as more critically constitutive of social worlds. 4 Important strands of such work have
focused on the magic of capitalism and/or on the fetish of the state. 5 Still other
exercises have moved toward the simultaneous evocation and defacement of
power, pointing to the sacred character of modern sovereignty, in order
migration requires nothing less than a reconceptualisation of the role
of the State. He notes that ‘the practices of Caribbean peoples
are at great variance from the exclusive claims for singular loyalty to
the state … Caribbean peoples share a common de-territorialised imaginary. This requires a re-conceptualization
of the notion of sovereignty’ (Premdas, 2002 : 60). However, at the same time many people in Commonwealth