Existing legal scholarship does not offer an effective or comprehensive definition of sovereignty. Sovereignty, however, matters. Indeed, many have lived and died for it; the term likewise appears with remarkable frequency in both academic and popular discourse. But, sovereignty is not what it used to be. The evolution of globalization generally, and transformations in global commerce specifically, have sutured together the peoples of the world—conventional nation-states and

Seasteading––homesteading of the modern era––is a desire to develop above-water settlements in international waters known as seasteads. Once a fleeting dream, seasteading has entered the realm of possibility with the technological advancements and financial contributions of The Seasteading Institute (TSI). TSI’s ultimate goal is ambitious: to establish permanent seasteads as sovereign states recognized by the United States and eventually by other members of the United Nations

Governments across the world regularly invoke sovereignty to demand that the international community “mind its own business” while they commit human rights abuses. They proclaim that the sovereign right to be free from international intervention in domestic affairs permits them unfettered discretion within their territory. This Article seeks to challenge those proclamations by resort to sovereignty in the people, a time-honored principle that is typically more rhetorical than

State failure poses one of the greatest threats to international peace and security.  The collapse of governing institutions breeds civil wars, generates refugee flows, causes enormous civilian suffering, foments instability in neighboring countries, and provides safe havens for transnational criminal and terrorist organizations.  As a result, commentators and policymakers have increasingly called for a remedy to the problem of state failure.  One of the most compelling argum

Mexico and the United States exercise sovereignty that is increasingly transnational and less absolute with respect to migration.  This is evident in changes to Mexico’s norm of non-intervention and the United States’ plenary power doctrine, two doctrines rooted in international sovereignty.  Both have historically defined sovereign authority in absolute terms, avoiding any foreign influence or domestic limitation.  The non-intervention norm prohibits Mexican foreign relati

State natural resource development projects have become sites of intense political, social, and cultural contestation among a diversity of actors. In particular, such projects often lead to detrimental consequences for the empowerment, livelihood, and cultural and economic development of historically marginalized communities. This Article fills a gap in the existing literature by identifying and analyzing emerging international law approaches that impact the intrastate