Book Review: Territorial Sovereignty: A Philosophical Exploration, by Anna Stilz

• Published date: 01 October 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0090591720943507
• Author: Anna Jurkevics
• Date: 01 October 2021
• Subject Matter: Book Reviews

Political Theory

2021, Vol. 49(5) 864 –893

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

journals.sagepub.com/home/ptx

Book Reviews

Book Reviews

Territorial Sovereignty: A Philosophical Exploration, by Anna Stilz. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2019, 304 pp.

Reviewed by: Anna Jurkevics, Department of Political Science, University of

British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

DOI: 10.1177/0090591720943507

In recent years a debate has flourished over the foundations of territorial

right: who has authority over land? And what does this authority consist in?

Can states claim unilateral right over resources and borders? Annie Stilz’s

Territorial Sovereignty: A Philosophical Exploration stakes out a statist-Kan-

tian position in these debates. This book is a bold defense of the liberal state

and the Westphalian world order, one which successfully avoids a mésal-

liance between nationalism and state power. Stilz argues that the Westphalian

world order is not merely justifiable but that “our natural duty to respect and

protect the autonomy of others is best fulfilled through a pluralistic and

decentralized order of self-governing territorial units” (12, emphasis mine).

The territorial state is, according to her, the best institutional vehicle to guar-

antee freedom and justice. The book is well written and suffused with razor-

sharp argument, carefully crafted from the ground up. Stilz’s aim is to reshape

our vision of what the Westphalian world order could be if it was just, and to

entice us to invest ourselves in the sovereign territorial state. Below I will

explore whether she achieves this aim, but it is sure from the outset that her

contribution to the polarized world of territorial theory will be a cornerstone

in debates to come.

Before I delve into the details of the argument, I want to note that Stilz’s

intention is not to prop up Westphalian sovereignty as we have known it. She

qualifies, “. . . the book . . . does not justify the full set of sovereign rights that

states claim. . . . In that sense, it is a revisionist account” (vii). Indeed, Stilz’s

policy prescriptions for increased international cooperation over resources,

stronger legal protections for indigenous self-determination, and a more gen-

erous international migration regime are progressive. However, a question

underlying this review concerns the viability of revisionism itself—can stat-

ist-Kantianism escape the charge that it is a defense of the status quo? Stilz’s

943507PTXXXX10.1177/0090591720943507Political TheoryBook Reviews

book-review2020