Toward an institutional theory of sovereignty.

• Author: Goodman, Ryan
• Position: Symposium on Treaties, Enforcement, and U.S. Sovereignty

INTRODUCTION I. THE MODEL: "WORLD POLITY" INSTITUTIONALISM AND THE STATE A. Understanding Social Organization: Sociological Institutionalism B. Understanding the State as a Social Organization: An Introduction to the "World Polity" C. The Production and Legitimation of States in the World Polity 1. Organizational structure of states 2. Global cultural processes 3. "Rational actorhood." II. WORLD POLITY AND NATIONAL SECURITY A. National Security Practices 1. National militaries 2. Arms procurement and production 3. Use o f force--assassinations 4. Conduct during armed conflict--chemical weapons 5. Conduct during armed conflict--the wounded and sick B. National Security Interests and Beliefs III. IMPLICATIONS: RECONCEIVING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATES AND THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER A. State Behavior, Global Scripts, and the Worm Polity B. Compliance with International Norms and Obligations C. Sovereignty and International Legal Order CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION

Normative debates about how states should orient themselves to the international order dominate international legal scholarship. These debates typically presuppose a tension between the normative aspirations of state sovereignty and binding international obligation. (1) Given this shared presupposition, debates about a broad range of topics in international law--including the incorporation of international law, (2) the "democratic deficit" associated with international institutions, (3) and the potential conflicts between constitutional principles and international law (4)--are predicated on questionable empirical assumptions about the nature of the state and its relation to the international order. The terms of these debates thus require systematic reexamination. In this Article, we propose a sociological model of sovereignty that illuminates (1) the ways in which global social constraints empower actors, including states; and (2) the ways in which institutions--including the bundle of rules and legitimated identities associated with state "sovereignty"--constrain actors. Here, we intend only to introduce these ideas by outlining the conceptual framework of the approach, identifying several foundational propositions of the theory, and summarizing existing empirical research supporting these views. This Article is, in this sense, the start of a much larger project.

Our proposal differs in important respects from prevailing conceptions of the state in international legal studies. Although prevailing approaches recognize some role for international institutions, they neglect important dimensions of the institutional environment in which states operate. As a consequence, several features of contemporary states cannot be adequately explained by conventional approaches. In addition, the limitations of these approaches preclude the development of a descriptively accurate and normatively appealing theory of the relationship between states and the international legal order. Typically, the state is understood in either realist or constructivist terms. These approaches employ different logics of social action, generating different assumptions about the nature of the state and state behavior, particularly with respect to the role of institutions. These divergent theories of social action predict different conditions under which exogenous institutions influence (or reconfigure) state practice. Consider a brief exposition of these alternative approaches. Although these explanations are admittedly oversimplifications, we emphasize only general features of these approaches to facilitate the description of our model and its potential contribution to current debates.

For realist (or rational choice) approaches, the state is modeled as a rational, unitary actor pursuing fixed preferences in an anarchic international arena. (5) On this view, state action reflects inherent needs and interests; culture, as such, is not a part of the model, and norms are "behavioral regularities" reflecting state power and interest. (6) Therefore, the international order is reducible to transactions and interdependence between states. Some variants of this approach--most notably, neoliberalism and regime theory--recognize a more important role for international institutions. Under these approaches, self-interested states fashion international law and international organizations to prevent opportunistic behavior from hindering collectively optimal outcomes. (7) International institutions do not reconfigure state interests and preferences, but they might, under certain conditions, constrain strategic choices by prescribing and stabilizing mutual expectations about state behavior. (8) More generally, realist theories of social action posit that institutions influence state behavior primarily through pressure or coercion. (9)

Constructivist approaches, on the other hand, emphasize the role of social norms and institutions, stressing ways in which actors and their preferences derive from social structure. (10) That is, social structures not only regulate behavior but also define the social identities and interests of actors. (11) On this view, the state is modeled as the product of social processes, and state action reflects a socially constructed "logic of appropriateness." (12) Although some of this work analyzes the embeddedness of states in a wider social structure, (13) an important line of thinking emphasizes the ways in which states are the product of national cultural and interpretative systems. (14) In addition, constructivist theories of social action typically suggest that institutions influence state behavior through socialization and habitualization. (15) Through processes of social learning and persuasion, actors "internalize" new norms and rules of appropriate behavior and redefine their interests and identities accordingly. (16) Normative authority can persuade public and private actors to change their interests. (17)

The approach that we propose, in sharp contrast to realist approaches, is predicated on the view that states are organizational entities embedded in a wider social environment. In short, we argue that elemental features of states derive from worldwide models constructed and propagated through global cultural and associational processes. These models define and legitimate purposes of state action, and they shape the organizational structure and policy choices of states in many of these issue areas. These processes (1) define the organizational form of the modern state, (2) delimit the legitimate purposes of the state, and (3) constitute states as the principal legitimate actors in the world polity. The institutionalization of world models also helps explain many characteristics of the contemporary state system, such as striking similarity in purposes and organizational structure across states despite wide diversity in material and cultural conditions; and structural decoupling between functional task demands and persistent state practices. The central insight of our approach is that the international order can (and should) be understood as a distinct level of social and political reality. As we detail below, this insight recasts debates about the utility and prospects of reconciling state sovereignty and international law.

Of course, our approach is broadly constructivist in that we argue that states are products of cultural and associational processes. But the approach advanced in this Article qualifies (and supplements) conventional constructivist theories in important respects. First, our approach differs sharply from bottom-up constructivist models. Our model views states as shaped by cultural processes that are substantially organized on a global level. This approach emphasizes the ways in which states reflect their wider institutional environment. Second, our model identifies different social mechanisms from those identified by traditional constructivist approaches. Rather than emphasizing persuasion and habitualization as the processes through which institutions influence state action, we stress the ways in which orthodoxy and mimicry shape state identity, interests, and organizational structure. Finally, in terms of methodology, our approach supplements, or perhaps serves as a corrective to, constructivist legal scholarship by using empirical and quantitative methods that help specify when, under what conditions, and to what extent, state behavior is shaped by social structure.

We outline this approach in Part I, emphasizing (1) the ways in which the structure of states suggests the organizational presence of global culture, (2) the cultural processes that define "legitimate actorhood," and (3) how these processes operate on the global plane. In the balance of the Article, we explore the explanatory power of this theory by examining the institutionalization of world models of "national security." In Part II, we rely on--while at the same time qualifying--recent empirical work in international relations and security studies. Our analysis shows how national security is constructed through these global cultural and associational processes. In Part III, we identify several descriptive and prescriptive implications of our approach.

1. THE MODEL: "WORLD POLITY" INSTITUTIONALISM AND THE STATE

   How should we understand the state and its relation to the international order? In this Part, we describe the contours of our approach. We first outline the general theoretical framework and identify several important propositions that issue from this framework. This outline has two components: (1) We briefly describe the building blocks of a sociological theory of the state, and (2) we distill from these general propositions several concrete characteristics of the "state" and "international society." Finally, we summarize the substantial body of empirical work supporting these claims.

   1. Understanding Social Organization: Sociological Institutionalism

      Sociologists have...