State Sovereignty After 9/11: Disorganised Hypocrisy

Acharya, Amitav
June 2007
Political Studies;Jun2007, Vol. 55 Issue 2, p274
Academic Journal
This article examines the implications of the 9/11 attacks and the US-led ‘global war on terror’ for debates about state sovereignty. To support its attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush administration put forth a ‘selective sovereignty’ thesis that would legitimise intervention in states that are accused of supporting terrorists. This new rationale for intervention was paradoxically justified as a means of ensuring a ‘well-ordered world of sovereign states’, which had been imperilled by transnational terrorist networks. This article argues that the ‘selective sovereignty’ thesis exaggerates the challenge posed by terrorist organisations to Westphalian sovereignty, and understates the US's own unprincipled violation of its core norm of non-intervention. A related argument of this article is that on the face of it, the ‘selective sovereignty’ approach fits the notion of ‘organised hypocrisy’ put forward by Stephen Krasner, which refers to ‘the presence of long-standing norms [in this case non-intervention] that are frequently violated’ for the sake of some ‘higher principles’– violations that are generally tolerated by the international community. But the higher principles evoked by the US to justify its war on Iraq, such as the human rights of the Iraqis, and democracy promotion in the Middle East, are now clearly seen to have been a façade to mask the geopolitical and ideological underpinnings of the invasion. In this sense, the war on terror has revived national security and naked self-interest as the principal rationale for intervention, notwithstanding the self-serving efforts by some Bush administration officials to ‘graft’ the ‘selective sovereignty’ thesis on to the evolving humanitarian intervention principle. This policy framework is hypocrisy for sure, but as the international response to the war on Iraq (including the lack of UN authorisation for the war and the transatlantic discord it generated) demonstrates, it should be viewed more as a case of ‘disorganised hypocrisy’.


Related Articles

  • Reifying September 11: why the Left hasn't lost the War on Terror. Holloway, David // European Journal of American Culture;2002, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p86 

    Studies the reifying of the September 11, 2001 and the war on terror of the U.S. government. Implications of the authoritarianism for the hegemony of New Right in the country; Assessment of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni to the war on terror; Information on the testing of the...

  • Sovereignty and its Presuppositions: Before 9/11 and After. Jackson, Robert // Political Studies;Jun2007, Vol. 55 Issue 2, p297 

    Is the modern states system in terminal decline? Are we witnessing a great transformation in that regard? Are the events of 9/11 indicative of that? Or is state sovereignty evolving, yet again, in response to scientific, technological, economic and social changes – as it has done...

  • Adapting the Role of the Educator in Times of Conflict. Sullivan, Kathleen V. // Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin;Fall2003, Vol. 70 Issue 1, p22 

    Explores ways that teachers can incorporate the topics of terrorism and war into their curricula. Factors affecting how a child performs academically and socially at school; Common student reactions to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; Importance of expressing students' feelings...

  • HEGEL ON HISTORY, 9/11, AND THE WAR ON TERROR, OR REASON IN HISTORY. Rockmore, Tom // Cultural Politics;Nov2006, Vol. 2 Issue 3, p281 

    The aim of this article is threefold. To begin with, I sketch in outline form some main aspects of Hegel's theory of history. Second, I will consider in some detail its relation to theology, which is an important theme for his position in general, including his view of history. Finally, and...

  • AFGHANISTAN: HOW WE GOT THERE. Paul, Lawrence M. // New York Times Upfront;2/8/2010, Vol. 142 Issue 9, p14 

    The article presents a discussion of the relationship of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 to the recent involvement of the U.S. with the country. The 10-year war that followed the Soviet invasion in 1979 led to several events including the collapse of the Soviet Union, the emergence of...

  • A Drumbeat of Fear. Rothschild, Matthew // Progressive;Apr2003, Vol. 67 Issue 4, p4 

    Focuses on the U.S. war against Iraq. Criticisms on U.S. President George W. Bush for deciding to go to war against Iraq; Violation of the Constitution by Bush; Role of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the decision of Bush.

  • Presidential Decision on Prisoners of War Application of the Geneva Conventions.  // International Debates;Apr2006, Vol. 4 Issue 4, p102 

    Focuses on the application of the Geneva Conventions as regards the status of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees under the custody of the U.S. Armed Forces as a result of the war on terrorism declared by the U.S. in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Principles of the Geneva...


    Salim Hamdan's conviction in a military commission for material support of Al Qaeda separates utilitarians, who generally defer to state power, from protective theorists, who seek to shield civilians by curbing official discretion. Utilitarians view military commissions as efficient means for...

  • Guantáanamo Bay Detainees Overview Current Status and Legal Challenges.  // International Debates;Apr2006, Vol. 4 Issue 4, p98 

    Discusses the legal challenges to the detention and treatment of suspected terrorists incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay, a military base, as part of the war on terrorism launched by the U.S. after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Arguments of the Bush administration against critics of...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics