8818. Kalmo et al., p1-2
8819. Weber, p6
8820. Ibid, p4-6, 123
8821.
8822. Hent Kalmo, Quentin Skinner, Sovereignty in Fragments (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) p1
8823. Daniel Philpott, “Westphalia, Authority, and International Society”, Sovereignty at the Millennium, Robert Jackson ed. (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1999) p148
81
excluding inclusions and including exclusions on contemporaneous and potentially ad hoc bases.18 Indeed, Cynthia Weber suggests an ethereal entity as the sovereign – the very shadows of a corporeal existence, yet theoretically unsubstantiated in a continual process of creative destruction, redefinition and application to all potentialities of conscious organization. The origin and effect of sovereignty become synonymous.19 This cogito ergo sum moment in sovereign ascension derives from the recognition that it is at one and the same time communities of sovereign states and communities as the foundation for sovereign states that produce, by intervention practices the effect, and guarantee, by agreement of an uncontested definition assumed through observation of a particular community, the origin of a sense of sovereignty.20
VVThe Doctrine of Preemption is here argued as a sovereign sensing itself in time and space, proprioception, but also a declaration of global hegemony in that the community of judgment would be ‘like minded’ nation-states, self referencing each other in a large simulation of international democracy, or it may also be the ‘unitary’ approach which refers only to the judgment of its own community – in this case the US citizenry. The desire for peace argues against a solitary political hegemony however, in that it constrains the opportunity to exit the polity, or that checks on power would be difficult to establish and impose. Instead global trade suggests a peaceful alternative as the costs associated with war increase as trade does. Facultative beings can be expected to respond to increased costs associated with war with a subsequent reduction in conflict, providing a more reliable method to reducing conflict than adopting postures of threat. However, as long as conflict potentiality exists defense measures remain appropriate and Foreign Policy assumes a performative aspect in establishing the binary of domestic/foreign. The necessity of the state to theorize and then realize through legislation contingencies mitigating ‘danger’ as an example of the ‘external’ world, drives to the root of adopting meanings of sovereign.[1]