Taken from my lectures as a Teaching Fellow in International Law, these reflections highlight how State sovereignty and International Law are profoundly influenced by globalization, economic integration and digital technologies, raising fundamental questions about global governance, State autonomy and the adaptation of legal structures to new economic and technological realities.

 

Part V

Sovereignty’s contexts

 

The territorial dimension characterizes and shapes the exercise of national sovereignty, outlining its foundational principles, strategies, and actions. It establishes the contexts in which sovereignty is manifested, implemented, or denied, in relation to the territorial realms of other nations. This dynamic of inclusion and exclusion, traditionally depicted through the dichotomy of “inside” versus “outside” (“in” versus “out”), emerges as the central issue. Here, “in” represents the activation of jurisprudence while “out” symbolizes the deactivation of economic dynamics, a suspension of State supremacy in relation to that similarly exercised by another State. However, this switching state (“on/off”) presents itself as almost a given mechanic, theoretically obvious but sometimes complex in practice, with reference to specific territorial areas delineated by borders. Conversely, in the homogenizing context of globalization: 1) the perception of limit, boundary, and territorial demarcation typical of the nation-State fades away, ceasing to be a reference point; 2) the conception of space expands, encompassing the entire planet and its surface. As a result, the world globe loses the distinctive colours of nations, fading under the visual effect created by the electronic whirlwind. The uniform non-colour of the market prevails, dominating with its monochromatic financial tone, and with the dissolution of territoriality as the organizing principle of the economy, it becomes unnatural for economic activities conducted on a global scale to depend on the nation-State framework. States, with increasingly indistinct borders, find themselves in a paradoxical condition: though not openly acknowledging it, they realize they are too small and inadequate for handling global phenomena, yet at the same time too large and sometimes not suitable for addressing local issues.

Economic power, by its nature and generally, appears indifferent to the space defined by political power: the former aspires to an unlimited spatial conception, while the latter is based on the premise of a limited space within which to exert influence. This does not imply that economic development should occur in a rule-free context, but rather that it can be facilitated by supranational institutions, which promote expansion beyond traditional national borders. The legal norm, the expression of a will impervious to conflict or competition, manifests the so-called “dominion power” of the State over the territory and the tangible. The relocation of a significant portion of economic relationships into an “a-spatial domain” de facto erodes the authority of national States and limits their territorial legal capacity. This phenomenon effectively establishes the right to choose one’s own legal system. The absence of universally recognized principles lays the groundwork for the governance of globalization actors: subjects operating in abstract relations from territorial contexts, on free paths, and without tangible physicality, within spaceless networks. This “requires a new law of spaces,” a blend of interstate, abstract, and artificial normativity. This, closely allied with technical and economic artificiality, implemented through interstate agreements, capable of adapting to any spatial configuration, represents the only effective method for addressing global issues through law. Here, the focus is on artificial normativity: 1) developed at the State level but expanded and enhanced through interstate agreements; 2) predestined to chase global phenomena and borderless markets, ubiquitous in the network; 3) aimed at unleashing an action potential equivalent to the breadth of global exchanges and mediating between territoriality and spatiality on a legal plane. In this context, “what predominates are not international conventions of uniform law”; rather, “the predominant element is the international circulation of standardized contractual models,” whose function as flexible and meta-national instruments is to consolidate the unity of law within the global market’s entirety.