Vol. 21 No. 7 (July, 2011) pp.384-387
SOVEREIGNTY AND THE
STATELESS NATION:
Reviewed by Lee P. Ruddin, LLB, MRes, PgCert, Roundup Editor, History News Network. Email: leepruddin [at] yahoo.co.uk.
Keith Azopardi’s study on Gibraltar’s contested sovereignty
is a worthy addition to the sparse literature on Sub-state governance..
Azopardi, a practicing lawyer, writes that “it is impossible in seeking a
resolution to the legal dimensions of the
“What Happened Then Matters Now,” goes
History Today’s masthead, and there
is no reason why
For all the talk of law and politics, though, it is history
which hangs over this particular dispute. As Azopardi recounts, the
long-standing tensions between the two major European powers over a territory
located on the southern end of the
Given that the people of
a product of this mix of
cultures and nationalities over the last three centuries. The residue of the
inhabitants that remained after the British conquest combined with those
elements of the Garrison or British civilians that made
As authoritative as Azopardi’s history undoubtedly is,
however, it is not comprehensive. For instance, more ink could, and should, have
been spilled on the Franco era and the ultra-nationalist dictator’s campaigning
to recover
With regard to considering the effects of sovereignty and
the culture of bilateralism on the dispute, however, Azopardi is nothing if not
comprehensive. He assesses the evolution of the resulting deficits of governance
and democracy and goes on to propose the application of ideas such as late
sovereignty, pluralism and stateless nationalism if an enduring settlement is to
be reached. Marrying and then applying theories from across international
relations and constitutional as well as public international law, ensures that
SOVEREIGNTY AND THE STATELESS NATION is a rich addition to the poor amount of
literature which currently covers complex inter-state relations. This is no mean
feat, since, as Azopardi illuminates,
metaphorically caught
between three flags: the
There are four strands to the sovereignty dispute that are examined in this 400-page work: The substance of the dispute and the three different strands of nationalism; the methodology of the dispute and the conflict between state-centric bilateralism and multi-party trilateralism; the manifestation of the conflict across the domestic, international and European arenas; and the resolution of the dispute. The hardback is divided into seven chapters, followed by a conclusion. Azopardi deserves praise, it must be said, for laying out his work along broad historical lines and pausing at key watersheds in Gibraltar’s constitutional [*386] development; this helps ensure a hard topic is all the more easier to digest.
Chapter one (“From Strategic Gain to Fortress Colony to
‘The Right to Our Land’”: pp.11-60), proffers a historical overview of
Chapter four (“‘The Sensitivity of the Underlying Bilateral
Issue’: Bilateralism and the Governance Deficit, 1986-2004”: pp.191-220) and
Chapter five (“Sub-State Power, Representation and Influence, and the Zenith of
Bilateralism”: pp.221-273) also concentrate on bilateralism, only this time
during the years 1986-2004, and illuminate how such a process ran in the
opposite direction to multi-level governance and plurinationalism more
generally. While both analyse the sub-State context of
Chapter six (“Negotiating a Way through the Mist – Old Concepts, New Meanings”: pp.275-333) surveys the possible avenues to resolving the absurdity of self-governance and constitutionalism. Azopardi reviews developments post-2004 and advises participants in the dispute to recognise the importance of progressive notions such as multi-level governance, stateless nationalism and participatory democracy. This takes the reader nicely into chapter seven (“Making Advances – Power, Influence and Representation within the European Dimension and the Status Dilemma”: pp.335-373), where he examines how securing self-governance would assist in resolving the issue.
Azorpodi is to be particularly commended for oscillating
between describing the situation in
is to recognise its
[sovereignty’s] continuing power, and that its power conduit and
locus is people and not history,
territorial title or State. From that point on, it is easier to make the
transition to more plural, interdependent modes of governance, because the
people have been recognised as having the [*387] sovereignty to give up, share
or delegate power if they so wish or to be respected as retaining that
sovereignty-power should they choose not to abandon it. (p.9)
Azopardi has a good turn of phrase, early on, writing that ‘in some ways the attitude and claims of a by-gone era have been carried over into modern times, preserved in an imperial time-warp.’ (p.26). This is soon followed with ‘the gale of decolonisation would sweep away most colonial cobwebs in the decades that followed’ (p.60). Yet, there is little to get excited about, in terms of writing style, in the remaining four-fifths of the title; if anything, the author’s lengthy sentences, curious lack of commas and mid-sentence footnotes turned what was an effortless read into something that was an effort to read. To make matters worse, there are a number of publishing (pp.113, 121, 289 & 390) and grammatical errors (pp. 229, 354, 381).
When all is said and done, though, SOVEREIGNTY AND THE STATELESS NATION: GIBRALTAR AND THE MODERN LEGAL CONTEXT is a forward-thinking, historically-grounded treatise which proposes progressive notions of participatory democracy at the same time as respecting traditional notions of territorial sovereignty. That Azopardi’s idealism is tempered by realism is symptomatic of an individual who has traversed the world of both law and politics and, for this reason, deserves his work to be read by lawyers and politicians alike.
REFERNCES:
Keys, David. 2010. “Rival Claims on
Trinidad, Jamie. 2011. Book Review “Sovereignty and the
Stateless Nation:
*********************
© Copyright 2011 by the author, Lee P. Ruddin.