Sovereignty is the core concept of international relations. Almost without exception, approaches to sovereignty in IR have followed a binary framing where sovereignty is seen to consist of two components: ‘internal’ versus ‘external’ sovereignty, ‘positive’ versus ‘negative’ sovereignty, and so on. These dichotomies stem from the prevailing understanding of sovereignty as the boundary between the inside and the outside of the state. This article builds on and expands these existing approaches by reconceptualizing the sovereign border line as a liminal border space. Relatedly, we theorize the concept of liminality in greater depth by distinguishing between four distinct kinds of liminality: marginal, hybrid, interstitial, and external. Each of these problematizes the dividing line of sovereignty in unique but comparable ways. We empirically illustrate these four kinds of liminality with reference to contested states, ‘tribal’ or ‘indigenous’ groups, NGOs such as Amnesty International, and extremist groups such as ISIS, respectively. Each of these types of liminality entails unique actors, practices, and consequences for the concept of sovereignty. We suggest that liminal sovereignty practices represent the most radical source of change for the concept of sovereignty, yet at the same time, somewhat counterintuitively, they also serve as the best means of clarifying existing, established meanings and practices of sovereignty.

中文翻译：

---

主权主权实践：对内部/外部二分法的重新思考

主权是国际关系的核心概念。几乎无一例外，国际关系中的主权方法遵循二进制框架，其中主权被视为由两个部分组成：“内部”主权与“外部”主权，“正”与“负”主权等等。这些二分法源自对主权作为国家内部与外部之间边界的普遍理解。本文通过将主权边界线重新概念化为边界边界空间，在现有方法的基础上进行了扩展。相关地，我们通过区分四种不同类型的限制性来对限制性的概念进行更深入的理论化：边际，混合，间隙和外部。每一个问题都以独特但可比的方式使主权分界线问题化。我们分别以有争议的国家，“部落”或“土著”群体，非政府组织（例如大赦国际）和极端主义团体（例如ISIS）为例，对这四种限制进行了经验说明。这些类型的限制中的每一种都需要独特的行为者，实践以及对主权概念的后果。我们建议，有限度的主权实践是主权概念变化的最根本原因，但与此同时，有些反直觉，它们也是阐明现有的，既定的主权含义和实践的最佳手段。做法，以及对主权概念的影响。我们建议，有限度的主权实践是主权概念变化的最根本原因，但与此同时，有些反直觉，它们也是阐明现有的，既定的主权含义和实践的最佳手段。做法，以及对主权概念的影响。我们建议，有限度的主权实践是主权概念变化的最根本原因，但与此同时，有些反直觉，它们也是阐明现有的，既定的主权含义和实践的最佳手段。