I am grateful to my four interlocutors—Lucia Rubinelli,1¹ George Duke,2² Nicole Roughan,3³ and Fleur Johns4⁴—for their generous, insightful, and constructively critical responses to my Foreword. In terms of the challenges they pose, the commentaries can usefully be divided into two categories. On the one hand, Rubinelli and Duke argue that in some respects I understate the abiding influence of sovereignty, and, in particular, that I underestimate the reliance of twenty-first-century sovereignty on certain foundational modern features. On the other hand, Roughan and Johns tend to the view that I overstate the contemporary significance of sovereignty. For them, my idea of a sovereignty “frame”—the deep structure of thought that underpins countless sovereign “claims” and counter-claims—may be too capacious and indiscriminate a device, and too disposed to confirm the in-the-last-analysis influence of its single master principle, to capture the complexity and diversity of what is at stake in some of the areas of legal and political conflict to which I refer.

中文翻译：

---

主权盈余：反驳

我感谢我的四位对话者——Lucia Rubinelli、1 ¹ George Duke、2 ² Nicole Roughan、3 ³和 Fleur Johns4 ⁴——感谢他们对我的前言的慷慨、有见地和建设性的批判性回应。就它们所带来的挑战而言，这些评论可以有效地分为两类。一方面，鲁比内利和杜克认为，在某些方面我低估了主权的持久影响，尤其是我低估了 21 世纪主权对某些基本现代特征的依赖。另一方面，Roughan 和 Johns 倾向于认为我夸大了主权的当代意义。对他们来说，我关于主权“框架”的想法——支撑无数主权“主张”和反主张的深层思想结构——可能过于宽泛和不分青红皂白的一种装置，并且过于倾向于确认最后的——分析其单主原理的影响，