1.
Sovereignty
in
Multi-­‐Lateral
Diplomacy:
Identity,
Citizenship
and
Global
Governance
Research
Proposal,
University
of
Mannheim
Ph.D.
in
Social
Sciences
Tim
Newcomb
2/10/16
Introduction
Few
academic
fields
are
as
inter-­‐disciplinary
as
International
Relations
(IR).
The
confluence
of
domestic
and
international
politics,
law,
economics,
non-­‐state
actors,
criminal
justice,
human
rights
and
environmentalism
all
with
very
different
theoretical
understandings
underpinning
how
these
areas
interact
makes
research
in
IR
both
a
daunting
and
needed
undertaking.
It
is
a
field
which
sometimes
lacks
necessary
empirical
research
to
make
authoritative
conclusions,
predictions
and
recommendations.
One
of
the
core
themes
binding
together
the
field
of
IR
is
the
concept
of
national
Sovereignty.
Sovereignty
is
the
legal
right
of
the
territorial
state
to
self-­‐governance
as
the
supreme
authority
over
itself
without
outside
intervention.
The
various
aspects
of
the
concept
including
domestic,
interdependent,
international
legal
and
Westphalian
sovereignty
are
all
being
challenged
on
the
global
level
by
the
world’s
technological,
philosophic
and
political
evolution.
The
first
international
organizations
were
based
explicitly
on
Westphalian
sovereignty
(1648)
and
most
still
maintain
it
is
still
central
in
theory
and
practice
to
international
cooperation.
Yet
the
paradigm
of
sovereignty
and
the
correlated
concepts
of
citizenship
and
identity
are
being
put
to
the
test
by
increased
government
and
International
Governmental
Institutions
(IGOs),
multilateralism,
trade,
technology,
and
the
increase
in
ease
for
the
individual
to
circumvent
national
boarders,
physically,
legally
and
politically.
Even
within
international
customary
law
major
changes
have
occurred
recently
that
are
still
evolving.
In
2005,
160
nations
signed
on
to
the
Responsibility
to
Protect
(R2P)
doctrine,
one
of
the
largest
precedent-­‐setting
agreements
trying
to
balance
the
rights
of
the
state
and
the
basic
human
rights
of
citizens
It
is
broadly
recognized
that
the
very
character
and
nature
of
sovereignty
is
changing.
It
is
detaching
itself
from
state
action,
decentralizing,
becoming
exponentially
multilateral
and
multi-­‐faceted.
States
are
increasingly
“contracting
out”
to
a
broad
network
of
non-­‐state
actors.
But
this
is
frequently
seen
by
academics
as
not
the
transfer
of
sovereignty,
but
the
corrosion
of
it
due
to
the
reduction
of
discretionary
decision
making
authority
by
the
nation.
Are
state-­‐
centric
political
institutions
going
to
continue
to
be
the
foundation
of
the
international
system,
or
in
the
state
merely
going
to
be
intermediaries
between
the
local
and
the
global?
Are
we
headed
towards
“one
direction
integration”?
How
could
this
supra-­‐national
architecture

2.
possibly
be
democratic?
Already
international
criminal
justice
institutions
have
received
heavy
criticism
for
a
non-­‐democratic
exercise
of
power
in
addition
to
accusations
of
being
a
pawn
of
powerful
actors.
The
changes
happening
to
sovereignty
will
ripple
through
the
fabric
of
international
cooperation
and
exchange.
Citizenship,
for
instance,
is
presupposed
by
international
organizations,
yet
the
very
concept
of
citizenship
is
rooted
in
the
sovereignty
of
the
territorial
nation.
Individual,
national
and
international
identity
and
the
corresponding
legal
understanding
of
citizenship
are
both
areas
vulnerable
to
the
changes
made
to
state
sovereignty.
International
organizations
are
careful
to
not
usurp
sovereignty,
as
least
in
word.
In
practice,
the
UN
has
changed
the
nature
of
sovereignty
by
adding
to
the
definition
of
the
legitimate
state
the
duty
to
protect
its
citizens.
If
a
country
fails
to
do
this
and
allows
gross
human
rights
violations,
sovereignty
is
forfeited.
This
shift
towards
a
human
right
model
of
national
sovereignty
has
re-­‐affirmed
elements
of
Westphalia
but
challenged
others.
Although
it
is
a
concept
that
has
remained
largely
in
the
realm
of
theory
with
little
empirical
data
driving
the
discussions,
Sovereignty’s
evolution
to
trans-­‐sovereignty
has
critical
implications
to
the
practical
governance
and
structure
of
global
institutions.
Sovereignty
has
the
world
in
a
conceptual
trap.
It
is
the
water
we
swim
in.
It
is
difficult
to
imagine
feasible
alternatives
to
sovereignty,
even
for
Liberal
Internationalists
who
vow
their
opposition
to
it.
Yet
even
without
intentional
academic,
governmental
or
political
guidance,
sovereignty
is
changing.
There
is
tremendous
value
to
the
field
of
International
Relations
in
understanding
the
dynamic
and
undocumented
evolution
it
is
currently
undergoing.
The
idea
of
a
change
to
the
fundamental
conceptual
and
pragmatic
political
structures
of
the
international
world
order
is
so
lofty
and
inaccessible
that
not
much
research
has
attempted
to
bridge
the
gap
in
understanding
with
data.
Too
much
of
the
International
field
relies
on
think
tanks
and
individual
academics
instead
of
quantitative
data
from
those
on
the
front
line
deciding
policy,
executing
the
work
and
driving
change.
In
agreement
with
academic
Matteo
Laruffa’s
belief
that
"sovereignty
resides
in
every
public
action
and
policy
as
the
exercise
of
executive
powers
by
institutions
open
to
the
participation
of
citizens
to
the
decision-­‐making
processes”,
this
research
will
focus
on
the
policy
decisions
by
the
national
domestic
element
of
American
foreign
policy
decision
making
and
action-­‐
the
US
State
Department
and
related
US
government
international
organizations.
How
is
multi-­‐lateral
state
sanctioned
diplomacy
is
changing
the
character
and
nature
of
sovereignty
and
in
turn,
the
nature
and
future
of
global
governance?

3.
This
research
project
will
record
the
changes
in
the
international
system
through
the
actions
of
the
governmental
actors
of
the
United
States
in
a
two-­‐fold
manner:
data
collection
through
personal
interviews
with
decision
makers
in
the
foreign
ministry
of
the
United
States,
the
US
department
of
State,
particularly
FSOT
professionals
in
the
political
consular
track.
In
order
to
expand
the
scope
of
the
data
set,
interviews
will
include
decision
makers
in
the
United
State
Agency
for
International
Development
(USAID),
the
US
Ambassador
to
the
United
Nations
and
other
IGOs
the
US
is
intricately
involved
with,
such
as
NATO.
Because
of
the
centrality
of
the
UN
in
global
governance,
a
particular
emphasis
will
be
placed
on
the
changes
in
the
relationship
of
the
US
to
the
UN.
These
interviews
will
be
designed
to
record
the
personal
perspectives
and
actions
regarding
changes
to
how
the
US
exercises
sovereignty,
particularly
how
the
US
is
transferring
tasks
to
non-­‐state
actors
and
the
impacts
this
is
having
on
domestic
and
international
issues.
Specific
lines
of
questioning
will
provide
information
on
the
changing
nature
of
US-­‐EU
relations,
and
how
these
dynamics
are
changing.
Data
will
also
be
collected
on
the
IR
theories
that
are
prevalent
in
the
American
Foreign
Service.
Are
most
Liberal
Internationalists
or
are
there
some
Realists,
Constructivist
and
other
viewpoints?
This
data
will
help
determine
the
view
of
the
US
Foreign
Service
on
the
concept
of
sovereignty.
Once
the
source
material
is
analyzed,
it
will
bring
to
the
forefront
questions
on
the
legitimacy
of
the
authority
of
the
current
and
future
international
institutions
and
what
policies
can
be
made
to
make
sure
the
new
international
order
is
democratic,
accountable
and
transparent.
Additionally,
it
raises
questions
of
the
future
of
US-­‐EU
relations,
specifically
concerning
the
delta
between
the
two
directions
these
two
hegemons
are
charting
through
diplomatic
pluralism.
Thesis
Statement
The
central
research
question
addressed
is
how
and
to
what
ends
multi-­‐lateral
state
sanctioned
American
diplomacy
is
changing
the
character
and
nature
of
sovereignty
in
the
international
arena
and
in
turn,
the
nature
and
future
of
global
governance,
particularly
in
relation
to
the
EU.
This
proposal
rests
on
the
belief
that
Sovereignty
is
a
fluid
concept
which
rests
on
the
policy
of
nations,
and
that
gathering
data
on
the
perspectives
and
actions
of
those
individuals
on
the
cutting
edge
of
foreign
policy
can
provide
insight
into
the
nature
of
the
silent
evolution
sovereignty
is
currently
experiencing.
This
research
is
exploratory
and
explanatory
in
nature.
It
seeks
to
explain
to
provide
data
and
analysis
on
the
current
IR
environment
in
order
to
bring
completion
to
the
set
of
information

4.
needed
to
understand
the
current
climate
and
evolution
of
sovereignty
and
comprehend
the
possible
future
manifestations
of
international
cooperation
and
exchange.
Even
though
this
research
is
qualitative
in
nature,
it
aims
to
be
highly
applicable
instead
of
merely
theoretical,
particularly
to
the
future
of
US-­‐EU
relations.
Literature
Review
International
Relations
is
a
multi-­‐disciplinary
field
still
deeply
divided
by
multiple
schools
of
thought.
This
drives
the
need
for
definitive
answers
to
the
complex
questions
the
confluence
of
actors
on
the
international
scene
causes.
A
clear,
concise
and
authoritative
answer
will
be
the
aim
of
this
research
topic.
Current
academic
literature
exists
on
this
topic
largely
on
the
theoretical
level.
This
proposal
bridges
the
gap
between
existent
research
and
the
need
for
data
on
the
changes
occurring
to
sovereignty
by
providing
empirical
data
on
one
of
the
world’s
most
internationally
active
hegemons.
It
adds
to
the
theoretical
work,
develops
the
alternatives
to
sovereignty
and
challenges
the
preconceptions
a
static
model
of
sovereignty
weaves
into
out
theoretical
framework.
Matteo
Laruffa,
a
young
and
influential
scholar
working
in
and
studying
the
changes
occurring
to
sovereignty
with
the
EU,
is
on
the
cutting
edge
of
this
research.
He
has
published
studies
on
the
major
(and
he
believes
fundamental)
changes
to
the
concept
of
sovereignty
in
the
EU.
Not
surprisingly,
he
believes
that
the
rule
systems
within
the
EU
have
stifled
national
sovereignty
and
in
turn
dampened
democratic
authority.
This
research
proposal
builds
off
of
Laruffa’s
analysis
in
regards
to
commenting
on
the
future
of
US-­‐EU
relations
and
applies
similar
research
principles
to
the
international
cooperation
of
the
US.
(Laruffa,
Integration)
A
leader
in
the
international
political
field
for
the
last
several
decades,
Francis
Fukayama’s
latest
book
Political
Order
and
Political
Decay
utilizes
his
expertise
on
the
modern
state
to
look
at
the
past,
present
and
possible
futures
of
the
nature
of
political
power
and
sovereignty.
Fukayama
was
widely
praised
when
he
identified
the
end
of
the
cold
war
as
the
end
of
power
politics
and
the
beginning
of
the
end
of
the
orthodox
Westphalian
nature
of
the
state.
Although
the
changes
in
the
global
political
order
are
alarming,
particularly
the
decay
of
legitimate
democratic
authority,
he
believes
“…there
is
a
clear
directionality
to
the
process
of
political
development,
and
that
accountable
governments
recognizing
the
equal
dignity
of
their
citizens
have
a
universal
appeal.”
This
he
sees
as
a
driving
force
in
the
shifts
in
sovereignty
in
international
institutions.
This
analysis
of
the
changes
to
democratic
political
authority
is
based

5.
upon
public
data
from
the
World
Bank’s
Worldwide
Governance
Indicators
in
tandem
to
his
political
analysis.
(Fukayama
258)
Fukayama’s
writings
and
other
recently
published
academic
works
on
sovereignty
including
Peter
Haas’
Controversies
in
Globalization:
Contending
Approaches
to
International
Relations
yet
all
are
heavily
theoretical
and
utilize
little
empirical
data
to
draw
conclusions
on
the
future
of
the
modern
state.
This
research
would
provide
a
window
into
how
state-­‐centric
authority
is
changing
and
contribute
critically
necessary
insight
into
an
evolution
that
is
currently
happening
but
only
being
talked
about,
not
monitored.
Theoretical
Framework
As
mentioned
in
the
introduction,
state-­‐centric
Westphalian
sovereignty
and
authority
is
pre-­‐
supposed
in
IR.
And
concepts
germane
to
this
framework
such
as
identity,
citizenship
and
justice
all
need
to
be
understood
in
concert
with
this
dominant
understanding
of
power.
The
reality,
however,
is
that
closely
intertwined
concepts
will
not
co-­‐evolve
perfectly
if
the
other
changes.
This
research
project
will
undoubtedly
identify
new
problems
in
legal
and
theoretical
areas.
To
understand
these,
new
conceptions
of
the
state
will
need
to
be
considered.
The
theory
of
the
state
this
study
rests
upon
the
dominant
understanding
of
a
Westphalian
territorial
state.
The
Ontological
nature
of
the
state
is
dependent
on
the
conceptualizations
of
the
constituents
of
the
state,
and
currently,
the
Westphalian
model
is
unchallenged.
The
nature
of
the
state,
however,
is
an
epistemologically
different
type
of
knowledge
than
the
nature
of
sovereignty
in
the
international
system.
That
is,
how
this
conceptualization
of
the
state
interacts
in
the
international
arena
is
a
different
realm
of
study,
and
this
will
be
the
area
of
Epistemology
that
this
study
dwells
in.
Methodology
In
selecting
a
research
methodology,
the
nature
and
topic
of
the
work
must
dictate
the
choice.
Qualitative
and
Quantitative
methods
have
distinct
strengths
and
weaknesses.
Despite
the
special
challenges
of
applying
an
empirical
qualitative
research
method
to
a
topic
in
International
Relations
and
though
qualitative
approaches
are
sometimes
seen
as
a
Journalistic
Sociology
approach
and
not
appropriate
for
IR,
the
nature,
scope
and
purpose
of
this
topic
requires
such
an
approach.
In
understanding
the
ability
of
theories
to
predict
and
understand
phenomenon
in
International
Relations,
case
studies
are
crucial.
For
the
methodology
of
the
research
topic
proposed,

6.
Thematic
analysis
seems
to
be
the
most
pragmatic.
Grounded
theory
is
tempting,
but
is
not
a
feasible
approach
in
a
field
where
theory
is
so
prominent
and
influential.
Different
theoretical
approaches
can
be
applied
with
Thematic
Analysis
across
a
number
of
epistemologies
One
of
the
primary
strengths
of
Qualitative
research
is
the
understanding
of
lived
experiences
which
cannot
be
understood
solely
in
Quantitative
data.
It
has
the
strength
of
being
able
to
provide
an
intricate
depth
of
understanding
of
the
subjects,
a
necessary
component
of
this
topic.
This
is
where
identity
(ethnic,
national)
and
citizenship
comes
into
play.
The
nature
and
manner
in
which
identity
is
understood
and
expressed
on
an
individual
level
drives
international
change.
The
importance
of
knowing
the
thoughts
and
theoretical
frameworks
which
the
leaders
who
are
shaping
this
future
utilize
should
not
be
dismissed.
This
Qualitative
approach
does
not
exclude
reliance
on
numerical
data.
Qualitative
and
Quantitative
are
not
mutually
exclusive
and
can
be
used
in
tandem.
Quantitative
methods
such
as
univariate
and
multivariate
analyses
of
variance,
descriptive
statistics,
regression
analysis,
t-­‐
test
procedures,
structural
equation
modeling,
chi-­‐square
test
and
factor
analysis
can
all
be
used
in
the
data
gathered
by
this
research.
The
data
collected
on
changes
to
the
international
system
over
the
years
can
be
indexed
to
provide
a
timeline
that
the
nature,
scope
and
direction
can
be
referenced
against
the
case
studies
to
understand
the
evolution
of
the
system
empirically
and
theoretically.
With
the
data
set,
the
frequency
and
change
in
direction
can
also
be
extrapolated.
Interviews
are
the
primary
data-­‐gathering
method.
Access
to
participants
is
not
viewed
as
a
significant
obstacle.
I
have
worked
in
the
State
Department
before,
and
know
the
processes
needed
to
gain
access
to
policy
makers.
The
State
Department
prides
itself
on
fostering
education
and
international
relations,
and
this
research
project
does
both.
Because
of
the
high-­‐
level
nature
of
those
being
interviewed,
trustworthiness/
credibility
should
not
be
a
problem
and
can
be
independently
verified
(via
triangulation,
member
checking
and
negative
case
analysis).
Ethical
Considerations
The
study
is
based
on
voluntary
participation
with
the
full
informed
consent
of
the
individuals.
There
is
no
risk
of
harm.
Confidentiality
and
Anonymity
can
be
provided.
Because
of
the
heavily
theoretical
nature
of
the
topic
in
existing
literature,
the
literature
review
and
theoretical
analysis
should
not
take
more
than
6
months,
primary
and
secondary
data
collection
1
year
and
data
analysis,
writing
and
presentation
6
months.

7.
Indicative
bibliography
Laruffa,
Matteo.
The
European
Integration
and
National
Interests:
from
an
intergovernmental
model
to
a
Constitutional
Agreement.
Hungarian
Academy
of
Social
Sciences,
Budapest,
3
July
2014.
Fukuyama,
Francis.
Political
Order
and
Political
Decay
from
the
Industrial
Revolution
to
the
Globalization
of
Democracy.
London:
Profile
Books,
2015.
Haas,
Peter
M.;
Hird,
John
A.;
McBratney.
Controversies
in
Globalization:
Contending
Approaches
to
International
Relations.
CQ
Press,
2013.
Love,
Maryann.
Beyond
Sovereignty:
Issues
for
a
Global
Agenda.
Wadsworth
Cengage,
2011.
Michaels,
David
b.
International
privileges
and
immunities:
A
case
for
a
universal
statute.
Springer,
July
1971.
Jacobson,
David.
Rights
Across
Borders.
Johns
Hopkins
University
Press,
Baltimore:
1996.
Ciprut,
Jose
V.
The
Future
of
Citizenship.
MIT
Press,
Cambridge,
2008.
Johnson,
Heather.
Borders,
Asylum
and
Agency:
Towards
a
Theory
of
Non-­‐Citizen.
Cambridge
University
Press,
2014.
Quantitative
research
methods:
Creswell,
J.
W.
Qualitative
inquiry
and
research
design:
Choosing
among
five
traditions.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage,
1998.
Denzin,
N.
K.,
&
Lincoln,
Y.
S.
(Eds.).
(2003).
Strategies
of
qualitative
inquiry
(2nd
ed.).
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage,
2003.
Glaser,
B.
G.,
&
Strauss,
A.
L.
The
discovery
of
grounded
theory:
Strategies
for
qualitative
research.
Chicago:
Aldine,
1967.
Lincoln,
Y.
S.,
&
Guba,
E.
G.
Naturalistic
inquiry.
Beverly
Hills,
CA:
Sage,
1985.
Padgett,
D.
K.
Qualitative
methods
in
social
work
research:
Challenges
and
rewards.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage,
1998.

8.
Padgett,
D.
K.
(Ed.).
The
qualitative
research
experience.
Belmont,
CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning,
1998.
Patton,
M.
Q.
Qualitative
evaluation
methods.
Beverly
Hills,
CA:
Sage,
1980.
Rubin,
A.,
&
Babbie,
E.
Research
methods
for
social
work
(4th
ed.).
Belmont,
CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning,
2001.
Strauss,
A.,
&
Corbin,
J.
Basics
of
qualitative
research:
Grounded
theory
procedures
and
techniques.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage,
1990.
Evers,
J.
Qualitative
interviewing,
Art
and
Skills,
Boom/Lemma,
2012.
Marvasti,
B.
Qualitative
Research
in
Sociology,
London,
Sage
Publications,
2004.