Hannah Arendt’s Conception of Sovereignty

Article

Abstract

[In English]

Until recently, the concept of sovereignty has served us well. Although in reality there has never existed an absolute sovereign or completely homogenous nation-state, both provided an adequate theoretical means to conceptualize the actual political ordering of modern societies. These linked power to a nation defined by a territory, forming the nation-state. Through popular sovereignty, it was then again linked with democracy. However, this model has a downside as well. Reflecting upon her own experience as a refugee, Hannah Arendt pointed out one of its vicious flaws through her criticism of human rights. When most desperately needed, human rights remained empty boxes, failing to provide protection for refugees, as they were inseparable from the condition of citizenship. And her criticism does not only touch human rights, but also popular sovereignty. Those who were not considered part of the people did not only lose their right to speak, but all their rights, as their rights were determined through the will of the people. Recently, however, the concept of sovereignty has come under tremendous pressure. It is contested from below and above to such an extent that it even loses its usefulness as a model. Some contemporary theorists such as Habermas and Held defend new models of sovereignty, in which sovereign power is vertically ‘dispersed’ over various intertwined, political levels. This model attempts to address the problems of multiculturalism and globalization. However, does this new model pass the test? Can it stand up to Arendt’s criticism of state sovereignty? What is the worth of human rights in this model? One hundred years after her birth, it is an appropriate time to reflect on Arendt’s criticism on human rights and sovereignty and the alternatives she had in mind.