In their seminal work on State Sovereignty as Social Construct, Thomas Biersteker and Cynthia Weber cautioned that the study of sovereignty “tends to raise more questions than it answers” (Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 2). In view of such a trustworthy admonition, the latest book by Jo-Anne Pemberton on Sovereignty: Interpretations can be welcomed as a useful contribution to the existing literature, one that raises several questions but also provides some clear answers. Divided into six main chapters, the volume develops well its stated aims of identifying “the ethical imperatives embedded” in the idea of sovereignty and highlighting “the essentially democratic thrust of the concept” (3).

Beyond this general assessment, this dense and fairly well-organized volume demonstrates one very positive characteristic. Pemberton has a certain ability to impose order on what is inevitably a vast volume of literature; but most importantly, her diligent overview is based on a fine balance of sources. While demonstrating a great amount of doctrinal knowledge, the author often goes back to original texts and elaborates on key historical events herself. At times, the sophisticated comparisons of different authors and classic schools of thought appear overwhelming, but systematic references to relevant episodes from modern and contemporary history and the analysis of excerpts from primary sources ensure a thought-provoking read. This ability to frame philosophical precepts in their historical context is particularly effective, for example, when Pemberton approaches the developments that followed the French Revolution of 1789. She brilliantly identifies the character of international universalism that the revolutionary movement maintained, even beyond its initial impetus, as confirmed by the normative activities of the French National Assembly first, and the National Convention later (56–57).

Exhaustive and rich, this volume works well as a sort of compendium, in which theories of sovereignty are meticulously explored. The first chapter analyzes the domestic dimension of state sovereignty. As scholarly praxis requires, the investigation builds on the work of the founding fathers of the doctrinal tradition of the concept: Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. However, Pemberton builds on previous contributions by making stylistic adjustments. Her scrupulous analysis stresses the main theoretical differences between great thinkers, but also casts light on certain aspects of the specific doctrinal evolution of each of them. For instance, approaching Bodin's theoretical proposals, Pemberton compares ideas from the Six Livres de la République with precepts from the earlier work Methodus, in order to clarify how the French jurist developed his understanding of customary laws and their impact on the Sovereign (27).

Moving from the internal to the external dynamics of states, the second chapter explores the international aspects of sovereignty. Explaining how sovereignty emerged as a key rule of the game in international relations that “sprang out from universal morality” (64–65), the author also clarifies how people slowly acquired a locus standi in international law instead of being perceived as pertinences of the Sovereign (83). The following chapters can be appreciated for touching upon issues that are not frequently explored by Anglo-Saxon academics. Amongst other topics, the book explains the normative features underpinning the idea of sovereignty in imperial China (93–100) and looks at how the Communist Party elites ruling contemporary China approach the concept (116–20). Moreover, Pemberton analyzes the issue of self-determination and the rights of indigenous peoples (125–87). This last investigation is central to the author's objective of reconstructing the democratic character of sovereignty: relevant episodes from the history of early European expansion, nineteenth-century decolonization, and the experiences of indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada, the United States, and New Zealand are presented to demonstrate how, throughout the centuries, the more recently formed bond between sovereignty and self-determination has slowly overtaken the previous relationship between sovereignty and the imperial projection of great powers.

This analysis is followed by a chapter on the European Union (EU), which is clear and linear but ends up being a little too institutional. In spite of the powerful metaphor chosen to describe the EU—“sovereignty in the twilight zone”—this section never fully realizes its potential. Nevertheless, Pemberton makes it clear that the supremacy of EU law and its direct applicability (which is both vertical and horizontal) has allowed the Brussels-based union to develop as an aliquid novi in the firmament of multilateral intergovernmental organizations. The EU has affirmed itself as a circumscribed international legal order that the author does not hestitate to describe as “successful and mature” (182).

Apart from hinting at the main theoretical strands concerning the EU integration process, the book lacks substantial references to the wider debate on sovereignty by contemporary international relations scholars. It may be that a full chapter on this debate could have overloaded this eminently balanced work. However, it seems surprising that Pemberton does not deal directly at least with the most recent discussions on the reinterpretation of sovereignty as an internationally shared responsibility, which has absorbed both academics and practitioners for the last decade. As early as 2001, such an updated understanding of sovereignty was brought to the attention of world public opinion by the International Commission of Intervention and State Sovereignty, to be later systematically incorporated into both the normative work underway at the United Nations and the statements of a number of world leaders. In this regard, two major positions have emerged. On the one hand, libertarians and neoconservative theorists and policymakers have tried to use the sovereignty-as-responsibility ideal to legitimize preventive international action. On the other hand, neocommunitarian scholars have tried to contain such interventionist drifts by emphasizing the idea of responsible international action, and by narrowly interpreting the responsibility to intervene on the part of international actors and coalitions of states. This contraposition hinges on a key challenge of contemporary international politics: how to encourage governments to act in a more responsible way both internally, toward their constituent people, and internationally, in their concerted activities for the promotion of peace and the consolidation of good governance practices in crisis areas.

Pemberton refrains from joining in this theoretical ferment and policy debate. On closer reading, this seems consistent with the overall structure of the book. The issue of responsible sovereignty has now reached a critical point and policy aspects have become predominant. Moreover, the last chapter of the volume—dedicated to states and armed conflicts—points directly toward the specific issue of preventive war (207–11), and it leaves no space for consideration of the ethics of current international relations and the promotion of responsible governance. Still, given Pemberton's ambition to reconstruct the democratic basis of sovereignty, her review of the literature offers, at least indirectly, hints that are related to the debate on sovereignty as responsibility. It is not by chance that the author concludes her work with a statement that points towards this issue. Pemberton makes clear throughout the book that the system of sovereign states represents just one way of organizing human relations. It has endured for centuries because no concrete alternatives have emerged, but also because the system continues to enjoy generalized bottom-up support. Those who have opposed sovereign states or manifested their dissent have mostly been groups “engaged in secessionist struggle with the ultimate aim of establishing a new independent state” (2). However, unless humanity one day rejects the system of sovereign states and replaces it with an alternative structure, Pemberton claims, “we may attempt to further civilize this system through adding to and thickening the responsibilities of states to each other and to humanity in general” (215, emphasis added).