Sovereigntism as a vocation and profession: imperial roots, current state, possible prospects

Sovereigntism, on the other hand, demonstrates and constructs a completely different matrix of social actions. In connection with splits in collective identity, sovereignty raises the question of the opposition “we or they” inside the political system, and not outside it, when sovereignty and sovereign power itself become “enemies” and the split social structures and communities become “friends.” The paradox of this situation is that sovereigntists, on the contrary, are trying to revive the collective identity as a “national whole,” pointing out the inconsistency of the authorities, and their inability to maintain political order or the integrity of the entire system. This happens because any sovereign power should be a single whole, and the processes of globalization differentiate and fragment it. In this case, “national identity is never a finished product; it is always in the process of being constructed and reconstructed” (Doty 1996: 123).

A vivid example of such opposition is the migration crisis in the EU in 2015-2019, when, on the one hand, the EU member states refused to comply with the decisions of the supranational authorities, such as the European Commission, and on the other, nationalist social structures within individual countries refused to follow the decisions of both national and supranational authorities. In this situation, a discourse of migrants and refugees as enemies of the citizens of European states came into being (Pew Research Center 2016), when origin, religion, and language were named as key factors in the formation of both the national and collective identity of the EU member states. That is, sovereigntism actualizes issues related to fundamentalism as a political reaction to key factors: origin (place, status, position), language of communication (methods and forms of communication), and faith (religion, ideology).

“Universalization of the universal." The state of modernity, which is the dominant form of political organization in our time, presupposes the universalization of its own space, that is, the optimization of the mechanisms and tools for managing territory, population, and security. A sovereign state presupposes the universalization of the political system, the codification of the social and political space for more flexible and optimal management. However, globalization also implies the universalization and unification of many political and social structures. In this regard, a problematic situation arises when processes overlap, namely a “universalization of the universal.” Integration into the global space undermines the legitimacy of the very political order of the state as it indicates the imperfection of its universal norms, the imperfection of its universality. The globalization of the supranational level establishes the preconditions for the deligitimization of the sovereign power at the state level.

However, in our opinion, there is also a reverse process, which we can call the “paradox of universalization.” It lies in the fact that the universalization of one's own political system in the context of the institutional design of the state does not lead to the optimization of this system but to its expansion. For example, political reforms in Ukraine over the past five years can be called an example of such a “paradox of universalization”: the judicial reform, the anticorruption reform, the economic reform-all of them are aimed at creating new institutions within the political system (e.g., National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine, Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office). That is, the nature of the “paradox of universalization” lies not in the optimization of the political system as a mechanism for articulating power relations but in how political power itself is deconstructed, when viewed through the prism of governance and political decision-making. Therefore, sovereigntism in this context can be viewed as attempts to develop mechanisms to optimize the political system as a result of, for example, an emerging political crisis. That is, sovereigntism becomes a reaction not so much to the paradox of universalization as to the inability of institutions to effectively and optimally interact within one system.

Clash of ideologies. Another important factor in the emergence of sovereigntism is the clash of ideologies, and specifically the clash of constructed sociopolitical realities. The triumph of neoliberal ideology at the end of the 20th century is gradually fading, giving way to other forms of ideology, such as nationalism, fundamentalism, and traditionalism. A vivid confirmation of this development is the situation in Hong Kong (China), where a crisis of the management system arose associated with a clash of two ideologies the ideology of the PRC itself, which can be described as modernized traditionalism, and the ideology of Hong Kong, which can be described, primarily in economic terms as neoliberalism. Another example is the post-Soviet space during the period in which the former republics of the USSR gained their independence and the ideology of socialism (regulating) collided with the ideology of Western neoliberalism (regulated). The third example is Iran during the 1979 Islamic Revolution when Islamic fundamentalism and the liberal order clashed in the course of an unsuccessful attempt to Westernize the state (“universalization of the universal”).

The clash of ideologies implies not only different social realities but also a different set of values, as well as ways of understanding reality (Dapiran 2020; Loong- Yu 2020). In the political, economic, and cultural spheres of society different ideologies can manifest through the construction of reality, forms of awareness of reality, and in different social practices or rituals, values, attitudes, or norms of behavior. The clash of ideologies takes place in one of the social fields, affecting different aspects of social life. The purpose of such a clash is either to oust one of the ideologies or to try to consolidate the conflicting ideologies.

The crisis of the legitimacy of power and the system of universal control. The state has the legal right to use legitimate violence-this is Max Weber's classic definition, which outlines the state of modern states as political systems. Therefore, just as “on the level of economic policy, a state is considered sovereign when it has control over policy and decision-making mechanisms related to monetary and fiscal policy” (Maris 2019: 230), a political state is sovereign when it controls the reproduction of the political order, the mechanisms of legitimizing political decisions, and ensures the security of the population. Representatives of sovereigntism very often become catalysts for social movements (protests, revolutions, and so on). Quite often they resort to the use of violence against the authorities (police, prosecutor's office, army, national guard), which is illegitimate and illegal, that is, outside the law, but within the boundaries of legal regulation.

If sovereignty presupposes a system of power relations that is based on the use of legitimate violence and disciplinary mechanisms to maintain order, then sovereignty shows the inability to use violence, independently resorting to violence. In addition, the practices of sovereignty show the inability of liberal democratic states to maintain order without using violence (e.g., the protests after the death of George Floyd in the US, the Yellow Vest Movement and Standing at Night in France). From the point of view of sovereignty, such violence is usually physical. From the point of view of the state, it can take the form of both physical violence and different forms of sanctions, exclusion, displacement, and the deprivation of rights or freedom.

Another aspect of the current state of sovereignty is the loss of control over the territory and, above all, the borders of the state. The sovereignty of the state, and the power within this state, are determined by the ability to control the movement of goods, capital, and services, that is, to exert control over movement and distance. Failure to ensure traffic control or border control leads to the so-called illegal socioeconomic processes, including arms and human trafficking, drug trafficking, smuggling, and terrorism. To this list, in the 21st century, control over information and the internet is added, both of which can become quite real catalysts both for changing political reality and for the emergence of social movements. Given the modern processes of globalization (integration, universalization and codification), open political systems tend to the autonomy of their own sovereignty, giving preference to solving internal problems to the detriment of international ones.

For example, in November 2020, an internal political conflict broke out in Ethiopia between the federal government and local authorities in the Tigray region, where regional general elections were held despite the federal government's ban because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The federal government had to send in an army to stabilize the situation. Thus we see the process of delegitimation of federal power by the regional elites, and this can be viewed as a practice of sovereignty - an attempt to define the boundaries of power and to redistribute power at the same time. Another example is the military coup in Mali that took place on August 18, 2020, in response to the political crisis and mass protests over the resignation of the country's president, Ibrahim Boubacar KeYta. It is also necessary to mention the military coup in Myanmar that took place on February 1, 2021, and became a catalyst for sociopolitical protests, as a result of which an institutional and political crisis arose, at the center of which is the question of the possession of power and the ability to dispose of it.

Populism and particularism as instruments of sovereigntism. Another feature of the current state of social relations is populism (considered as the leveling of established power relations) and particularism (considered as the desire to legitimize individual interests to the detriment of national or supranational interests). Populism plays the role of a catalyst for political relations that is based on antipodes-opposition within the political system, and the construction of the image of an external or internal enemy. Particularism, on the other hand, produces the interests of communities, individual social structures, as urgent, necessary, and relevant. Donald Trump's 2016 electoral victory, Brexit, Hong Kong's 2014 “Umbrella Revolution”, Zelensky's victory in the presidential elections in Ukraine, the victory in the parliamentary elections in Italy, and Italy's “Five Star Movement” are all examples of the use of both populism and particularism that can and should be considered in the context of the practice of sovereignty.

Also, in addition to particularism, one of the trends of our time is particularity as manifested in the transfer of certain state functions to private companies, communities, or structures (e.g., outsourcing practices). This, in turn, leads to the fragmentation of sovereignty into many smaller sovereignties in the field of economic and trade relations, the imposition of law and order, the conduct of military or armed operations, and the provision of social, cultural or other services. The legitimacy of sovereignty with particularity depends on the state's degree of control over the private sector and on the strength of the state's influence over outsourcing companies.

At this point, a slightly more detailed discussion of populism versus sovereignty is warranted. Researchers have noted that “populism emerges and gains traction when political entrepreneurs with strong leadership qualities explore already existing identity conflicts” (Stankov 2021). This is an internal contradiction of power itself, which political scientists consider, among other things, to be the field of struggle for the possession of political power and power resources (recalling the ancient Greek understanding of politics as a struggle). In our opinion, populism is not so much an ideology as an instrument or a way to achieve a fairly rapid buildup of electoral support for a particular politician or political party, with a subsequent redistribution of power relations.

The Argentine political scientist Ernesto Laclau defines populism as an emancipatory social force through which social or political groups that are marginal in their behavior challenge dominant power structures (Laclau 2005). To some extent, we agree with his thesis, since populism opens up opportunities for nonsystemic structures to become part of the political system, having enlisted the support of voters. However, the definition of populism in terms of emancipation (and this is a characteristic thesis for representatives of post-Marxism) confronts us with a dilemma concerning both the role of the state in the life of society and the mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion.

Emancipation presupposes liberation followed by equality, while populism, in our opinion, appeals to the creation of a certain sociopolitical field in which the practice of excluding social or political groups from the process of producing politics will be reproduced. In other words, populism is viewed through the prism of ideology and hegemony. However, we propose to follow the research Logic of Paris AsLanidis and shift the emphasis from the ideological aspect to the discursive one (Aslanidis 2016), to consider populism as a discourse, that is, methods of political communication with the obligatory construction of an unstable and differentiated discursive field in which the mechanisms of inclusion or exclusion are reproduced. One should not call populism a discursive frame, since a frame denotes a more or less stable structure of the individual's representations of social reality with obligatory reflection. Populism is, first of all, a communication of emotions that ignores rational ways of justifying positions, beliefs, norms or values.

It is in the discursive context that populism can be viewed as an additional tool or method for the reproduction of sovereigntism. Why can't they be identified with each other? Here it is appropriate to outline our assumptions on this matter. First, we view populism as a discourse with the subsequent creation of a discursive field, and sovereigntism as a political movement and political practices. Second, populism is focused on the internal space of state policy, while sovereigntism is opposed to the external space of state policy (though it does not exclude the redistribution of power within the political system). Third, populism, as a rule, has a carnival character or is presented as a certain political performance. That is, it is stylized for certain sociopolitical circumstances (see articles on populism as a political style by Moffitt & Tormey 2014 and Sengul 2019), while sovereigntism is a societal phenomenon in which questions of community, collectivity, solidarity, and the achievement of specific goals turn out to be dominant.

Fourth, populism sooner or later becomes personified. More precisely, it acquires a leader (Geiselberger 2017: 50-53) who strives to institutionalize the discursive field of populism by being elected president or deputy, and dominates his or her own party in parliament establishing control over government institutions. Sovereigntism, on the other hand, is a rather collective and poorly personified phenomenon in which the place of leadership is taken by the glorification and mythologization of specific groups or individuals. Two examples are the women who challenged the riot police during the protests in Belarus in July-August 2020 and students who protested against the arrest of Alexey Navalny in Russia and were later expelled from state universities in January 2021. Other examples include the “Nebesna sotnia” (“Heavenly Hundred”), those individuals killed during the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, and the "OAnon shaman," who was among those who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Therefore, integrating populism as a discourse and sovereigntism as a practice or movement in the context of neoliberalism (which we may take as a set of doctrines, ideas, and directions without a clearly expressed ideology), we will itemize those opportunistic features that affect both categories. Populism directly depends on a sociopolitical or economic crisis; that is, the emergence of populism is possible in the context of an immediate crisis of the sociopolitical system, for example the global economic crisis of 2008 (Slobodian 2018: 25) and the subsequent chain reaction in political, social, cultural, and other spheres. Sovereigntism also depends on crisis, but with one important difference: sovereigntism is a point of bifurcation, that is, a critical state of the system that causes uncertainty. Thus populism is a derivative of the crisis, while sovereigntism is primary in relation to the crisis. Sovereigntism can both provoke a crisis (the storming of the US Capitol, a coup d'etat in Myanmar), and legitimize a crisis that has already begun (the protests in several countries against the COVID-19 restrictions).

The study of populism in the context of neoliberalism takes place from the standpoint of opposing the neoliberal order to the authoritarian one (see Ivanou 2019; Edelman 2020; Diamond 2021). Researchers tend to assume that in most cases populism is used by leaders either in authoritarian political systems Belarus, Turkey, China, Cambodia or in countries where populism has become a catalyst for system authorization, for example, the US during the presidency of Donald Trump, Hungary during the premiership of Viktor Orban, and Poland during the presidency of Andrzej Duda. That is, populism is opposed not so much to neoliberalism as to liberal democracy. Because neoliberalism is more associated with economic policy, therefore, the political aspects of neoliberalism in the context of populist practices remain outside the field of political researchers. In addition, David Cayla points out that the roots of populism are to be found in the contradictions between democratic ideals and values citizens making political decisions through representative democracy; and neoliberal governance mechanisms in which competition and the market arbitrate social events (Cayla 2021).

The situation is different with sovereigntism. On the one hand, it can contribute to the autonomization of the political system with a further strengthening of authoritarian practices, that is, a "tightening the screws" by the current political elite (as in the case of the protests in Belarus 2020, the "Umbrella Revolution" in Hong Kong 2014, the attempted coup d'etat in Turkey in 2016). On the other hand, sovereigntism can contribute to the undermining of the political situation, and the deconstruction of state policy, primarily by weakening the mechanisms for making political decisions and determining access to government institutions. In this regard, sovereigntism is a more flexible mechanism for deconstructing globalization, since the internal political system, claiming the universality of its own order, is opposed to external structures that also claim the universality of their own political order. The political order should be seen as a way of organizing the population and territory within the boundaries of the state.

Autonomization of sovereignty in open systems. The absolute sovereign shows him or herself only in extraordinary situations-in emergencies and situations of uncertainty and instability. The relative sovereignty that is characteristic of open political systems has been rendered incapacitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the governments and leaderships of many countries followed the principle of tightening the system of universal control, and optimizing the legal system. The pandemic, however, showed two important aspects of the modern political organization of the population: first, the crisis of power as a way of communicating between the elites and the population, and second, the state of emergency as a mechanism to legitimize extraordinary actions attendant on possessing political power.

In this sense, sovereignty reveals itself as the ability of the state to solve nonlinear, uncertain, emergency situations through resorting to particularism and populism, on the one hand, and using the apparatus of violence and disciplinary mechanisms on the other (Zizek 2020). The ability of the state is also associated with the growth of authoritarian methods of government, that is, with limiting democracy to resolve an emergency or with applying international law as a tool for autonomizing the political system (Ginsburg 2020). At the same time, the practice of sovereigntism (which produced protests against quarantine measures, and featured certain political decisions of the state and the inability of the state to respond to a changing social reality) appears to us to be a mechanism for the deconstruction of sovereign power. It is characterized by the presence of a binary opposition within the state and a dynamically (re)produced inversion (replacement of the main concept with an antipode, a diametrical other).

The crisis of sovereignty as a discursive field. Sovereignty derived from a special type of power relations; the power itself was transformed into an attribute of the state from the point of view of normative legal interpretation. In the sociopolitical field, sovereignty is a discursive unit, that is, something that is resorted to in situations of instability, bifurcation, or emergency. In this sense, sovereignty as a discursive field that presupposes institutionalization, the presence of a theoretical framework, the maintenance of boundaries, and the reproduction of universal communication systems, deactualizes itself.

Sovereigntism, on the other hand, becomes a mechanism for deconstructing or refuting sovereign power, constituted by a social movement (practices) that tries to change political reality. Discourse is an external space where a network of set positions, nominations, structures, and groups is placed. The object, on getting into the discourse field, starts experiencing pressure, coercion, and enforcement as a result of the need to follow the set logic. One of the important specificities of a discourse field is constructing the space in which the subjects interact with their predecessors retranslating their normative and value positions. In other words, in the discourse field interaction is an “exclusive” type of social practices (Foucault [1966] 2002: 129-132).

Conclusion

Over the past few years, sovereigntism has been evolving from a local phenomenon to being part of the global mainstream as it is actively taken up by both the populations of different countries and the political elites of these countries. The factors itemized above that contribute to the spread of sovereigntism show us one key tendency: sovereigntism is the antipode not so much of sovereignty itself but of the neoliberal order in the context of globalization. If sovereignty is an established system, then sovereigntism either remains a political movement or manifests in social practices, namely, in the practices of sovereigntism aimed at deconstructing or refuting sovereignty.

The factor tendencies that we observe today reveal sovereigntism as a way of autonomizing the political system. Such autonomization presupposes:

1) localization in political decision-making, that is, an orientation toward internal requests and needs;

2) transformation of the regime characteristics of the political system, that is, a departure from liberal-democratic values toward the principles and practices of autarkism and authoritarianism; and

3) an increase in the functionality of the universal control system through the increased use of violence, and mechanisms of disciplinary power.

In addition, the practice of sovereigntism can lead to a shift in the degree of strength of sovereignty from weak to strong (“tightening the screws”) or from strong to weak (creating a horizontal set of sovereignties, a weak hierarchy or social mobility, a lack of bureaucracy, the dominance of norms or customs).

Also, the practices of sovereigntism show similar tendencies with the schisms in political and social systems proposed by Seymour Lipset and Stein Rokkan (1967). They analyzed the factors that determined social splits in historical perspective, as well as the main binary positions between which these splits occurred: center-periphery, state- church, city-village, owners-workers. If we analyze the events mentioned at the beginning of this paper (the growing dynamics of social movements) we see the existing dichotomy, when the periphery fights against the center for the sovereignty of its power and for the right to possess this power.

Another example of dichotomy is a political polarization between city and village regarding the support of one or another political elite. Dichotomy also exists when the church (and in a broader sense religion) claims sovereignty and legitimacy in the system of state sovereignty. It also exists when norms and rules (rituals, practices, ideologies) of different cultures collide and the social principles of fundamentalism become more acute, and when different ideologies construct the social reality of a particular individual, as opposed to a collective identity (i.e., the individualization of society, the existence of many communities).

Also, by distinguishing between sovereigntism and populism, we showed that these two phenomena are not identical. Populism is a discourse that creates its own discursive field and strives for institutionalization. Sovereigntism, on the other hand, is the practice and movement within which the articulation of populism can take place. In other words, populism is used as a tool to focus on the practices of sovereigntism, which, in turn, do not always need populism. Still, both sovereigntism and populism can become the reason for the autonomy of the political system, its transition to a state of semiclosure or closedness, which is happening, for example, with the political systems of Bulgaria, Poland, or Hungary.

In this context, authoritarian populism is used as a means of legitimizing power, while sovereigntism can be used as a means to achieve specific goals. The examples of Poland and Hungary, as well as the US, Myanmar, Belarus, and other countries show that sovereigntism is an instrument of the majority, that is, of the population, while populism is an instrument of a minority, that is, of the power itself and its structures. Consequently, we can assume that sovereigntism at this stage of its development is “politicized sovereignty,” that is, a way of identifying and fixing crises in the system, primarily crises of domestic political and legitimate, sovereign power. Practitioners of sovereigntism decompose sovereignty as an integral system into constructs, within the boundaries of which there is a struggle both for power itself and for its redistribution.

In connection with the increase in the participatory practices of the population of different states, sovereigntism is being transformed into an egalitarian (open for everyone, or at least for the majority) way of exercising power as a public policy, of developing and making political decisions, of making power accessible. Sovereignty in its turn remains an elite form of politics, when political elites act as limited holders of sovereign power. Finally, it is necessary to ask the question. Will sovereigntism become a real policy, or will it remain a way of expressing the unstable and unpredictable “will of the people" aimed at deligitimating the established system of power?

Бібліографія

Agamben, Giorgio. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

Agnew, John. (2017). Globalization and Sovereignty: Beyond the Territorial Trap. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Agnew, John. (2019). Taking back control? The myth of territorial sovereignty and the Brexit fiasco. Territory, Politics, Governance 8(2): 259-272.

Arrighi, Giovanni. (1994). The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origins of Our Times. London: Verso.

Aslanidis, Paris. (2016). Is Populism an Ideology? A Refutation and a New Perspective. Political Studies 64(1): 88-104.

Baldassari, Marco, Castelli, Emanuele, Truffelli, Matteo, & Vezzani, Giovanni. (2020). Anti-Europeanism. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.

Bartelson, Jens. (1995). A genealogy of sovereignty. Cambridge studies in international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beetz, Jan & Rossi, Enzo. (2017). The EU's democratic deficit in a realist key: multilateral governance, popular sovereignty and critical responsiveness. Transnational Legal Theory 8(1): 22-41.

Bille, Franck. (2020). Voluminous States: Sovereignty, Materiality, and the Territorial Imagination. Durham: Duke University Press.

Bodin, Jean. ([1992] 2009). On Sovereignty: Six Books Of The Commonwealth. Scotts Valley: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Bourdieu, Pierre. (1985). The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups. Theory and Society 14(6): 723-744.

Bourke, Richard, & Skinner, Ouentin. (2017). Popular Sovereignty in Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cayla, David. (2021). Populism and Neoliberalism. New York: Routledge.

CEIP. (2021). Global Protest Tracker. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), n.d., https://carneaieendowment.ora/publications/interactive/protest-tracker (accessed February 13, 2021).

Craig, Dylan. (2019). Sovereignty, War, and the Global State. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Damiani, Marco. (2020). Populist Radical Left Parties in Western Europe: Equality and Sovereignty. London: Routledge.

Dapiran, Antony. (2020). City on Fire: The Fight for Hong Kong. Melbourne: Scribe Publications.

Diamond, Larry. (2021). Democratic regression in comparative perspective: scope, methods, and causes. Democratization 28(1): 22-42.

Doty, Roxanne. (1996). Sovereignty and the nation: constructing the boundaries of national identity. Cambridge studies in international relations, Biersteker, Thomas & Weber, Cynthia (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 121-147.

Durkheim, Emile. ([1893] 1969). The Division of Labor in Society, trans. G. Simpson. New York: Free Press.

Edelman, Marc. (2020). From "populist moment" to authoritarian era: challenges, dangers, possibilities. The Journal of Peasant Studies 47(7): 1418-1444.

Foucault, Michael. (2009). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France, 1977-78. London: Picador.

Foucault, Michel. ([1966] 2002). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London, New York: Routledge.

Foucault, Michel. (2003). Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the College de France, 1975- 76. London: Picador.

Geiselberger, Heinrich. (2017). The Great Regression. London: Polity Press.

Ginsburg, Tom. (2020). How Authoritarians Use International Law. Journal of Democracy 31(4): 44-58.

Herzog, Don. (2020). Sovereignty, RIP. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hinsley, Harry. (1986). Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Howell, William & Moe, Terry. (2020). Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ivanou, Aleh. (2019). Authoritarian populism in rural Belarus: distinction, commonalities, and projected finale. The Journal of Peasant Studies (46)3: 586-605.

Kallis, Aristotle. (2018). Populism, sovereigntism, and the unlikely re-emergence of the territorial nationstate. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 11(3): 285-302.

Kimball, Roger. (2020). Who Rules?: Sovereignty, Nationalism, and the Fate of Freedom in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Encounter Books.

Krasner, Stephen. (2001). Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities. New York: Columbia University Press.

Laclau, Ernesto. (2005). On Populist Reason. London: Verso.

Leibniz, Gottfried. (1988). Political Writings. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lipset, Seymour & Rokkan, Stein. (1967). Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-national Perspectives. New York: Free Press.

Loong-Yu, Au. (2020). Hong Kong in Revolt: The Protest Movement and the Future of China. London: Pluto Press.

Mann, Michael. (1986). The Sources of Social Power: Volume 1, A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maris, Georgios. (2019). National Sovereignty, European Integration and Domination in the Eurozone. European Review 28(2): 225-237.

McNeill, William. (1963). The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Merton, Robert. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.

Mitchell, William, & Fazi, Thomas. (2017). Reclaiming the State: A Progressive Vision of Sovereignty for a PostNeoliberal World. London: Pluto Press.

Moffitt, Benjamin & Tormey, Simon. (2014). Rethinking populism: Politics, mediatization and political style. Political Studies 62(2): 381-397.

Pew Research Center. (2016). Europeans Fear Wave of Refugees Will Mean More Terrorism, Fewer Jobs. By Richard Wike, Bruce Stokes & Katie Simmons. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp- content/uploads/sites/2/2016/07/Pew-Research-Center-EU-Refugees-and-National-Identity-

Report-FINAL-July-11-2016.pdf (accessed 30 November 2020).

Rensmann, Lars. (2016). National Sovereigntism and Global Constitutionalism: An Adornian Cosmopolitan Critique. Critical Horizons 17(1): 24-39.

Schmitt, Carl. ([1932] 1996). The Concept of the Political. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Schmitt, Carl. (2004). Legality and Legitimacy. Durham: Duke University Press.

Schmitt, Carl. (2005). Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Scholte, Jan. (2020). After Liberal Global Democracy: New Methodology for New Praxis. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 13(1): 67-92.

Sengul, Kurt. (2019). Populism, democracy, political style and post-truth: issues for communication research. Communication Research and Practice 5(1): 88-101.

Sharma, Nandita. (2020). Home Rule: National Sovereignty and the Separation of Natives and Migrants. Durham: Duke University Press.

Slobodian, Ouinn. (2018). Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Stankov, Petar. (2021). The political economy of populism: An Introduction. Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.

Stilz, Anna. (2019). Territorial Sovereignty: A Philosophical Exploration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Strang, David. (1996). Contested sovereignty: the social construction of colonial imperialism. Cambridge studies in international relations. Eds. Thomas Biersteker & Cynthia Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 22-49.

Tilly, Charles. (1992). Coercion, Capital and European States, A.D. 990-1992. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. Wallerstein, Immanuel. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham: Duke University Press. Waltermann, Antonia. (2019). Reconstructing Sovereignty. Berlin: Springer.

Weber, Max. ([1921] 1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Zizek, Slavoj. (2020). Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World. New York: OR Books.

Размещено на Allbest.ru