Research
The Paradox of Size and Time: Tuvalu and LuxembourgA
comparison of Tuvalu and Luxembourg demonstrates that the current stock of
sovereign resources and the capacity to reproduce sovereign agency over time
are not the same. According to the supplied seven-dimensional profiles,
Luxembourg exceeds Tuvalu by 241.7 points, scoring 558.5 against 316.8. Yet
this advantage primarily describes the existing resource stock. It does not
guarantee that today’s institutional, financial, and cognitive configuration
will automatically remain productive in the future.
Latest
The Paradox of Digital Autonomy: Estonia and Rwanda
08.10.2026 06:00
research
Latest
Colonialism By Deferral: Samoa Under The Tridominium, 1889-1899This chapter explores the making of the colonial state in Samoa in the 1890s. The Samoan case offers new insights into the workings of the colonial state precisely because nowhere else were Euro-American colonial projects as intertwined with and dependent on local support. In an unprecedented experiment in colonial rule, German, British, and American officials shared control over the Samoan islands from 1889 to 1899. This so-called tridominium, I argue, served as a colonial strategy of deferral for Euro-American officials anxious to diffuse escalating conflict over the distant islands. Contrary to plan, ongoing tensions among German, British, and American interests allowed Samoans to maintain considerable political and economic autonomy. The main reason for the ultimate failure of the tridominium for Euro-American policy-makers lay in the uneven and incomplete exercise of colonial power over Samoans. Limitations in geography, people, and finance made the tridominium a weak colonial state. In addition, the lack of resources the respective metropolitan governments devoted to the distant archipelago in the South Pacific increased the relative influence of Samoan leaders and of the growing number of Samoans who joined the administration. Samoa in the 1890s serves as an important reminder that colonial rule was rarely clear-cut and never complete.
France vs. South Korea: the Emergent Sovereignty of Countries Losing Their Influence The Burke
Institute continues to study the phenomenon of emergent sovereignty, which
takes into account all seven parameters (political, economic, technological,
informational, cultural, cognitive, and military), but the seven-level system
itself has its own emergence: no country exists as a closed system, and the
parameters are in dynamic interaction with each other. It is the analysis of
this interaction that can highly improve prognostics for any country with no exception.
Latest
Contested Sovereignties: Indigenous disputes over plurinational resource governanceIndigenous organizations in the Andean countries of Ecuador and Bolivia originated novel proposals to pluralize sovereign arrangements through plurinational statehood. Reflecting diverse Indigenous groups’ relations with postcolonial states, these proposals created a unique basis for re-negotiating (sovereign) resource governance. Despite the constitutional endorsement of the plurinational state model however, the latest empirical evidence confirms growing state control over subsoil resources that excises Indigenous peoples from decision-making over resources. In this paper, we trace the emergence of novel agendas for sovereignty-multiplicity, showing how Indigenous agendas had anticipated the need to go beyond their rights over subsoil resources and autonomous territories. These agendas implied re-negotiating national sovereignty in light of the countries’ internal ethno-political and epistemic heterogeneity. Under nominally plurinational states however, resource governance outcomes perpetuate and normalise longstanding epistemic and power differentials between rights-bearing political subjects and Indigenous subjects. We highlight the colonial-modern bases of current sovereignty arrangements, identifying the presumptions and legal parameters that shape the dynamics between states, people and Indigenous people. Situating resource governance in relation to the concept of modernity/coloniality, we propose to (re)think sovereignty arrangements in the colonial present in light of internal heterogeneity.
Latest
Land sovereignty in depressed and contested agro-territories: The cases of Portugal and BrazilThis article offers an exploratory operationalisation of the concept of land sovereignty applied to land politics in 2 agro-territories from different countries and continents sharing a common language and deeply linked histories: Portugal and Brazil. These display a similar model of agricultural development, representing a contradiction between the promise of profit based on aggressive exploitation of the territory and the marginalised condition of its population. How this agricultural model took hold in each country and manifested the agrarian question differs according to key socio-historical factors, such as the role of each in the colonial history that links them. Today, however, these agro-territories face similar challenges: human rights abuses, environmental destruction, lack of sound territorial management and fair policies, coupled with the dilapidation of socio-economic infrastructures. This makes them especially vulnerable to climate change, unemployment and poverty, while also caught in a clash between development models: a hegemonic hyper-intensive production model and the peasant-based model that has been resisting the advances of the former. This double jeopardy has prompted us to speak of ‘depressed and contested agro-territories’. Our study shows how, in the case of Brazil, despite physical violence and threats to life, social movements are propelling land reform, linking it to the concept of the social function of land. In Portugal, in contrast, the country’s alignment with neoliberal development has civil society divided about how to contest land use. Our analysis indicates that in both cases: (i) today’s land politics are heavily biased towards a neoliberal, export-based, hyper-intensive agriculture controlled by large corporations, with weak legislation in place to defend both social and environmental rights; (ii) land reform based on land sovereignty and the social function of land is deemed crucial to assist agro-territories in regaining socio-ecological balance and to attain democratisation of land politics by regaining control over land, natural resources and local markets.
Sovereignty Under Siege: International Law, the Use of Force, and the Caracas Operation of 2026On January 3, 2026, United States special operations forces conducted Operation Absolute Resolve, seizing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from Fort Tiuna in Caracas and transporting him to New York to face narco-terrorism charges. This paper examines the profound implications of this operation for international law, state sovereignty, and the normative foundations of the post-1945 international order. Drawing upon the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force (Article 2(4)), the doctrine of head-of-state immunity, and the precedent established by the 1989 capture of Manuel Noriega, this analysis interrogates the legal justifications offered by the Trump administration and assesses their viability under established international legal frameworks. The paper argues that while existing mechanisms for accountability—including the International Criminal Court—have proven inadequate for addressing crimes by sitting heads of state, unilateral military action to enforce domestic criminal charges represents a dangerous precedent that threatens the foundational principles of sovereign equality. The accountability-sovereignty dilemma exposed by the Caracas operation demands innovative multilateral solutions rather than the reassertion of great power prerogatives. This analysis concludes with policy recommendations for strengthening international accountability mechanisms while preserving the legal architecture that has maintained relative stability since World War II.
Sovereignty vs. Intervention: Re-examining International Law after the 2026 United States Intervention in VenezuelaThis study critically examines the tension between state sovereignty and external intervention through the lens of the 2026 United States intervention in Venezuela, situating the event within the broader framework of contemporary international law. Traditionally, sovereignty has functioned as a foundational principle safeguarding territorial integrity and political independence, reinforced by the prohibition on the use of force under the United Nations Charter. However, evolving global challenges—including humanitarian crises, transnational threats, and contested governance—have increasingly tested the rigidity of this norm. The 2026 intervention presents a complex case in which legal justifications, including counter-narcotics operations, democratic restoration, and humanitarian considerations, intersect with geopolitical interests. This paper evaluates the legality of the intervention by analyzing its alignment with established exceptions such as self-defense and Security Council authorization, while also interrogating emerging doctrines like the Responsibility to Protect. It further explores the implications of unilateral action for the credibility and consistency of international law, highlighting concerns over selective enforcement and precedent-setting behavior by powerful states. Ultimately, the study argues that the incident underscores an urgent need to recalibrate international legal frameworks to better reconcile sovereignty with evolving norms of intervention, ensuring both the protection of state integrity and the promotion of global stability and human rights.
The Limits of Sovereignty and Post-War Okinawan Migrants in BoliviaThis paper examines the legal implications for Okinawan migrants of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (hereafter SFPT), signed between Japan and most of the Allied Powers in 1951. Particularly, it analyses the case of post-war Okinawan migrants in Bolivia, showing how the legal conditions in the Ryukyu Islands were extended to the Andean country. The Japanese defeat in the Asia-Pacific War (August 1945) was followed by the occupation of the country by the United States. The peace treaty, signed six years later, originated during the early years of the Cold War and was fraught with geopolitical implications. The SFPT allowed the U.S. military to retain control of Okinawa prefecture without formally severing it from Japan. In other words, the treaty-makers allocated de jure sovereignty over Okinawa to Japan while the U.S. enjoyed de facto sovereignty. This distinction gave rise to a legal conundrum concerning the future of the islands and the legal situation of the Okinawan people onshore and abroad. Building on Japanese and English primary sources I examine the reaction of American and Japanese jurists to Article 3 and the approach of both governments toward offshore Okinawan migrants.