Sovereignty by institution is founded on representation, not on transferred rights
Evidence
The sovereign is therefore an artificial individuality, but also a real individuality. The fact that this sovereign is a naturally individual monarch does not alter the fact that he is an artificial sovereign; and when an assembly is involved, the sovereign remains an individuality, even though a group of individuals is involved. So much for commonwealths by institution. As you can see, this mechanism consists solely of the interplay between a will, a covenant, and representation. — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 110
Categorization
- DEFINE: Key distinction: commonwealth by institution rests on the delegation of representation itself, not a transfer of rights or powers — individuals are present through their representative.
- XREF: This is the core of the representation construction that postcolonial theory (Spivak’s ‘Can the Subaltern Speak’, Orientalism’s representational economy) assumes; Foucault is laying the Hobbesian scaffold. — connects to: Sovereignty fragments into overlapping partial rights to rule. — Achille Mbembe, Necropolitics, 122; Resistance to disciplinary power requires a new right, not a return to sovereignty.; States gain global influence only by surrendering some sovereignty — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 183 (+3 more)
Related
- The hobbesian state of nature is permanent diplomatic representation, not actual war (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- States gain global influence only by surrendering some sovereignty
#complicates(0.75) — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 183 - Responsibility-to-Protect discourse shifted sovereignty from nations to individuals
#complicates(0.72)