Advance Praise for The Case for Sovereignty by Jeremy A. Rabkin

“Some say we shall be delivered from danger and injustice by transnational bodies endowed with superior wisdom. Rabkin, in contrast, sees ‘sovereignty as the path to peace.’ He’s right.” —U.S. Senator Jon Kyl

“Nowadays, almost all important arguments about U.S. foreign policy raise the question of our national sovereignty. Jeremy Rabkin offers a robust and altogether convincing refutation of the notion that our sovereignty is an anachronism.” —George F. Will, syndicated columnist

“Jeremy Rabkin’s provocative and cogent argument for the importance of national sovereignty, and particularly American sovereignty, cuts against the grain of conventional wisdom in foreign policy circles. But those who disagree will need to grapple with his sober and well-wrought analysis. Rabkin has made an important and necessary contribution to the current debate.” —Robert Kagan, author, Of Paradise and Power, and senior associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

“Jeremy Rabkin demonstrates that, in a world enchanted by the idea of international law and government, the threats to American values and our constitutional system are very real. His book, rooted in a command of history as well as modern developments, bids fair to become a classic in the field.”
—Robert H. Bork, author of Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges, and distinguished fellow, Hudson Institute

The Coalition Provisional Authority’s transfer of sovereignty to Iraq elevates the level of public debate about what we mean by “sovereignty.” A timely new book articulates the concept of sovereignty and explains why it is the likeliest path to peace.

In The Case for Sovereignty: Why the World Should Welcome American Independence (AEI Press, June 24, 2004), Jeremy A. Rabkin argues that sovereignty is the indispensable precondition for constitutional government. Without a strong notion of sovereignty, the powers of governments are determined only by the shifting winds of international negotiations between nations that differ a great deal on how to secure peace.

Continuing debate over the war in Iraq displays in sharp relief how far apart Americans and Europeans have drifted on matters of international law and security. Rabkin, a professor of government at Cornell University, explains why European Union (EU) schemes for global governance are fundamentally at odds with the American idea. He traces the basis for America’s concept of sovereignty and self-government to the Constitution. Traditional notions of sovereignty were, as he shows, central to the outlook of the American Founders. In contrast, the postmodern philosophy of the EU draws on premodern and illiberal ideas, along with impulses that fueled extremist political visions in the twentieth century. 

Sovereignty, although inextricably linked to the American idea, is not just good for the United States; it is good for the world. Rabkin warns that a “post-sovereign” world would:

• embolden terrorists and rogue states by inhibiting adequate or timely responses to genuine security threats;
• destabilize fragile new democracies, as international bureaucrats launch impetuous prosecutions to satisfy outsiders’ notions about how to punish past abuses;
• burden trade agreements with unrelated impositions—depressing economic development in the short term and risking all-out trade wars in the long term;
• exacerbate conflicts, as different sides are encouraged to frame their claims in the absolutist rhetoric of international rights;
• undermine respect for law within nations, as national constitutions come to be seen as merely provisional standards, subject to override by international directives; and
• erode national loyalties and political identities, as governments share governing responsibilities with supranational organizations and constituencies within nations seek to bypass their own governments in direct appeals to outside patrons.

Europeans charge that American sovereignty is a license for arbitrary power. To the contrary, Rabkin concludes that sovereignty’s moral claims rest on an underlying recognition of human limitations and remain the best way to reconcile peace with human freedom.

###