1. Tom Sparks School of Law
He who trusts to hope builds upon thin ice: Sovereignty and the uncertain foundations of international order
Tom Sparks
School of Law

2. Sovereignty is supreme authority, an authority which is independent of any other earthly authority.  Sovereignty in the strict and narrowest sense of the term includes, therefore, independence all round, within and without the borders of the country.
Lassa F.L. Oppenheim

3. The obvious weakness of this theory is that what states can consent to they can also revoke. The self-limitation of states can derive normative character only from an existing rule that a state is bound to keep its promises. In other words, this theory postulates that the pacta sunt servanda principle, in order to constitute an effective basis of international law, must stand above the revocable consent of states.
Wolfgang Friedmann

4. ?
Pacta sunt servanda
Self-limitation
International law: treaties are binding
Bilateral treaty

5. Hans Kelsen Carl Schmitt International Law State State

6. ? Treaty Grundnorm Treaties are Binding International Law
State Consent
State as Subject

7. Apologism: “[T]he conclusion that a State’s liberty extends to anything the State itself thinks appropriate to extend it to. A fully formal idea of “freedom” is incapable of constructing a determinate, bounded conception of statehood as well as giving any content to an international order.”

8. A choice between these two positions cannot be made
A choice between these two positions cannot be made. The former will ultimately end up in apologism, affirming the State's self-definition of the extent of its sovereignty. The dispute will remain unsettled. The latter will lead into utopianism, fixing the extent of sovereignty by reference to a natural, non-State-related morality. Neither solution seems acceptable.
Martti Koskenniemi

9. Legal Approach Mutually Reliant Pure Fact Approach Mutually Exclusive
Arguments from Incoherence
Legal Approach
Mutually Reliant
Pure Fact Approach
Mutually Exclusive

10. [1]The people P rules that φ with regard to the people P.
Van Roermund’s Reply to the Argument from Incoherence
Identity Thesis
[1]The people P rules that φ with regard to the people P.
[2]The people P rules that φ with regard to itself*.
Reflexivity Thesis

11. [1]The collective of States rules the sphere of inter-State relations with regard to the collective of States.
[2]The collective of States rules the sphere of inter-State relations with regard to itself*.

12. [1] The people P rules that φ with regard to itself*
Individual [I] no longer regards herself to be a member of the unity [P], and does not wish to be bound by its laws.
[1] The people P rules that φ with regard to itself*
[2] The people [P – I] rules that φ with regard to [itself* + I].
[3] The people [P – I] rules that φ with regard to [itself* – I].

13. [1] The people P rules that φ with regard to itself*
Group [G] no longer regards itself to be a member of the unity [P], and does not wish to be bound by its laws.
[1] The people P rules that φ with regard to itself*
[2] The people [P – G] rules that φ with regard to [itself* + G].
[3] The people [P – G] rules that φ with regard to [itself* – G].

14. In due course the international legal order will no doubt either have to be equipped with a more clearly established hierarchy of norms, and more powerful sanctions, or decline and perish. The present is an era of either dawn or twilight.
Wolfgang Friedmann