Search

Successful 'internal enforcement' of immigration law requires having a national identity system. If expanded, 'E-Verify,' the much-debated effort to control illegal immigration through access to employment, will become such a [...]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2010.00595.x Byline: Ben Holland (*) Abstract: The constructivist authors John Gerard Ruggie, Friedrich Kratochwil, and Nicholas Onuf have each independently pressed the case that the concept of state sovereignty owes its genesis to the rediscovery of the Roman law of private property in the Renaissance. This article supports this conclusion, but argues that it was the notion of representation that Roman property law bequeathed which was of such significance. It makes this argument through analyses of the writings of Hobbes (on the temporally permanent state), Montesquieu (on the territorially bounded state), and Sieyes (on the nation-state). It thus provides a fresh account of the rise of the nation-state within the framework of a powerful series of analyses of sovereignty that have been posited by scholars in the discipline of International Relations. Author Affiliation: (*)London School of Economics and Political Science

This article considers the way in which recent commentators have represented Australia's relationship with Antarctica including current and future challenges. While successive Australian governments from the 1950s onwards have sought inter alia to develop and protect the country's southern oceanic and Antarctic interests, concern has persisted about the activities of other parties. The signing of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty helped to ensure that the territorial status quo prevailed with regard to the Australian Antarctic Territory. The entry of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) into force in 1994 created new opportunities for further expressions of sovereign rights in this region. While mindful of the evolving legal geographies affecting Antarctica, our paper asks a series of questions about this relationship with the far south: how has Australian national identity been informed and influenced by Antarctic engagements? Will UNCLOS actually weaken the Antarctic Treaty System? Finally, do contemporary Australian pronouncements on the Antarctic hint at anxieties reminiscent of the 1950s? We conclude with a warning that nationalistic evocations may well unsettle a delicate balance concerning the Southern Ocean and disputed ownership of Antarctica.