Abstract Violations of sovereignty not only generate emotional diplomatic outbursts but are also frequently the subject of multilateral engagements. One paradigmatic example of a sovereignty violation engendering this kind of response is that of state-led international kidnappings. But why do the victims of sovereignty violations multilateralise such transgressions? What makes them think that other states will be receptive to such attempts? To answer this question, we theorise the role of performative emotionality in maintaining the institution of sovereignty. Specifically, we conceptualise sovereignty as a social institution that constructs states as persons, and thus as bearers of dignity, and upholds this construction through shared feeling rules. This reveals sovereignty violations to be primarily a denial of dignity, that is, the expectation to be treated as an autonomous person of equal moral worth, which demands an appropriate emotional performance from all states, not just those involved in the sovereignty dispute. This performance is shaped by the international system’s colonial legacy, embodied in an enduring standard of civilisation. To illustrate this, we analyse two instances of state-led international kidnappings: Argentina’s response to the abduction of Adolf Eichmann by Israeli agents in 1960, and Japan’s ongoing response to the kidnapping of multiple Japanese citizens by North Korea.
Krickel-Choi et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: