Jett writes   This essay deals with an issue central to contemporary international relations: the on-going transformation of sovereignty.

Sovereignty is a kind of authority; traditionally it has been conceived of as the indivisible monopoly power over social, political, and economic matters within discrete geographically defined and contained units (i.e. sovereign States); for example, the authority of a government to tax economic activity or to assert laws within "its" territory. The modern system of dividing the earth into sovereign territorial States arose out of feudal European socio-political theory, with the Peace of Westphalia treaties (1648) as the "coming-out" moment in which these theories were first substantially established as "international law". The concept of sovereignty has since developed in time with Western thought, and this system of political organization has spread throughout the earth, primarily through the colonial endeavors of European empire-builders.

  In recent years, scholars have noted that the powers associated with sovereignty are being transformed. This transformation has been largely tied to globalization. There are a variety of processes at work in globalization which can be attributed with challenging traditional functions of sovereignty. Examples of these processes include such things as neoliberal privatization programs which compel the sell-off of State-owned services and industries to transnational corporations, World Trade Organization (WTO) membership which shifts the locus of power in trade issues to global bodies, or private actors such as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) which carry out their own "foreign policy" (e.g. Greenpeace's transnational environmental activism). There is disagreement over what this transformation of sovereignty means: Is sovereignty being eroded; is it in decline? Or, is sovereignty going through a conceptual transition; is sovereignty being reconfigured?

  What would it mean if sovereignty were in decline as a result of globalization? Wither the State? It could be argued that this decline is happening in some regions of the world. For example, postcolonial Africa with its civil wars, rampant crime, and various pandemics; however, these regional problems have not been substantially linked with the processes of globalization. What of the rest of the world though; what is happening to the system of States where sovereignty has become well established and internalized?

  The emergence of NGOs with foreign policies independent of sovereign States does not necessarily reduce the authority of the State to set its own foreign policy, it merely adds another layer of complexity; as with the rise of transnational business, this emergence has created another form of actor on the world stage in addition to the State. Membership in international organizations like the WTO does not necessarily remove trade negotiations between States, it provides a framework for negotiations - it adds a structured form to trade relations within a global body (i.e. A States prerogative to negotiate trade deals are confined within the juridical procedures of the global trade body). The contemporary system of Nation-States prefigured by the concept of sovereignty does not seem to be in "decline" so much as it seems to be transitioning into something different. A new system of global governance is evolving, one in which the simplicity of discrete territorial units is but one aspect of something more complex and interwoven.

  There can be no doubt that America, the ?last remaining superpower? (or the world?s ?hyperpuissance? (hyperpower), as former Foreign Minister of France Hubert Vedrine describes it), has a significant position in this new configuration of global order. Indeed, many have argued that what is in fact developing out of the processes of globalization and the resultant transformation of the global system of sovereign States is an American empire, a Pax Americana built on the military might of the American government and the cultural hegemony of ?American? corporations; a new world order in which America uses its power over the world, to dominate other States and the global economy, and to structure the global order to serve American interests.

  In addition to pointing to historical examples such as America?s notorious involvement in atrocities in South-East Asia and Chile, proponents of this worldview cite the predominance of ?American? transnational corporations like Coca-Cola & Microsoft, the rejection and obstruction of key international treaties (e.g. Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, etc.) by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and such things as the extensive American military presence around the globe (e.g. the numerous US Navy ships patrolling international waters, the thousands of US troops stationed in bases throughout the world, the dozens of conflicts in which America is somehow involved). In effect, proponents of this worldview see the projection of ?Americana? (i.e. American military and culture) beyond the territorial borders of America as imperial in both effect and design. America is viewed as a global entity, geographically centered on the North American continent, but manipulating the world through its globalized economy, culture, and military without any genuine regard for the sovereignty of other States.

  However, this position is not necessarily isolationist; rather it is based in a respect for political and cultural autonomy. American corporations are criticized for ?contaminating? non-American cultures with American culture and values (e.g. using imagery of American women to market products in Asia and thus challenging indigenous cultural norms), the American military is criticized for bullying other States into compliance with American interests, either through direct coercion (i.e. the threat of force), or more often through indirect methods, such as the obligation implicit in the acceptance of US military assistance in regional conflicts. Essentially, proponents of this analysis of American power advocate that America interact with the rest of the world on terms other than those defined by the self-interest of American elites.

  In contrast to this vision of an "Empire of America? some scholars argue that this focus on America obscures the reality of the evolving global order. In their view the processes of globalization are doing more than extending American power, they are creating a global order that can not be tied to any specific State. It is a new globalized and fully transnational ?Empire?; a network without a center.

  Specifically, in their book Empire, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri portray this new global ?Empire? as an emergent phenomenon stemming from the processes of globalization, primarily the ongoing deterritorialization of culture, politics, and economics. In their view what is evolving is not necessarily an ?Empire of America?, although America does have a significant position of power in this new configuration of global order.

  Proponents of this Hardt/Negri-derived view point to ?American? transnational corporations and argue that they are doing more than spreading Americana, these organizations are in fact creating a new global culture, a new subjectivity that is increasingly non-nationalistic in which individuals from around the world share important commonalities which bind them in ways that geography and ethnicity no longer can. Where the ?Empire of America? position argues that a marketing campaign selling Western-style designer clothing to Koreans is corrupting Korean culture by Americanizing it, this other vision of a truly transnational Empire argues that a global class of people is being created; individuals with a new subjectivity which, despite being separated by geography and ethnicity, is part of a new globalized way of being.

  The old language of imperialism is no longer relevant or effective in this new formation; Hardt and Negri posit that the important element in the creation of Empire is not the sovereign State per se as it is to the ?Empire of America? position, but instead what they describe as ?biopower?, or ?biopolitical production?. By this they mean that the production of subjectivity, the creation of individuals perceptions (i.e. identity), is the true foundation of Empire, as this production is ultimately the production of life itself. Loyalty is maintained through the networked production of shared values rather than force or ideology; Empire rules through its subjects.

  From this terrain of biopower, they diagram the emergent Empire as a tiered system of global power. These tiers are each made up of progressively broadening layers of order, with multiple overlapping authorities. The first tier in this structure of global order contains those States which control global monetary instruments (e.g. the G7) and thus has the capacity to regulate international exchanges. Another layer, at the pinnacle of this first tier, contains the American government; which is not to say that America ?rules? in this vision of Empire, but that due to America?s status as the most powerful State it has a privileged position in its ability to act within Empire. For example, the US military?s unassailable strength gives America an effective hegemony over the use of force anywhere in the world. If the American government substantially disapproves of any actions in the world it has the military capacity to end those actions, which in effect makes America the final arbiter of any significant disputes involving the use of force.

  On the second tier are the globe-spanning networks of transnational business which shape and supply markets. These networks articulate the command structure of Empire through their control of the distribution of capital, goods and commodities, technology, etc. They are in effect, the primary conduits through which Empire, as conceived by Hardt and Negri, extends the biopolitical production necessary to sustain itself. These networks both differentiate and homogenize people and territorial boundaries; they are not necessarily unifying or syncretic.

  On another layer of this second tier are the world?s Nation-States. Within Empire these States act to mediate between the biopolitical needs of their inhabitants (which they shape through State-directed discipline) and the interests of global powers (e.g. the UN, transnational corporations, etc.). This mediation stems from their sovereignty-derived authority as regulator, which provides States with the role of ?filters? between their populations and the global network of command and distribution articulated by the networks of transnational corporations.

  The third, bottom tier of the structure of Empire consists of those organizations and associations which represent the interests of people on a global level and are independent from States and capital (i.e. global civil society). These representative groups primarily consist of NGOs, and include organized religions.

  The conflict with Iraq can be understood on the terms of this vision of Empire as more than just an American ?imperialist aggression?, as it has been widely characterized. It is in fact the manifestation of a conflict within Empire, between different elements of the tiers of Empire?s structure. With the rise to power of Neoconservatives in the wake of George W. Bush?s presidency the US has embarked on efforts to reconfigure the emergent global Empire by attempting to extricate itself from the established juridical logic of Empire (i.e. international norms) while simultaneously consolidating its authority as ?global police?. By dividing its allies against it and each other, challenging the UN to act militarily on its resolutions, and then opening hostilities without UN sanction, the US has been extremely successful in these efforts.

  The US draws its moral justifications for aggression against Iraq from UN resolutions and liberal interventionist rhetoric, but exploits its position within Empire as final arbiter of armed conflict to flout world opinion. Although the US acts against Iraq in the interests of Empire, it does so without the consent of Empire. By weakening the position of those States able to challenge its authority to act (e.g. the EU), and by undermining the logic of the UN, the US is in effect making itself the true enforcer of Empire (militarily), while simultaneously establishing itself as independent of the authority of Empire?s global governance. Under the sway of the Neoconservatives the ?global police? want to go rogue."