Sovereignty versus Influence

IF 0.4 Q1 HISTORY
Teemu J. Häkkinen, Miina Kaarkoski
{"title":"Sovereignty versus Influence","authors":"Teemu J. Häkkinen, Miina Kaarkoski","doi":"10.3167/choc.2018.130203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is not a coincidence that perceptions of sovereignty were key reasons\nwhy the United Kingdom referendum on European Union membership\nended in a victory for the Leave side. In this article, we will apply methods\nof conceptual history to parliamentary debates in order to trace the development\nof sovereignty as a political concept in Europe-related debates\nthrough studies of four periods between 1945 and 2016. We will show that\nboth supporters and opponents of European unity deliberately used the\nBritish position on sovereignty in political struggles throughout the analyzed\nperiod. The concept was used above all to describe the traditional\nview of the supremacy of British parliamentary sovereignty, but it was also\nused for different purposes to create a perception of how sovereignty could\nor could not be modified in dealing with an integrating Europe.","PeriodicalId":42746,"journal":{"name":"Contributions to the History of Concepts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contributions to the History of Concepts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/choc.2018.130203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

It is not a coincidence that perceptions of sovereignty were key reasons why the United Kingdom referendum on European Union membership ended in a victory for the Leave side. In this article, we will apply methods of conceptual history to parliamentary debates in order to trace the development of sovereignty as a political concept in Europe-related debates through studies of four periods between 1945 and 2016. We will show that both supporters and opponents of European unity deliberately used the British position on sovereignty in political struggles throughout the analyzed period. The concept was used above all to describe the traditional view of the supremacy of British parliamentary sovereignty, but it was also used for different purposes to create a perception of how sovereignty could or could not be modified in dealing with an integrating Europe.
主权vs影响力
主权观念是英国脱欧公投最终以脱欧派获胜的关键原因,这并非巧合。在本文中,我们将把概念史的方法应用到议会辩论中,通过对1945年至2016年四个时期的研究,来追溯主权作为一个政治概念在与欧洲有关的辩论中的发展。我们将表明,在整个分析期间,欧洲统一的支持者和反对者都故意在政治斗争中使用英国在主权问题上的立场。这个概念首先被用来描述英国议会主权至上的传统观点,但它也被用于不同的目的,以创造一种主权如何能够或不能在应对一体化的欧洲时被修改的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Contributions to the History of Concepts is no longer published by Brill from 2010.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信