Abstract This article examines Turkey’s constitutional trajectory through Carl Schmitt’s concepts of sovereignty, exception and dictatorship. It argues that Turkey’s political development cannot be fully understood as a process of gradual democratic erosion alone but must be analyzed as a sequence of constitutional ruptures in which exceptional powers have repeatedly redefined sovereign authority. From Abdülhamid II’s suspension of the 1876 Constitution to the Grand National Assembly’s exercise of wartime sovereignty in 1921, the military interventions of 1960 and 1980, and President Erdoğan’s post-2016 consolidation of power, sovereignty has shifted among personal, collective and institutional actors capable of suspending legality and founding new constitutional orders. By situating Turkey within a longer history of sovereign reconstitution, the article critically reworks Schmitt’s framework to show how emergency provisions – initially designed to defend constitutional order – can be transformed into instruments of constitutional refoundation. It demonstrates how commissarial responses to crisis may evolve into sovereign dictatorships, enabling regime transformation under the appearance of legal continuity. In doing so, the article contributes to debates on authoritarian constitutionalism and emergency governance by clarifying the constitutional mechanisms through which legality is suspended, reconfigured and redeployed. Beyond the Turkish case, the article advances a broader comparative agenda for global constitutionalism: integrating the study of democratic erosion with an analysis of sovereign reconstitution in moments of exception, thereby illuminating how contemporary constitutional orders are reshaped through crisis.

In social studies courses, it is important for students to correctly understand the basic concepts of democracy in order to acquire democratic citizenship competencies. This study aims to examine students' misconceptions about democracy and how these concepts are addressed in social studies courses. Conducted as a case study within the framework of qualitative research designs, the participants of the study consisted of 7th grade students and a social studies teacher at a middle school in Eskişehir. Data were collected through word association tests, observation, interviews, and document analysis, and evaluated through descriptive analysis. According to the research data, some students conceptualized the concepts of rights, equality, and choice correctly, but conceptualized the concepts of freedom and sovereignty incorrectly. However, it was determined that students' conceptualizations of democracy, justice, law, and participation were inadequate. Furthermore, it was determined that in social studies courses, teacher preferred traditional methods in teaching concepts, but incorporated democratic values and behaviors in daily classroom practices. The teacher's attitude, classroom teaching processes, teaching program, and textbook play an important role in the formation of student perceptions and misconceptions about democracy and related concepts. In line with the research findings, it is recommended that various teaching methods be preferred in the teaching of basic concepts related to democracy and that the teaching program and textbook content be reviewed and restructured.

This article examines Aristotle’s distinction between potentiality and actuality and Giorgio Agamben’s reformulation of that distinction, with particular attention to its significance for modern jurisprudence, biopolitics and democratic governance. It argues that Agamben’s account of potentiality provides not only a philosophical critique of teleological politics, but also a valuable framework for understanding how modern legal orders regulate life, suspend rights and construct zones of exclusion. Through a jurisprudential reading of Agamben’s concepts of sovereignty, the state of exception and homo sacer, the article shows how law mediates the passage from potentiality to actuality in ways that can both protect and endanger political life. Particular attention is given to the juridical treatment of bare life, the legal logic of emergency powers and the role of rights discourse in contemporary democratic states. By bringing Aristotelian metaphysics into dialogue with Agamben’s political thought and modern legal concerns, the article contends that the potentiality-actuality paradigm illuminates the fragility of legal personhood and the instability of the legal protections upon which democratic life depends.

This study examines how different political systems address the concept of legitimacy and sovereignty, focusing on three major models: the liberal democratic system (United States), the conservative fascist system (Germany), and the socialist system (Soviet Union). Legitimacy is considered a fundamental requirement for governance, as it determines the acceptance and justification of political authority. Using a qualitative and comparative approach, the research analyzes the historical, political, and ideological foundations of each system. The findings reveal that the liberal model enhances legitimacy through democratic participation, protection of individual rights, and institutional constraints on power. In contrast, the conservative fascist model limits legitimacy within a nationalist framework, emphasizing authority and state control. Meanwhile, the socialist model, as represented by the Soviet Union, demonstrates a decline in legitimacy due to centralized control, restricted individual freedoms, and lack of political participation. The study concludes that each system constructs legitimacy based on its underlying economic, political, and social assumptions, resulting in varying degrees of public acceptance and effectiveness in governance.

ABSTRACT In the Hokianga region of Northland in 1898, a war nearly broke out between Māori and the Crown, ostensibly over the Crown’s imposition of a tax on dogs. This article explores some of the underlying issues that led to that crisis, focusing particularly on how various forms and dimensions of sovereignty were contested in the post-1840 colonial period in New Zealand. What the so-called ‘Dog Tax War’ exemplified was a trend during that era of encroaching Crown sovereignty into indigenous communities in the colony, coupled with efforts by Māori to resist that process. This work introduces the idea of Māori de recto sovereignty in connection with these incursions of Crown sovereignty, and examines the ensuing dynamics that emerged between different conceptions of sovereignty among Māori and the Crown, set against the backdrop of the trajectory of growing Crown power in the colony.

The accelerating digitization of higher education has intensified longstanding inequities in access, participation, and epistemic representation, particularly within Indigenous and Global South contexts. While global reform agendas emphasize digital literacy, innovation, and future-ready skills, insufficient attention has been given to how digital transformation intersects with Indigenous knowledge systems, self-determined learning, and sustainability imperatives. This paper advances the concept of digital sovereignty as a transformative response to the digital divide in tertiary education. Moving beyond access-based frameworks, digital sovereignty foregrounds Indigenous epistemological authority, cultural self-determination, and equitable participation in knowledge production within digitally mediated learning environments. Drawing on heutagogy as a theoretical foundation, the paper conceptualizes self-determined learning as a pedagogical bridge between Indigenous knowledge traditions and digital innovation. Heutagogical principles—learner agency, double-loop learning, capability development, and reflexivity—align with Indigenous relational epistemologies and collective knowledge stewardship. Through this alignment, tertiary institutions can reframe curriculum, technology integration, and digital literacy initiatives toward culturally grounded, sustainable futures. The analysis highlights how curriculum reform, digital infrastructure policy, and institutional leadership must shift from technocentric adoption models to context-responsive, culturally embedded strategies that empower learners as co-creators of knowledge. The paper proposes an integrative conceptual framework that connects digital equity, Indigenous knowledge systems, and sustainable development goals within higher education transformation. It argues that achieving sustainable futures requires moving from digital consumption to digital agency, and from digital access to digital sovereignty. In doing so, tertiary institutions can cultivate future-ready graduates who are critically literate, culturally rooted, ethically responsible, and capable of navigating complex socio-ecological challenges. The study contributes to emerging debates on decolonizing digital education, sustainable curriculum innovation, and transformative pedagogies in the 21st century.

This article investigates the profound challenges posed by powerful, sub-state armed actors to the international legal system and the traditional Westphalian concept of state sovereignty. Through a comparative analysis of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis (Ansar Allah) in Yemen, the study examines how these groups—which combine military capability, territorial control, and political governance—function as “states within a state” and fundamentally disrupt the state-centric international order. The research addresses three primary areas: (1) the legal status and personality of these groups under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL); (2) the extent to which their organizational capacity and de facto governance erodes state sovereignty in the Middle East; and (3) the implications of their status for international strategies of engagement, containment, and accountability. By analyzing doctrinal law, state practice, and UN Security Council resolutions, this article demonstrates that both Hezbollah and the Houthis possess a form of functional legal personality that necessitates revision of current international legal categories. The findings suggest that the involvement of these actors in conflicts—classified primarily as Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIACs) but often with international dimensions—requires a framework for understanding their functional recognition and developing more effective, legally compliant counter-terrorism and humanitarian response policies. The article contributes to scholarly debates on sovereignty, international legal personality, and the future of armed conflict in an era of state fragmentation and hybrid governance.

ABSTRACT Europe is taking the lead in positioning itself at the forefront of digital governance with the accelerating transformation of global digital markets, which is reflected in policies that have frequently addressed digital sovereignty in their communications. However, the lack of conceptual agreement on the fundamental objectives of digital sovereignty leads to diverse interpretations by different actors within the European jurisdiction, expanding its scope but narrowing the intensity with which it is enforced. This article aims to solidify the concept of sovereignty in cyberspace in response to the digital insecurity in Europe amid increasing geopolitical tensions by examining the fundamental objectives of the European Union (EU) within its notion of digital sovereignty. It uses Gioia methodology [Gioia et al., 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational research methods, 16 (1), 15–31] as a theoretical approach towards qualitatively examining 79 legal documents selected via a rigorous screening process to identify six dimensions of the EU's strategic and digital goals while discussing its relevance to digital sovereignty. By analysing these dimensions, we provide actionable insights on digital sovereignty from the EU legislation grounded in empirical evidence and highlight the gaps in its implementation.

The formation of laws based on the omnibus method attempts to combine various themes in one law and accelerate the legislative process, but has the potential to reduce the quality of participation. Using a legislative approach, comparative studies, and conceptual, this article analyzes how the concept and practice of community participation and what standards are used as benchmarks for meaningful participation in the formation of laws based on the omnibus method. As a result, a country that adheres to the concept of people's sovereignty must fulfill the principle of openness with community participation as its main pillar. Omnibus as a method in the formation of laws often reaps controversy because it does not provide sufficient public access and participation space for the community. The active involvement of the community and stakeholders or related parties affected to provide input and suggestions through a public consultation mechanism at the stages of submitting draft laws, discussions and joint approvals is a standard of meaningful participation that must be met in the formation of laws based on the omnibus method.

The development of internet has had a powerful impact on the traditional concept of national sovereignty and has fueled a global trend toward asserting cyber sovereignty. Although the digital age promotes socio-economic development, challenges also arise in the context that Vietnam have not had a legal framework on cyberspace sovereignty. This article will analyze the theories and international practices related to cyber sovereignty, examine the impact of cyberspace on Vietnam, thereby, outline the legal issues and offer some suggestions for Vietnam.

Purpose This paper aims to advance an original intersubjective framework for data sovereignty governance. Grounded in constructivist concepts of shared understanding and critical realist principles of structure and agency, it moves beyond state-centric models to develop the concept of “interactive data sovereignty.” The study thereby offers a more robust theoretical and practical pathway for rebalancing power among states, platforms and individuals, contributing to a more equitable and effective global data governance. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses a conceptual-theoretical methodology rooted in intersubjective and structural analysis. The approach reconstructs data sovereignty through an intersubjective lens, shifting it from a state-centric attribute to a relational status formed through multi-actor communication. It then integrates this perspective with a structural analysis of how power embeds within data architectures. The synthesis of these two lenses directly informs the interactive data sovereignty framework, deriving its core principles – interactivity, relativity and justice – and positioning data architecture as the central governance object. Findings This study reveals that governance of data architecture fundamentally shapes power relations in dataspace. The proposed model of interactive data sovereignty demonstrates how participatory mechanisms can rebalance asymmetric relationships, with multilateral institutionalized consultations emerging as the most effective approach for reconciling data circulation and protection imperatives. This framework successfully bridges theoretical insights with practical governance solutions. Originality/value This study pioneers the integration of intersubjectivity theory with data sovereignty, proposing the novel concept of interactive data sovereignty. It innovatively identifies data architecture as the core governance object and develops participatory architecture as practical solution, offering new theoretical frameworks for rebalancing digital power disparities.

By arguing that employment law changed from postwar voluntarism to a purposeful constitutional project that subordinated collective worker voice to executive and managerial authority, this article critically examines the decline of industrial democracy in the UK. Important interventions that enacted authoritarian legalism rather than neutral regulation, such as the Industrial Relations Act of 1971, the Trade Union Acts of 1984 and 2016, and the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act of 2023, substituted procedural compliance for substantive participation. The article frames this trajectory as de-democratisation of the economic sphere, leaving workplaces as areas of private despotism despite formal political democracy, drawing on Schmittian sovereignty concepts and research on authoritarianism in labour governance. The Employment Rights Act 2025 partially reverses this by repealing the 2023 Act immediately, relaxing ballot thresholds and notice rules, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, introducing day-one unfair dismissal rights, and strengthening union recognition and protections against fire-and-rehire and harassment. These reforms are still primarily defensive and procedural, despite the fact that they promise benefits for more than 18 million workers, productivity increases, and closer OECD alignment. Instead of attaining true democratic reopening, the Act liberalises within neoliberal bounds in the absence of codetermination, mandatory sectoral bargaining, or constitutionally guaranteed participation. Two arguments are made by the analysis: first, collective power has been constitutively disciplined by UK employment law; and second, even recent progressive changes highlight enduring structural limitations. In order to address the disparity between economic power and democratic accountability, true industrial democracy necessitates rethinking the workplace as a constitutional polity, casting doubt on the validity of Britain's uncodified constitution.

Abstract Emotional artificial intelligence (AI)—systems that infer, simulate, or influence human feelings—create ethical risks that existing frameworks of privacy, transparency, and oversight cannot fully address. This paper advances the concept of Affective Sovereignty : the right of individuals to remain the ultimate interpreters of their own emotions. We make four contributions. First, we develop formal foundations by decomposing risk functions to capture interpretive override as a measurable cost. Second, we propose a Sovereign-by-Design architecture that embeds safeguards and contestability into the machine learning lifecycle. Third, we operationalize sovereignty through new metrics—the Interpretive Override Score (IOS), After-correction Misalignment Rate (AMR), and Affective Divergence (AD)—and demonstrate their use in a proof-of-concept simulation. Fourth, we link technical design to governance by introducing the Affective Sovereignty Contract (ASC) , a machine-readable policy layer, and by issuing a Declaration of Affective Sovereignty as a normative anchor for regulation. Together, these elements offer a computational framework for aligning emotional AI with human dignity and autonomy, moving beyond abstract principles toward enforceable, testable standards. In proof-of-mechanism simulations with $$k=10$$ random seeds, enforcing DRIFT (Dynamic Risk and Interpretability Feedback Throttling) with policy constraints reduces the Interpretive Override Score (IOS) from $$32.4\%\pm 3.8$$ (baseline) to $$14.1\%\pm 2.9$$ , demonstrating measurable preservation of affective sovereignty with quantified variability. Results reported here are based on proof-of-mechanism simulations; a preregistered human-subject evaluation ( $$n=48$$ ) is planned and has not yet been conducted.

Abstract This Open Forum paper examines how artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming not only what humans know but how knowledge itself is constructed, remembered and valued. It argues that AI has evolved from a tool of efficiency into an epistemic infrastructure, a system that reframes cognition, morality and identity across generations. Using Rousseau’s concept of conscience, Heidegger’s enframing (Gestell), and Postman’s technopoly as lenses, the paper situates today’s cognitive transformation within a philosophical lineage from natural conscience to predictive cognition. It proposes that the rise of AI-mediated environments represents an epistemological rupture—a transition from embodied, effortful knowledge-making to instantaneous, machine-guided cognition. Tracing five generational cohorts from Baby Boomers to Generation Alpha, it identifies a widening gap between those who were relatively AI-independent to a generation that is developing interface-based cognition, with high dependence on AI learning environments. The implications are neurological as well as epistemological. Insights from neuroscience and cognitive psychology indicate that reliance on generative systems may weaken neural pathways linked to memory, reflection, and metacognitive control. The paper introduces the concept of epistemic sovereignty—the capacity to author knowledge independently—and argues that its erosion signals not diminished intelligence but diminished authorship. As analogue generations disappear, so too may the brains unshaped by algorithmic mediation. Preserving their epistemic virtues will require deliberate design and regulation of learning environments that restore friction, ambiguity and cognitive struggle as essential features of human development. The paper calls for an epistemology of resistance—an intentional re-authoring of the mind in the age of artificial cognition. As such, this paper develops a discussion framework for cognitive sovereignty in AI-saturated environments and outlines strategic implications for education, work and policy.

Background: Climate change has presented a serious challenge to traditional concepts of state sovereignty in international law, particularly in the context of establishing baseline as the basis for measuring maritime boundaries. Sea level rise that causes the sinking of small islands and the shift of coastline has the potential to change the delimitation of a country's maritime area, thereby creating uncertainty over the scope of maritime sovereignty. However, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) does not explicitly regulate the mechanism for adjusting the baseline due to such permanent geographical changes. Based on these conditions. Methodology: This study uses normative juridical methods with a legislative, conceptual, and analytical approach to the practice and development of international law. Objective: This study aims to analyze whether and how state sovereignty over marine areas can be maintained when the geographical basis of determining the baseline changes due to climate change. Findings: The results of the analysis show that the application of the concept of fixed baseline or historical baseline can be a relevant legal instrument to maintain stability, legal certainty, and sustainability of maritime sovereignty of archipelagic countries. Originality: The uniqueness of this research lies in the effort to reconstruct the concept of state sovereignty in international law of the sea through a non-ambulatory approach to the baseline as a normative response to climate change, by placing the interests of archipelagic countries such as Indonesia as the focus of the analysis.

ABSTRACT This paper puts into conversation the concepts of platformisation, digital sovereignty, and leisure by exploring the shift to Bluesky during the legal suspension of X in Brazil between 30th August and 8 October 2024. To analyse the impact on Brazilian users of the Supreme Court decision to block access to X’s servers during this period, we map the adoption and use of Bluesky by the 20 football clubs playing in the Brazilian first division. We use engagement metadata (e.g. likes) as a proxy for end-user adoption and map how Bluesky emerged as an alternative platform during the suspension in the consumption and production circuits that take place within the broader processes of platformisation of leisure and sport. The paper contributes to the literature on digital and platform leisure by demonstrating how digital sovereignty (e.g. state legislation) affects the platformisation of leisure and sport by reshaping user behaviours, fostering platform adoption, and transforming the consumption and production circuits of platformised sport. The broader significance of this paper relates to how political actions (in)directly intersect with leisure infrastructures and cultures.

Abstract Public rituals of buffalo sacrifice have a prominent place in the political history of eastern India. They were productive activities in agrarian livelihoods, stages for intercommunal politics, unifying spectacles for regional kings, and justifications for colonial military interventions. While their historical scale is much reduced today, in parts of southern Odisha, they remain important political events. Drawing on historical research and long-term ethnographic fieldwork in Odisha’s Kandhamal Hills, this article examines how public rituals of sacrifice form a site of commensuration: a space where interlocal relations of mutuality and difference are temporarily made visible, and where value is defined in the presence of diverse audiences. By focusing on one specific ritual event, I show how these “sacrificial publics” are structured around the tensions of sovereignty (togetherness and transgression) and have long been spaces where different kinds of sovereign power have become legible. Historicizing an enduring sacrificial politics at India’s upland margins, I outline a distinctly anthropological concept of sovereignty—one that reflects the ways human relationships are made commensurable in lasting political formations, sustained through interlocal and intercommunal patterns of recognition.

The Timurid period, particularly during the reign of Shāhrukh Mirzā, was marked by a profound transformation in the understanding and exercise of power. In the historiography of the Timurid dynasty, Timur is commonly depicted as the founder of a militaristic and authoritarian form of rule, one that relied on continuous and often ruthless conquests to establish a conception of sovereignty grounded in coercion and personal authority. However, with the accession of Shāhrukh Mirzā to power, a more nuanced perception of the tension between physical and symbolic forms of power emerged, prompting a shift in the structure of governance from predominantly military models toward bureaucracy, institutionalization, and cultural rationality. The principal objective of this study is to demonstrate how, during the reign of Shāhrukh Mirzā, power evolved from a physical and person-centered phenomenon into a structured, rational, and institution-based system, and was subsequently redefined as a cultural and intellectual construct. Employing a descriptive–analytical methodology and drawing on library-based sources, court historiographies, administrative records, and the cultural and architectural productions of the period, this research offers a renewed examination of transformations in power within the Timurid political order. The findings indicate that under Shāhrukh Mirzā, the model of governance shifted from an emphasis on military dominance toward bureaucratic administration and the active participation of cultural and religious elites. Furthermore, the role of women—most notably exemplified by Gawhar Shād Begum—attained a level of managerial and political influence that can be understood as a reconfiguration, and indeed a reconstruction, of prevailing forms of governance. Ultimately, by foregrounding knowledge and culture, Shāhrukh Mirzā relocated power from the realm of coercion to that of thought, rendering it a rational, meaning-laden, and structured phenomenon.

This article examines the Chinese science fiction film The Wandering Earth as a biopolitical narrative shaped by an apocalyptic crisis. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s theory of biopolitics and Giorgio Agamben’s concepts of sovereignty, bare life, and the state of exception, it argues that the film depicts a form of crisis governance in which collective survival is prioritized through disciplinary control and legal suspension. Michel Foucault’s analysis of biopolitics helps illuminate how techniques of surveillance, normalization, and population management regulate bodies and optimize life in the interests of the state. Giorgio Agamben’s political theory, by contrast, reveals how the normalization of the state of exception enables sovereign power to reduce individuals to bare life. By bringing these frameworks together, the article demonstrates that The Wandering Earth exposes the paradox of biopolitics as both a politics of life and a politics of sacrifice.

Abstract Hedging is an important but analytically stretched concept. As both the scholarly and practical significance of understanding secondary state behavior has grown, there is a need for a more thorough analysis of the concept and of small states in general. Against this backdrop, this article makes two key interventions. First, it reconceptualizes hedging as a persistent practice, specifically, as a sovereignty-driven foreign policy practice, challenging the conventional view that treats hedging as a temporary strategy. Second, drawing on Cynthia Weber’s concepts of performative sovereignty and foreign policy as representational trouble, the article explicitly links sovereignty and foreign policy. To do so, the article approaches sovereignty primarily as a social rather than an institutional category. This linkage provides alternative accounts of domestic incentives for hedging, indicating that they may arise from the very ways sovereignty is conceptualized, not just from regime legitimacy noted in earlier studies. A comparative analysis of Mongolia’s Third Neighbor Policy and Singapore’s Total Defense Policy illustrates hedging as a persistent practice. Singapore’s tension between alliance avoidance and entanglement, alongside Mongolia’s debate over permanent membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, highlights “representational trouble,” the incoherence within their hedging practice. Overall, the article advances the broader claim that when a small state’s sovereignty and foreign policy are interlinked, it may be better able to pursue hedging or neutrality as persistent practices.