The aim of the paper is to analyze sovereignty configurations in the China – Hong Kong and India – Bhutan relationships and to theoretically grasp these hybrid configurations. Although the cases have received some attention, I argue that social scientific theorizing of the cases, especially in connection to the question of general composition of contemporary international order, is still underdeveloped. The re-examination of the cases and their theorization is, thus, relevant for enhancing our understanding of post-imperial (perhaps neo-imperial) histories of China and India with elements of permanent presence of colonialism (e.g. the treaty between India and Bhutan constraining Bhutan's international sovereignty is modeled upon the previous treaty between imperial Britain and Bhutan) as well as for improving of theorization of contemporary international order and hierarchies within it.
The paper offers a theoretical/analytical framework which allows to account for sovereignty and heteronomy. Both sovereignty and heteronomy are seen as complementary elements which can co-exist in contemporary society of states (international society/order). While the paradigmatic expression of sovereignty can be found in the inside/outside division and the Euclidean understanding of boundaries, the heteronomy perspective involves a more nuanced, plastic and multi-layered conception of international order. Although being inspired by the English School of IR (British Institutionalism), I argue that we need to move outside the intellectual terrain which is known to and occupied by the School in order to enhance our ability to answer questions about institutional structure and relationship between the “global” and “regional” the School asks. In other words, the paper should provide friendly criticism to the School.
China and India seem to be ultimate testing cases for the sovereignty-heteronomy nexus as both these countries are seen as strong advocates of “Westphalian” (“conservative”) sovereignty and at the same time have imperial histories; they relate themselves to their own histories of great empires and incorporated heritage of another – British – empire. The process of imperial handover (from the British empire to China and India) largely influenced contemporary sovereignty status of Hong Kong (autonomous region of China and, simultaneously, a global player) and Bhutan (quasi-protectorate of India with limited foreign and security policy). These cases can be understood as imperial leftovers incorporated into society of states under specific hierarchic arrangements.
Recognizing heteronomy, or liminality (as called by some – e.g. Neumann, Mälksoo), is seen as a key step for enriching our understanding of international order. So-called permanent liminality – a situation when liminality (i.e. quality of being betwixt and in-between) gets permanent and institutionalized – seems to be particularly relevant for the examined cases. The heteronomy/liminality perspective will be developed along 1) horizontal and 2) vertical line of analysis. 1) The former is connected with symbolic interactionism's take on identity and, at the same time, with seeing institutional elements of international society as decoupled as shown by the Stanford School of Sociology. 2) I utilize analytical perspective of localisation developed by Acharya to look at how sovereignty as institutional and normative complex is localized into specific contexts.
