ABSTRACT
I have argued that the assessments that we have considered above (the BHR, the Parris column, the response of the Bush Administration, the position of the Iraqi government, that of the Al Qaeda supporting press and that of the Iranian government) are all made by participants within the practice of sovereign states. The arguments referred to by these appraisers are not simply self-referential ones that only make sense to their own supporters and followers. Instead, they are directed at a global public who, it is hoped, will be convinced by the appraisals put forward. Each assessor seeks to undermine the case put forward by the assessments of the others. The language used by the participants gives us an indication of the shape and form of the practices within which they are constituted.1 What is the shape of the practice of sovereign states? On what ethical foundations does it rest?
