ABSTRACT
This chapter aims to examine one particular “case”—the 1994 Uruguay Round (U.R.) debate—to explore how the concept of sovereignty played a role in various policy discussions. It suggests that the allocation of power issue, as often embraced by an invocation of the “sovereignty” argument, is part of a very complex and vast landscape of issues relating to allocation of power for all types of government decisions in our world today. The chapter discusss in somewhat greater detail the various ways the “sovereignty argument” was used in the debate over whether the United States should accept the U.R. negotiation results. A key element of the U.R. negotiation approach was the “single package” ideal by which every nation would have to accept the whole U.R. results as one entire package, or stay out of the U.R. treaty system. The U.R. package is incredibly far-reaching, and certainly, as a matter of treaty law, imposes a number of constraints on nation-state members.
