ABSTRACT
By the example of the UN Security Council negotiations on the delivery of humanitarian aid to Syria, this chapter analyses the extent to which sovereignty-based arguments can be qualified as authoritarian. The Security Council members – consciously or unconsciously – use the concept of ‘sovereignty’ with different implications, which makes it difficult to find consensus. The chapter argues that some of the ways in which sovereignty is invoked can be considered authoritarian. While none of the different understandings of sovereignty rejects pluralism in a theoretical sense, the context in which sovereignty is invoked renders certain invocations authoritarian. The chapter aims to sensitise international negotiators to the problem of incompatible understandings of sovereignty and points out the opportunities and costs of addressing them openly. It also highlights the way in which non-authoritarian positions can be ‘authoritarianised’ through the context in which they are invoked. It suggests that such invocations often contradict fundamental premises of sovereignty and should thus not be accepted.
