The Hidden Globe

In The Hidden Globe, Abrahamian explores forms of state sovereignty that differ from traditional conceptions of contemporary nation-state sovereignty. She is critical of some of these forms of sovereignty, while being open to others as models for addressing the limitations of the traditional state model. The traditional conception of nation-state sovereignty, as described by Abrahamian, is “one land, one law, one people, and one government” (6). In the hidden globe, this conception of state sovereignty is transformed in a variety of ways.

One alternative mode of sovereignty is creating areas where typical laws and regulations governing imports, exports, taxation, and manufacturing are suspended in favor of a different set of regulations. A key example of this is the Dubai International Financial Center (DIFC). The DIFC is of particular interest to Abrahamian because it has its own judicial system, separate from the judiciary of the country in which it is located. Effectively, Dubai has devolved some of its judicial authority to a tribunal run by a network of corporate entities. Further, this structure stretches the concept of state sovereignty because the DIFC courts claim jurisdiction over any corporation that is registered in the DIFC regardless of where it actually operates. As such, the DIFC courts effectively operate with a deterritorialized form of sovereignty. Abrahamian criticizes this framework for existing solely for elite actors and potentially creating cover for human rights abuses in authoritarian regimes like the Emirates and Kazakhstan.

Abrahamian is likewise critical of the extraterritorial exceptions to national laws created by the United States and Australia to exclude or expel migrants from human rights protections. She describes how the United States unilaterally leases territory from Cuba to hold migrants seeking asylum. In the no man’s land of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detainees are at once under American jurisdiction while not benefiting from the rights guaranteed them by the US Constitution, such as the right to habeas corpus or a trial. Australia used this system as a model when establishing its island detention centers for migrants in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

Abrahamian is a proponent of open borders, or the notion that people in a globalized society should be allowed to move as freely as goods and capital. She acknowledges, though, that “few people, and fewer policymakers, share [her] views” (130). As a result, she sees charter cities and the model of the Norwegian territory of Svalbard as potential compromises. A charter city as proposed by Paul Romer is a city governed by one country in the territory of another country; charter cities welcome people from all over the world. Abrahamian suggests that this model of sovereignty “may offer an alternative to the limited, depressing, dangerous options on offer” (126). Similarly, she is intrigued by the laws governing Svalbard: No visas are required and anyone who can reach the territory and survive there is permitted to stay. She recognizes the limitations of this, as people who do not have the resources to survive in the harsh Arctic climate would be unable to live there, but she values it as a possible model for an open border equivalent system.

Abrahamian avoids moral absolutism about these differing forms of state sovereignty. Instead, she insists, “I don’t think they can be definitively written off as all good or all evil” (311). She criticizes elements she thinks are damaging, while encouraging consideration of elements that could be beneficial.