This page gathers a selection of materials from more than twenty years of continuous research, writing and teaching on state sovereignty, territorial disputes and sovereignty conflicts. The pieces presented here are samples only. They illustrate key lines of inquiry rather than exhaust them. Readers seeking the fuller body of work will find extended analyses, case studies and theoretical developments across this website, in peer-reviewed articles, and especially in the Routledge trilogy that explains my vision: Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics (2017), Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty (2020), and Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory (2023/24). Further developments of the same framework appear in later volumes such as Territorial Disputes in the Americas (2025/26) and other ongoing publications.
At the heart of this body of work lies a deliberate shift from unidimensional to multidimensional thinking. Sovereignty is never treated as an absolute, monolithic or purely state-centric attribute. Instead, the research advances the notions of a “pluralism of pluralisms” and a multidimensional approach: the recognition that sovereignty involves multiple agents and players (individuals, communities, states and others), multiple contexts (local, regional, international), multiple realms (rational, empirical, axiological), and the variables of time and space. This framework allows sovereignty and cosmopolitanism to be understood as compatible rather than antagonistic, and opens pathways toward more equitable, durable forms of conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
Importantly, the same logic of sovereignty runs through every level of analysis. What begins as an examination of state claims over territory extends, without contradiction, to the sovereignty of communities, to the self-sovereignty of the individual, and to the sovereignty of the higher self. The pages collected here therefore sit within a single, coherent intellectual project: the exploration of how limited, relational and multidimensional sovereignty can be practised — whether in the contested spaces of international politics or in the inner governance of the self — so that conflict becomes less inevitable and peaceful arrangements more attainable.
