Shared and Overlapping Sovereignty

Discussion

Trent MacDonald:

"The concepts of shared and overlapping sovereignty are foundational to non-territorial polycentric governance, offering a flexible and innovative approach to managing complex, multi-layered societies.

These ideas challenge the traditional Westphalian model of sovereignty, which emphasises indivisible and exclusive authority within fixed territorial boundaries.

Instead, shared and overlapping sovereignty introduce a more fluid and adaptable model where multiple authorities coexist and cooperate across different levels of governance. This approach is particularly relevant in non-territorial contexts, where jurisdictional boundaries are fluid and interdependent, allowing for a more dynamic response to the governance needs of diverse communities.

Shared sovereignty involves the distribution of sovereign powers between multiple actors or jurisdictions, often spanning various levels of governance. Overlapping sovereignty, on the other hand, refers to the coexistence of different governance structures that exercise authority within the same territory or over the same population. These concepts challenge the traditional view of sovereignty as an absolute and exclusive domain, instead proposing a model where authority is distributed and shared among various stakeholders, each with their own areas of influence (Krasner 2004; Salter & Young 2019).

Historically, polycentric governance systems, such as those in medieval Europe, exemplify the principles of overlapping sovereignty. The Holy Roman Empire, for example, was characterised by a decentralised governance structure where various principalities, duchies, free cities, and ecclesiastical territories exercised varying degrees of sovereignty. These entities often had overlapping jurisdictions, allowing for a more nuanced and context-specific approach to governance that accommodated the diverse needs and identities of the population (Salter & Young 2019).

This historical precedent illustrates how overlapping sovereignty can function effectively, providing valuable insights into its application in contemporary governance.

In modern contexts, the rigid boundaries of traditional territorial governance often exacerbate conflicts and hinder the effective management of diversity. By distributing sovereign authority among multiple actors, shared and overlapping sovereignty offer a means to accommodate the complex realities of contemporary societies, particularly in regions with significant ethnic, cultural, or political diversity. This model allows for governance structures that are more responsive to the specific needs of different communities, enabling them to exercise autonomy while remaining part of a broader political entity (Krasner 2004).

In intrastate governance, shared sovereignty is particularly effective in promoting self-determination and resolving conflicts. The concept of earned sovereignty, as discussed by Williams (2011), involves the gradual transfer of sovereign powers to a group as it demonstrates its capacity for governance and commitment to peace. This process often includes shared sovereignty arrangements, where the group exercises increasing levels of authority while remaining under the oversight of a larger governing entity. This model has been applied in various conflict resolution contexts, enabling groups to gain autonomy and self-determination without destabilising the broader political order (Williams 2011; Matanock 2014).

One contemporary example of overlapping sovereignty is the European Union (EU), which operates as a multi-level governance system where authority is shared and exercised at different levels— supranational, national, and subnational. Member states retain significant sovereign powers, but they also cede certain powers to EU institutions, creating a system of overlapping jurisdictions. This arrangement allows the EU to address issues that transcend national borders, such as trade, environmental protection, and human rights, while also respecting the sovereignty of its member states. The EU’s governance structure demonstrates the potential of overlapping sovereignty to manage complex, multi-ethnic regions and provide a model for similar arrangements in other parts of the world (Mardanov 2023).

The concept of polycentric sovereignty further expands on the idea of shared sovereignty by emphasising the existence of multiple, autonomous centres of decision-making within a single governance framework. In polycentric systems, sovereignty is not concentrated in a single, monolithic authority but is distributed across various actors and levels of governance, creating a network of overlapping jurisdictions (Aligica & Tarko 2012). This decentralisation allows for more tailored and contextspecific governance solutions, as different communities or groups can exercise autonomy within their respective spheres while still participating in broader governance structures.

The concept of “constitutional catallaxy” offers an additional dimension to the framework of shared and overlapping sovereignty. Drawing on the work of F.A. Hayek, constitutional catallaxy refers to the spontaneous order that emerges from the interactions of various governance structures within a polycentric system. This idea suggests that rather than being centrally designed, governance can evolve organically through the competition and cooperation of multiple jurisdictions, each operating under its own rules and norms. Novak (2023) emphasises that constitutional catallaxy enables a more dynamic and adaptable form of governance, where legal and institutional frameworks are not imposed from above but emerge from the bottom-up interactions of diverse communities. In the context of non-territorial governance, this concept reinforces the idea that overlapping jurisdictions can coexist and evolve without a singular authority, thereby enhancing the flexibility and resilience of governance systems in addressing the needs of complex, multi-layered societies.

The idea of sovereignty entrepreneurship adds another layer to this discussion by highlighting the role of non-state actors in creating and managing sovereign-like entities. These entities—such as private cities, blockchain-based governance systems, or special economic zones— operate outside traditional state structures, offering alternative governance frameworks that often involve overlapping jurisdictions and shared authority. These examples demonstrate how sovereignty can be reimagined in non-territorial contexts, where the traditional state-centric model of governance is increasingly inadequate to address the complexities of globalisation and technological innovation (Brauer & Haywood 2011). In non-territorial governance, shared sovereignty can also be adapted to allow different communities within a state to govern themselves in areas of particular significance to their identity without seeking to redraw territorial boundaries. For example, Indigenous groups might exercise sovereignty over cultural and educational matters while sharing governance over natural resources or economic policies with national or regional authorities. This arrangement allows for the recognition and preservation of distinct cultural identities and governance practices while fostering cooperation and coordination on issues that transcend local or cultural boundaries (Keal 2007).

While shared and overlapping sovereignty offer significant potential for managing diversity and promoting self-determination, these models also present several challenges. One of the primary concerns is the issue of legitimacy, particularly when sovereignty is shared between multiple actors, including non-state entities. Establishing the legitimacy of each actor’s authority, especially in the eyes of the governed population, can be difficult, particularly when external actors are involved. Additionally, the complexity of managing overlapping jurisdictions can lead to coordination challenges, particularly in regions with weak governance institutions or where there is significant resistance to non-traditional governance models (Krasner 2004).

Another challenge is the potential for confusion and conflict between different authorities, particularly in cases where the division of powers is not clearly defined. Overlapping sovereignty can lead to jurisdictional disputes and competition between different governance bodies, which may undermine the effectiveness of governance. Furthermore, shared sovereignty can be perceived as a threat to the traditional notion of state sovereignty, particularly by central authorities that may be reluctant to cede control to local or external actors (Williams 2011; Matanock 2014). Despite these challenges, the flexible and adaptive nature of shared and overlapping sovereignty offers significant potential for addressing the governance needs of diverse, complex societies. By allowing multiple authorities to coexist and share responsibilities, these models can provide a pathway to more inclusive, equitable, and effective governance, both within states and in the broader international context.

In conclusion, the concepts of shared and overlapping sovereignty are integral to the development of non-territorial polycentric governance models. These ideas challenge the traditional state-centric view of sovereignty, offering a more flexible and inclusive approach to governance that is better suited to the complexities of contemporary societies.

By integrating concepts such as polycentric sovereignty, sovereignty entrepreneurship, and constitutional catallaxy, these models provide a comprehensive framework for reimagining governance in both intrastate and international contexts. They hold significant potential for promoting stability, self-determination, and innovation in governance, offering new pathways for managing the complexities of an increasingly diverse and fragmented world."

(https://isonomiaquarterly.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/macdonald-pfwo.pdf)