One of Marx’s central and most enduring insights, as concisely expressed in the 1859 preface to his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, concerns the transformative effects of economic change. As the material forces of production develop, they sooner or later enter into conflict with the existent relations of production and with the political and juridical patterns, the so-called superstructure, in which these relations are expressed. The inevitable consequence, according to Marx, is a period of transformation in which society’s superstructure, including its moral, aesthetic, and philosophical forms, is revolutionalized so as to adapt it to the new material circumstances.

“Sovereignty” was not always there. What is called “sovereignty” today emerged under certain historical conditions at a certain time and in a certain place, and it can disappear or lose its meaning if the conditions change. Some authors assume that this has already happened so that we find ourselves in a post-sovereign era. The best way to ascertain whether they are right seems to be a reconstruction of the conditions under which sovereignty originally emerged, followed by an analysis as to whether the conditions have changed in the meantime, and, if so, how the changes affect sovereignty. Without such a historical assessment it is difficult to understand the present situation.