Discussion note Thank you for correcting me!! I really appreciate and please feel free to ask for help in Spanish or Catalan. In the first part of this chapter the author stresses different point of view of scholars and two positions are clear: globalist and statist. However, it seems generally acknowledged that anyone will take one or other extreme because both proposals expose just a difference of degree in a continuation. Thus, from one hand, we find scholars or international lawyers who adopt a merely descriptive position of the current sovereignty conception called either descriptive statist or descriptive globalist. And on the other hand, we find authors who describe either one or other situation and claim their desire to change the way it is: normative statist or normative globalists. After reading the Alvarez’ text one can say that he takes an implicit normative assumption since from the very begging, he stresses that we have a Westphalian system. However, through the text he underlines that there has been a rather global system and points out that states’ sovereignty is not in decline since there are states that found in the old-fashioned Wesphalian model answers to the democratic and legitimacy deficits of the current International Institutions. For this reason, he describes and acknowledges a reality, we live in a globalized world that interacts through international institutions, but since the current system does not work anymore they, including him, manifest their desire to change the way it is and go back to the wesphalian conception of sovereignty. As the author, I do not think that the sovereignty of the states is withering totally away but I would rather believe that States had agreed to adapt their sovereignty to the new globalized society and this tendency still taking place in different fields.