‘Quasi’, ‘nominal’, ‘failed’ or ‘rogue’ are just a couple of adjectives used in contemporary political discourse to categorize states within the international community. That these are not issues of mere name-calling or empty rhetorics, follows from the direct link between labelling and the legi¬timation of political actions: development assistance and trade in the case of friends, contain¬ment in the case of foes. In this context a comparison is often made to the discredited Standard of Civilization. Rogues and failed states, like the barbarian and savage communities in the nineteenth century, are constructed as outlaws, setting them literally outside the legal order. Whereas at face value this comparison is not too farfetched, there is at least one crucial difference: contemporary rogues are members of the international community and do have international legal personality. With a focus on the productive power of law, this paper analyzes the popular parallel between barbarians and rogues in terms of legal impersonation. It will specifically analyse law as a practice of in- and exclusion through the very principle of sovereign equality coupled with a logic of difference.
