​Abstract

This article examines the political and symbolic dynamics of capital relocation during wartime, focusing on Sudan’s 2023 shift from Khartoum to Port Sudan. While existing scholarship on limited statehood and symbolic legitimacy has emphasised the importance of territorial control and capitals as centres of authority, it has not explained how governments navigate the loss of symbolic centres without conceding sovereignty. The article conceptualises relocation as a performative process through which sovereignty is sustained under conditions of territorial loss. It shows that functional continuity can sustain international recognition despite territorial loss, while symbolic ambiguity shapes how authority is interpreted domestically. It further argues that ambiguity may be sustained as part of a broader set of adaptive governance practices under pressure. Empirically, the study draws on 10 elite interviews, policy documents and documentary analysis, with selective comparative references to Libya and Yemen used in an illustrative manner to situate the Sudan case. The findings indicate that Sudan’s undeclared, internal relocation preserved international recognition through incumbency and functionality but eroded domestic legitimacy due to symbolic ambiguity. By foregrounding ambiguity as a mode of governance, the article contributes to debates on sovereignty and wartime governance, showing how states under siege manage the tension between recognition, legitimacy and survival.​

Click here to read the full article