Overlapping sovreignty?

In the chapter on multiple and overlapping sovereignties, there is an anecdote about the transition from Pre-British ownership India to colonial Indian. (beginning on page 191) The land ownership situation began with land-owners and cultivators. Their rights of ownership are defined differently from Locke’s definition: the landowners own a title to a constant share of production (and serve as the intermediate between the cultivator and the government), and the cultivator has rights to occupy and cultivate the land, but could not alienate it by any means to another. When the British colonized India, they transitioned in their own taxes, changed the land ownership system to their own, and eventually eliminated the Indian land ownership situation. However, there was a time in between when a land-owner’s land was their sovereign property, but the rights of trees and their fruits were still vested in those families who had planted them, regardless of the official ownership of the land on which they were planted.

This overlap of sovereignties is evident when looking at political borders versus multinational corporation properties, communications technologies, religions, etc. I think that this overlapping of sovereignties an accurate description of the current organization of international relations. However, in this kind of system, how would the order of sovereignties be communicated and enforced? It is funny in class to talk about opening up diplomatic relations with Shell or IBM...but what if their sovreignty was recognized by the world? Albiet, by Inayatullah and Blaney's text, this acknowledgement of sovreignty would lead to awareness of the "contact zone" and thus better relations. As I try to imagine a world where there are different kinds of sovreignty, I wonder if it is even possible for one organization to keep track of them all.