Conceptual Theories of Sovereignty
Historically, sovereignty has been discussed and examined extensively within the theoretical and philosophical paradigms. Innumerable thinkers have presented alternative models of explaining the character, range, and limits of sovereign authority in a state.
One of the leading views in sovereignty is held by the British philosopher John Austin, who propounded the “command theory of law.” According to Austin, sovereignty was the supreme, absolute, and undivided power of the state. He believed it is vested in the person of the sovereign, who issues commands that should be obeyed by the people. Though this concept of sovereignty as a centralized, absolute authority has been very influential, it has also received grave criticism.
The pluralist theory of sovereignty denies the idea of a monistic, unitary sovereign. It is also interesting to note that such thinkers as Leon Duguit and Hugo Krabbe have maintained that sovereignty does not denote a singular power but represents rather a complex web of legal and political relations through which the distribution of authority within a state takes shape. According to the pluralist approach, there are various sources of sovereignty-including the people, various political institutions, and even international bodies.
This approach brings to focus the prime tenets of pluralism—recognizing that many authorities exist, that there is always plurality, and at times many authorities are in competition,-again arguing for it, it cannot be thought that sovereignty is vast and absolute -it is never whole, or undivided, negotiation only signifying a concept in the process of constant evolution. The major pluralist theorists in the setting up of the theory include, E.A. Lindsay, Ernet Barker, H.J. Laski, and R.M. MacIver.
On the other hand, one of the important theoretical discourses of sovereignty is the Constitutionalists’ approach that grounds sovereign power in constitutional limitations and the Rule of Law. Jeremy Bentham and J.J. Rousseau are recognized proponents of this: the contractarianists stating estimably the notion that the legitimate exercise of sovereign power is made possible purely by the expressed consent of the people, usually manifested through social contract or constitutional expression.
The complexity and multiplicity of the theoretical framework around sovereignty best exemplifies this concept, as whilst a large part of the discussions on sovereignty referred to the domination of absolutist, centralized authority, pluralist and constitutional perspectives raised the call to unsettle this perception, focus, rather, on how sovereignty is limited, distributed, and bargained within modern governance.
Replete and still continuous discussions and conflicts regarding theoretical paradigms underscore the fluid nature and the controversial character of sovereignty as, progressively throughout the global system, so shaped by the growing importance of the “so far minor” transnational institutions or worldwide-governance concepts and threats to the model-type-nation-state.
Types of Sovereignty
Sovereignty is understood in many ways based on the context and aspects considered. Deliberations between scholars on the issue of sovereignty usually establish a number of different forms or types of sovereignty, representing the various aspects of this multidimensional concept.
Legal sovereignty and political sovereignty are two concepts that are basically different from one another. Legal sovereignty is that absolute and paramount power exercised by a state over its territory and citizens as recognized by international law. Such sovereignty is grounded on the principle of non-interference. Interference by an external state in the internal affairs of a sovereign state is prohibited. Fundamentally speaking, legal sovereignty grants a state the right to single authority over power within its territorial domain without external influence or supervision.
The internal distribution and exercise of power within a state refers to political sovereignty. In other words, it is about who has the last say regarding the decision and how this final say is implemented. Political sovereignty can also be subdivided into de jure and de facto sovereignty.
De jure sovereignty pertains to the power as found in the constitution, the legal frameworks and structures whereby a state has recognized authority. That is the officially given or accepted sovereignty, by law, bestowed upon the government, or the governing powers, agents. De facto sovereignty means, therefore, the actual functional and effective authority, influence, and power which a state exercises over its land and people regardless of statutory or constitutional authority.
The distinction between de jure and de facto sovereignty holds much importance in circumstances where there exists a variance between the official legal status of a state and its actual, practical exercise of governance. For example, a state may enjoy legal sovereignty over a certain territory but lack the capacity or resources to exercise real governance over that area, hence reducing its de facto sovereignty.
This principle of popular sovereignty, putting emphasis on the ultimate source of sovereign power lying within the people rather than within the state, has been a much-debated and a keenly inquired concept. For example, the philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke held that state sovereignty derives legitimate power from the consent of people being governed and further contended that citizens have power over amending or abolishing a government if it neglects to do its duties.
The different classifications of sovereignty which have been discussed above underwrite the multiple essence of this concept. These are crucial distinctions for understanding the complex realities of the state power, nature of relationships inherent in international relations, and the continued discussions surrounding the nature and limits of sovereign authority in today’s society.
State Sovereignty in the Contemporary World
The very notion of sovereignty is, by its nature, closely related to the birth and growth of the modern nation-state system. The Westphalian model of international relations, dating back to the 17th century, had definitely established the concept of state sovereignty as the basis of the international order. The Westphalian model, that placed the sovereign state at the center of international relations, held the monopoly on governing its territory and people free from interference from other states.
The principle of territorial integrity and the exclusive right to use legitimate force within its territory is the core of sovereignty in the modern state. The state, as the ultimate political authority, has a capacity to enact and enforce laws, raise taxes, and protect the sovereignty from both internal and external threats. This concentration of power within the state was deemed necessary for maintaining social order, creating national unity, and ensuring the security of the people.
Author-Amrita Pradhan, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.
References
- Jean Bodin, “Six Books of the Republic” (1576) – A foundational text on the concept of sovereignty and the notion of absolute and indivisible authority.
- Thomas Hobbes, “Leviathan” (1651) – Discusses the necessity of a sovereign authority for societal order.
- John Austin, “The Province of Jurisprudence Determined” (1832) – Explains the command theory of law and sovereignty.
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “The Social Contract” (1762) – Advocates for popular sovereignty and the consent of the governed.
- J. Laski, “Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty” (1917) – A critical examination of absolute sovereignty, supporting pluralist views.