Bodin argued that sovereignty is indivisible and absolute and that it should be concentrated in a single, unified authority within the state. The work of Grotius demonstrated, at the same time, recognition that such international law existed, but he confined sovereign power within a state with its own laws. On the other hand, Hobbes built, through “Leviathan,” the very thought of the sovereign as a person, holding all political authority within him to assure that citizens were protected and contented.

Time has passed, and as understanding has grown, there have been different theoretical perspectives about sovereignty that might either challenge or extend the concept of sovereignty. For example, pluralist theory on sovereignty, which presupposes the presence of multiple and diverse sources of power beside the central one. Whereas, Leon Duguit and Hugo Krabbe were of the opinion that sovereignty cannot be understood as an absolute power for sovereignty was, in fact, a set of legal and political relations in complex and dispersed arrangements of power.

With such theoretical discourses, the practice of sovereignty has also undergone tremendous changes. The emergence of international organizations, the increased interdependence of the world economy, and the increasing problems of climate change and terrorism have put enormous pressure on the conventional concept of state sovereignty. The contemporary nation-state needs to find an equation of individual sovereignty and the imperatives of international cooperation and collective action.

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 makes prominent the core principles of pluralism, which recognises that there are several sources of authority. These are often conflicting and compete against each other. Under this school of thought, it cannot be argued that sovereignty is absolute or undivided; it is something constantly negotiated and an evolving concept. Notable pluralists who have contributed towards the growth of this body of theory are A.D. Lindsey, Ernest Barker, H.J. Laski, and R.M. MacIver.

Another important theoretical approach to sovereignty is the “Constitutionalist” approach, which finds a basis for sovereign power in constitutional limitations and the rule of law. Amongst proponents of this approach are Jeremy Bentham and J.J. Rousseau, who argue that legitimacy of sovereign power rests squarely on the consent of people, as expressed in either a social contract or within a constitutional framework.

The complexity and diversity of the theoretical framework concerning sovereignty best illustrate this concept. While the tradition of their absolutist, central authority dominated a significant part of the discussion about sovereignty, pluralist and constitutionalist perspectives were called upon to unsettle this very perception about it, focusing on how sovereignty is limited, distributed, and bargained in 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.

Author: Amrita Pradhan, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to [email protected] or at IIPRD. 

References

• Jean Bodin, Six Books of the Commonwealth (M.J. Tooley trans., Basil Blackwell 1955) (1576).
• Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli Ac Pacis Libri Tres (Francis W. Kelsey trans., Clarendon Press 1925) (1625).
• Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Richard Tuck ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 1996) (1651).
• John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (Wilfrid E. Rumble ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 1995) (1832).
• Leon Duguit, Law in the Modern State (Frida and Harold Laski trans., B.W. Huebsch 1919).
• Hugo Krabbe, The Modern Idea of the State (George H. Sabine & Walter Shephard trans., D. Appleton & Co. 1922).
• D. Lindsey, The Modern Democratic State (Oxford Univ. Press 1943).
• Ernest Barker, Principles of Social and Political Theory (Clarendon Press 1951).
• J. Laski, A Grammar of Politics (George Allen & Unwin Ltd. 1925).
• M. MacIver, The Modern State (Oxford Univ. Press 1926).
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract and Discourses (G.D.H. Cole trans., J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd. 1993) (1762).
• Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (J.H. Burns & H.L.A. Hart eds., Athlone Press 1970) (1789)