CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NYAYA NAGAR,

MITHAPUR, PATNA-800001

“THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY”

FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FUILFILMENT OF THE COURSE

TITLED-

INDIAN POLITY

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. S. P. SINGH NAME: AAYUSH KUMAR

FACULTY OF INDIAN POLITY COURSE: BBA LL.B (HONS.)

SEMESTER: 1ST

ROLL NO. : 2201

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I, AAYUSH KUMAR, student of Chanakya National Law University, hereby declare that
the work reported in the BBA LL.B (Hons.) Project Report titled “CONCEPT OF
SOVEREIGNTY” submitted at Chanakya National Law University is an authentic record of
my work carried out under the supervision of Dr. S.P. Singh. I have not submitted this work
elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of my
Project Report.

(SIGNATURE OF CANDIDATE)

NAME OF CANDIDATE: AAYUSH KUMAR

ROLL NO: 2201

COURSE: B.B.A LL.B ( Hons.)

SEMESTER : 1st

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my faculty Dr. S.P. Singh whose guidance helped me a lot with
structuring my project.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me immensely

with materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have completed it in the
present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands that helped
me out at every stage of my project.

THANK YOU,

NAME: Aayush Kumar

COURSE: BBA. LL.B. (Hons.)

ROLL NO: 2201

SEMESTER – 1ST

3
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION
2. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY
3. SOME DEFINITIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY
4. TYPES OF SOVEREIGNTY
5. BASIC INGREDIENTS AND NATURE OF SOVEREIGNTY
6. CONCLUSION
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

4
 INTRODUCTION

The concept of sovereignty has been a riddle to political scientists; for its reality and its
facade generally evinced incongruous features. Moreover, its various interpretations and
political manoeuvring made it all the more complex. The reason was that all the explanations
were intended to justify either the hypothesis of the scholars or the political manipulations of
statesmen.

Sometimes, sovereignty was considered as an exclusive preserve of the church directly

bestowed by God. Later on rebellious secularism justified it as a "supreme power over
citizens and subjects unrestrained by law" it was later said to manifest itself in the "General
Will" of people and made wholly responsible was limited to them.

Similarly, the metamorphosis of sovereignty at international plane was confronted with the
challenges by national determination, limitations by international law and binding self-force
of international organizations. National sovereignty engulfed in complex world economy was
usurped by the wild growth of transnational organizations and fast international
communications.

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY

ORIGIN

The theory of sovereignty emerged as an attempt to identify and analyse the centre of power
in the society. Jean Bodin ( 1530-1596) was the first political philosopher to develop a
comprehensive theory of sovereignty. In his celebrated work De Republique of 1577 he
defined sovereignty as "the absolute and perpetual power within the state". Bodin reinforced
the policy of centralisation of power with the French Monarchy against the feudal lords and

5
rejected the claims of superiority by the Pope and the Emperor. His emphasis was that "the
political bond may be self-sufficient even though the political· community be divided by
differences of religion and by the survival of local customary, and class immunities. The
essential element of the political community is the presence of a common sovereign". His
analysis of sovereign power of the state distinguished it from all other human organisations.
"According to Bodin, such power is the supreme power within a State without any restriction
whatsoever except the Commandments of God and the Law of Nature". As a corollary to this
notion, the sovereign possessing supreme power was not himself bound by the laws he made.
It was unrestrained by law because the sovereign was the source of law.Hence, no
constitution could limit by the laws sovereign was sovereignty.

With Hobbes ( 1588 - 1679), as in his Leviathan ( 1651), sovereignty was depicted as
absolute and free from any limit. He maintained that a sovereign was not bound by anything
and had a right over everything. Sovereignty was described as supreme authority. All powers
were centred in the monarch. It became his personal attribute. In Hobbesian conception", the
sovereign was representative but not responsible".

John Locke and Jean Jacques Rouseau seriously attempted to democratise the sovereign
power. The interpretations of sovereignty highlighted the words "people", "general will" as
the sovereign. The French Revolution in 1789 adopted these ideas and was purportedly
typical analysis placed in the hands of political systems. Save the typical analysis of the
political systems, the state sovereignty, remained an arbitrary power; for they were mere
idealization of the brute force. But as a result masses sunk in poverty and superstition
permitted kings and governments to exercise arbitrary sway" and the term sovereignty was
still to be attributed to "personal command". States with individual sovereigns particular
entered into or broke treaties in a way which citizens would not contemplate. Thus, in
international relations, sovereigns remained beyond any significant control.

Hegal ( 1770-1831) also enunciated the theory of unlimited sovereignty which ultimately led
to the use of concept of sovereignty in support of totalitarianism and expansionism. The
sovereign was personified with the state rule and his greatness was embodied in the greatness

6
of his state. Many international lawyers, particularly in Germany, developed the doctrine of
sovereignty to the point it became a veritable threat to international order. "The claim to
unlimited external sovereignty would amount to the negation of international law and reduce
it to a system of international morality". Consequently, several western scholars of twentieth
century, as the eminent French international lawyer George Scelle and Harvard's Hans Kelsen
denounced the absolutist concept of state sovereignty and attempted to replace it with a
notion of the international legal order.

DEVELOPMENT

RISE OF SOVEREIGN NATION

The history of the notion of sovereignty shows that the meaning of a concept is related to the
civilisation prevailing at a certain period and a major change in the political environment may
entail a new meaning or nuance. "The sovereignty of the state is a historical condition which
arises from the breakdown of the medieval Republica Christina of the Middle Ages". The era
of state sovereignty began with the end of the Middle Ages. The notion of sovereignty was
used by territorial rulers in justifying the influence of their aspirations to free themselves
from the Emperor and the Pope.The word sovereign was used in France for an authority,
political or other, which had no other authority above itself. The urge for sovereign powers
among dissolution of the empires "sovereign equality" where themselves all the rights
European princes resulted in and the emergence of a new age of even the smallest states
arrogated to and trappings of sovereignty. A Yugoslavian authority observed:

The ruler strove to unshackle his authority from the limitations of the medieval order, indeed
from all forms of limitation, to achieve "an authority which did not depend upon any other
authority", an authority "sovereign" in the literal, etymological sense of the term.

Sovereignty in external aspects meant real independence claimed exclusive on all questions
from any superior authority jurisdiction and control and internally it within the state including

7
that of religion. This claim broadly coincided with· the realities of European society in the
transitional period from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance.

END OF NATION STATE

The age of nationalism gave a new character to the concept of sovereignty. The French
Revolution in its Declaration of Rights of Man of 1789 declared that "the Principle of all
sovereignty rests essentially in the nation". Thus nationalisation assimilated the doctrine of
sovereignty for its own ends. During eithteenth century, the national upsurge came into
conflict with the traditional monoarchial and imperial forces of sovereignty challenging it
both domestically and internationally. People's demands for independence under the banner
of nationalism resulted in dissolution of the Empire of Turkey, Austria-Hungary and Russia.
A diverse repercussion of nationalism was observed as unifying factor among the peoples
which were previously divided into separate ethnicities and other entities. Major states, such
as Germany and Italy achieved unification in this period, smaller states such as Serbia,
Montenegro, Bulgaria, and Rumania, became for the first time independent national states.
Nationalist ideology professed the goal of ethnic self-determination, the creation of polities in
which each ethnic group would be free to exercise its natural right to national sovereignty
Thus sovereignty was, in fact, the product of the age of the nation-state. Nation, state and
sovereignty were closely bound up with one another in the era of the nation-state.

Rise of capitalism gave impetus to nationalism. The bourgeoisie took the lead in the struggle
against medieval feudalism, as well as in the organisation of nations and of centralised
national states. A Soviet authority Victor Shevtsov observed:

The urge for national independence, free political self-determination, and formation of
national states, arises at the very birth of nations at the dawn of capitalism.

The national principle emerged as the basic foundation of state sovereignty. Bertrand Russell
viewed in 1917 that a good international system essentially required the boundaries of states
to coincide as nearly as possible with the boundaries of nations. On the other hand,

8
competitive nationalism intensified the assertion of sovereign powers among existing nations
which increasingly influenced the attitudes and actions of the major states resulting into
expansionism and wars in the international society.

AGE OF IDEOLOGY

The outbreak of World War I focussed on dangerous influences of national sovereignty on

international society and mankind. International law and international organisations were
devised to control the unbridled sovereignty of nations. On the other hand communist
ideology gained prominence in the early years of the twentieth century which hampered
nationalism. The October Revolution in Russia devoted to the promotion of ideological ends
than to national goals. Under the impact of ideology, the process of internationalisation
resulted in supersession of national loyalties by ideological loyalties. This major shift of state
policy caused external stability coupled with internal instability. The adherents of one
particular ideology could betray their own nation for the sake of their political faith. The
communist party of India was accused of supporting the British during the Second World
War in the midst of freedom struggle.

The allegiance to ideology prompted nations to form alliances and engage in joint endeavours
to further the interest of their political faith. After 1945 the Soviet Union secured the
accession to power of loyal communist governments throughout the Eastern Europe, while
the U.S.A. successfully strove to achieve the same in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic,
Laos and other sensitive areas. During the post-World War period there emerged new
ideological doctrines antagonistic to both the main rival creeds of U.S. led democracy and
Soviet led communism. The process led to deeper ideological confrontation between the two
victorious forces of communism and democracy which were to dominate the world scene for
long. Under the influence of community interests or an ideological alliance the intensity of
the cooperative conduct pattern of nations impelled· in many instances, the abdication of
internal or external autonomy. This could be characterized as intervention by the traditional
norms of sovereignty which no sovereign state normally would have accepted. The
phenomenon of military alliances and cold war led to the different interpretations of national

9
sovereignty which were not always compatible with the general principles of international
relations.

POST-COMMUNIST WORLD

The de-ideologisation of Eastern Europe and disintegration of the Soviet Union virtually
marked the end of the role of ideology in international relations. Assertion of national
sovereignty in Eastern Europe under the liberal atmosphere of Perestroika proved
irreversible. National ethnic upsurge launched the quest for identity and national sovereignty
in the post -Communist world. Recent events prove that national sovereignty has emerged as
a major fulcrum of change in international politics especially in the erstwhile communist
world.

SOME DEFINITIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY

Sovereignty is “the supreme power over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law”. – Bodin

Sovereignty is “the supreme political power vested in him whose acts are not subject to any
other and whose will cannot be overridden” – Grotius

Sovereignty is “the supreme irresistible absolute, uncontrolled authority in which the

supreme legal power resides”. – Blackstone

Sovereignty is “the commanding power of the state: it is the will of the nation organised in
the state: it is the right to give unconditional orders to all individuals in the territory of the
state”. – Duguit

Sovereignty is “the supreme will of the state.” Willoughly

Sovereignty is “the exercise of final legal coercive power by the state”. – Soltaire

10
Sovereignty is “the concept which maintains no more-if no less-than that there must be an
ultimate authority within the political society if the society is to exist at all”. – Hinsley

Sovereignty means “the political authority within a community which has the undisputed
right to determine the framework of rules, regulations and policies within a given territory
and to govern accordingly”. – David Held

MEANING OF SOVEREIGNTY

The above mentioned definitions of sovereignty project the traditional view of sovereignty,
which emphasised the following points:

i) Sovereignty is an attribute of the state.

ii) It is the supreme will of the state.
iii) It is a legal coercive power of the state.
iv) The sovereign makes the laws and extracts obedience from the people.
v) Sovereignty lies in a person or a body of persons.
vi) The power of the sovereign is absolute and unlimited.

TYPES OF SOVEREIGNTY

The term sovereignty has been used in many ways in Political Science that makes its
comprehension very difficult. Therefore, it is necessary to understand its varied uses.

Real and Titular Sovereignty

A distinction is often made between real and titular sovereignty. In fact, this distinction came
about due to a unique development in English Constitutional system. Initially, the king was
all powerful and actually exercised his powers. But with the development of democracy, the
king was devoid of his powers and the parliament became supreme. However, the English

11
people loved monarchy and did not abolish it. Instead, the powers of the king were
transferred to an institution called the Crown. The monarchy in England still exists and all the
powers are exercised in the name of the king or the queen but the real sovereign is the Crown.
This distinction also exists in countries where the parliamentary form of government is
prevalent. Like, in India, where the president is the titular head while the real sovereign is the
prime minister and his cabinet. In a country like the United States of America, no such
distinction exists as the president is said to be both real as well as the titular sovereign. But
this distinction makes sovereignty more an attribute of the government rather than that of the
state.

Legal and Political Sovereignty

Another distinction is made between legal and political sovereignty. The legal sovereign is a
constitutional concept, which means the identification of the holder or holders of power in the
legal sense. There cannot be any confusion regarding the person or persons who exercise the
power of sovereignty in the eyes of law. The legal sovereign commands and makes the law
and such commands and laws are to be obeyed by the people. In case of violation, it is
equipped with the necessary powers to punish the offender. Legal sovereign is determinate,
all comprehensive and possesses coercive powers to implement its law and command. Thus,
the authority of the legal sovereign is characterised by legal sanctity in which no individual or
association can claim immunity. The best example of legal sovereignty is the British
Parliament which, as one political scientist puts it, “may remodel the British Constitution,
may prolong its life, may legalise illegalities… may give dictatorial powers to the
government… may introduce communism, or fascism entirely without legal restriction”. This
position of the British Parliament is also summed up in the saying that it can do everything
except making a man a woman and vice versa, though it may do even that legally. Thus, the
power of the legal sovereign is absolute, without any restriction.

In contrast, the concept of political sovereignty is very vague and confusing. It is pointed out
that behind the legal sovereign lies the political sovereign to which the legal sovereign has to
bow. Political sovereignty is not recognised by the law. It is not determinate also in the sense
that its identification is a very difficult task. Yet its existence cannot be ignored. It influences
and controls the legal sovereign. One writer has identified the political sovereign as the sum
total of all influences, which lie behind the law. In a system of direct democracy where the

12
people participate in law making and decision-making, the distinction between the legal and
the political sovereign is blurred. But in a representative democracy, this distinction becomes
obvious where people participate in law making and decision-making indirectly through their
representatives. In such cases, political sovereignty lies with the electorate, which has the
power to make or unmake a government at regular intervals when the elections are
conducted. In fact, the elections are the best forum in which the will of the political sovereign
is expressed.

Dejure and Defacto Sovereignty

Often the dejure sovereign and the defacto sovereign are the same because the person or
persons holding power are also recognised by the law. The distinction between the two
becomes real in some situations of crisis which may be the result of a coup or any other kind
of violent overthrow of the government. For example in Russia, the communists overthrew
the Tsarist Government. While the law recognised the latter as the holder of power, in reality
the former was in command and using the authority. Similarly, during the First and the
Second World Wars, many countries were defeated by Germany and the German rulers
became defacto rulers, but the laws in the respective countries still recognised the overthrown
government as the ruler. In 1971, as a result of liberation from Pakistan, Bangladesh became
a new country but as per the law, the Pakistani President was the dejure sovereign. In such a
situation, the rule of a defacto ruler is based upon force or on the fact that the situation is
under his control. In contrast, the de jure sovereign has the legal sanctity to rule. However,
this distinction between the two remained for some time, and ultimately they become one.
The defacto ruler makes the necessary changes in the law of the land and thus, becomes the
dejure ruler also.

Concept of Popular Sovereignty

Modern democracy is based on the concept of popular sovereignty which means that the
source of all authority is the people. J.J. Rousseau is credited with espousing it in modern
times. But earlier also, the concept of popular sovereignty was not unknown. In medieval
times, Cicero pointed out that the state was ‘people’s affairs’. He held that the state was a
moral community, a group of persons and the authority arose from the collective power of the
people. Later on, Althusius also said that the people as a corporate body held sovereignty and

13
this power could not be transferred to any other person or organisation. Althusius forcefully
argued that the people as a corporate body gave power of administration to the
administrators, through a contract for specific purposes and the power would go back to the
people, in case they forfeit it due to any reason. Althusius also gave the people the right to
resist tyranny. Similarly, John Locke also based his civil society on the basis of consent of the
people. According to him, the government existed for the welfare of the people and there
could not be any arbitrary rule. To Locke, Government was a trustee constituted through a
social contract for the protection of life, liberty and property of the people. If the government
failed in its duty of protecting the life, liberty and property of the people, they had a right to
rebel against it and overthrow it.

But Rousseau is considered the father of the concept of popular sovereignty. According to
Rousseau, men by their very nature are free and equal and the system of government has to
be based upon the free will of men. This, in turn, can be achieved when the individual enters
into a contract with each other, as a result of which they become an indivisible part of a body
of sovereign people which has the supreme power of lawmaking. Rousseau also made a clear
distinction between the state and the government. To him, the government is merely an agent
of the state having a limited authority. Infact, it is the people who have delegated the power
to rule to the government and this power can be withdrawn by their will. This will of the
people becomes sovereign in Rousseau’s state to which Rousseau gave the name of the
General Will. In Rousseau’s scheme, the sovereign can only act for the welfare of the people.
He writes, “It is impossible for the sovereign body to hurt its members. The sovereign for its
part cannot impose upon members any fetters that are useless to the community”.

According to Asirvatham, the concept of popular sovereignty contains the following valuable
ideas:

i) Government does not exist for its own good. It exists for the good of the people.
ii) If people’s wishes are deliberately violated, there is a possibility of revolution.
iii) Easy means should be provided for a legal way of expressing public opinion.
iv) Government should be held directly responsible to the people through such means as
7 frequent elections, local self-government, referendum, initiative and recall.
v) Government should exercise its authority, directly in accordance with the laws of the
land and not act arbitrarily.

14
The concept of popular sovereignty was accepted as the basic principle of governance in the
American and French revolutions. The American Declaration of Independence expressly
declared,”We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness— that to secure these Rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed....” The
Declaration clearly recognised the people’s right to alter or abolish any government, which
was destructive of the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The
Declaration also noted the fact that the British King had become a tyrant by his acts and
therefore, unfit to be the ruler of a free people. The French Revolution declared, “Men are
born and remain free and equal in rights”. It also pointed out that “right to liberty, property,
security and resistance to oppression are the aim of any political association and the law is
the expression of general will” and all citizens have the right to take part personally or
through their representatives in its formation” and that “all officials of the state are
responsible to the people.”

The concept of popular sovereignty is very attractive. But it is shrouded with vagueness. It is
very difficult to explain it in practical terms. It is good to say that people are the basis of any
political system and their will must be reflected in the governance. But the question is what
does the term people mean? How do we identify them? Obviously the entire mass living in a
state cannot be identified as people because there are infants, invalids, criminals, insolvent,
aliens and others who cannot have any participation in the political system. If they constitute
people then the concept, as such, does not make any sense at all. Even the electorate cannot
be called as people because they do not constitute a political entity. Further, all people do not
participate in the election. Then the elections are won on the basis of majority. So does it
mean that we should equate people with the majority of the electorate? In any case, the
number of electorate in any country is very small in comparison to the total population and
they cannot be regarded as legally sovereign. Infact, the more we go into the details, it is
only confusion and nothing else. If we study the dynamics of modern democracy, we find
that a voter is subjected to many influences and manipulations. People’s choices are
manufactured in the modern age of science and technology and democracy has become
infected with mobocracy. Popular sovereignty may be successful in a small state with a
system of direct democracy where the people directly participate in law making. It may also

15
reflect in devices such as the referendum. But the modern state is a big state with a huge
population. It is also a fact that the business of modern state has become too complex and it
cannot run on the basis of referendum. The concept of popular sovereignty creates another
problem. In the present system of democracy, the ruling elite as well as the opposition claim
to be reflecting the will of the people and in such cases, it becomes increasingly difficult to
discover the truth and if the concept of popular sovereignty is implemented legally, then it
may lead to instability in the government. Yet all said and done, the concept of popular
sovereignty has made a permanent contribution in Political Science because besides
advocating the idea of popular control over the government, it is a strong repudiation of
dictatorship and totalitarianism.

AUSTIN’S CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY

The legal view, also called the monistic view or traditional view of sovereignty, was
propounded by John Austin (1779-1859), a great jurist, in his book, Lectures on
Jurisprudence (1832). According to Austin, “If a determinate human superior, not in the
habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given
society, that determinate superior is sovereign in that society; and the society (including the
superior) is a society, political and independent”. According to Austin, following are the
characteristics of sovereignty:

i) Sovereignty is necessary for the state. Sovereignty is one of the four elements of the
state. There cannot be a state without sovereignty. If state is the body, sovereignty is
its spirit. The state cannot alienate itself from the power of sovereignty. The end of
sovereignty means the end of state.
ii) Sovereignty has to be determinate .It resides in a person or a body of persons. To
Austin, State is a legal order in which the sovereignty can be located very clearly. It
cannot be the people or the electorate or the General Will since all of these are vague
expressions. It is not vested in God also. Sovereign must be a human being or a body
of human beings who can be identified.

16
iii) Sovereign is the supreme power in the state. He is the source of all authority in the
state. His authority is unlimited and absolute. He does not take commands from any
one as nobody has a right to command him. But he commands every one within the
state. His authority is universal and all comprehensive. Sovereignty is independent
from any internal or external control.
iv) The Sovereign receives habitual obedience from the people. Thus, the authority of the
sovereign is not casual. It is continuous, regular, undisturbed and uninterrupted. If a
significant part of the population refuses to accept him and renders disobedience, then
he is no longer a sovereign. Similarly, a short term obedience is not an attribute of
sovereignty. The power of the sovereign has to be permanent in society.
v) Law is the will and the command of the sovereign. He is the source of law. Law is a
command given by a superior to the inferiors who are in a state of subjection or
dependence. Sovereign is above the customs and traditions of society. They exist
with his permission. Whatever the sovereign permits, that alone can exist. The rights
and liberties of the individual also emanate from the sovereign and do restrict the
operation of the individuals’ sovereignty.
vi) Sovereignty has the legitimate physical force to exert command and obedience and
enforce its laws.
vii) The power of sovereignty is exclusive and indivisible. It is a unit in itself that cannot
be divided between two or more persons. Division of sovereignty means its
destruction.

Thus according to Austin, sovereignty is the supreme power of the state that is absolute,
permanent, universal, inalienable, exclusive and indivisible. However, these characteristics
are not acceptable to the pluralists who reject the entire thesis of Austin in toto.

17
 BASIC INGREDIENTS AND NATURE OF SOVEREIGNTY

Internal Supremacy and external Independence

The doctrine of State sovereignty retained from its history its two essential characteristics -
internal supremacy and external independence. In a classical perspective “a sovereign State
was one which exercised undivided authority over all persons and property within its borders
and was independent of direct control of any other power". L. Oppenheim observed the
traditional features of state sovereignty "Sovereignty in the strict and narrowest sense of the
term implies, therefore, independence all around, within and without the borders of the
country". State sovereignty was generally accepted in theoretical terms, as defined by Djura
Nincic, a Yugoslavian authority:

Sovereignty is an essential feature of state power, that it signifies "supremacy" of the state in
its internal and independence- in its external relations.

Sovereignty was the supreme authority by which any state was governed. In its sphere of
operation there was no power within the state which might compete with it. This state power
was original power in the sense that it did not flow from any other authority. Being original
in its essence, it also did not acknowledge any superior to it within or without the state. A
total perspective represented the dual nature of sovereignty. " sovereignty has two facets first
an exclusive competence, and, second, the relative independence of law making entities from
outside intervention" . Traditionally, there was complete absence of subordination to a
foreign authority in international sphere and in domestic affairs it assumed predominance
over any power vested in groups or individuals within the state.

The traditional notion of sovereignty emerged with the rise of territorial state. Sovereignty of
the state appeared as "a centralized power that exercised its law-making and law enforcing
authority within a certain territory". The exclusiveness of state powers within a certain
territorial jurisdiction related to the power of legislation, adjudication and administration. The
illimitability of sovereignty involved "the unlimited right to govern; the unlimited capacity to

18
rule! the unlimited concentration of granted rights; unlimited authority within the domain of
the state". John Austin 1 s theory of sovereignty viewed that the determinate human superior
enjoyed habitual obedience of the members of the political society. "The mutual relation
which subsists between that superior and them, may be styled the relation of sovereign and
subject, or the relation of sovereignty and subjection". This bond of relationship ultimately
resulted in unlimited legal sovereignty.

The state sovereignty was not merely concerned with the force or power of the sovereign.
The doctrine of sovereignty was concerned with the question of authority. Political
philosophers maintained that "sovereign", meant a supreme legal authority in so far as it was
also a moral authority. Domocratisation of sovereign power by Jean Jacques Rousseau
reflected the General Will of the people. "Sovereignty", says Bosanquet, is the exercise of the
General Will", which "is expressed in law, in so far as law is what it ought to be". But the
idealistic interpretations of sovereignty could not limit the power of the sovereign and its all
em bracing authority. It always signified the supreme right and power of the state to
determine the conditions of its internal structure and order.

INDIVISIBILITY

Alan James maintained that state sovereignty implied "three main features it is a legal,
condition. Indivisibility constituted absolute, and unitary its main feature. The nature of
functions discharged by the sovereign authority within a state could not afford the division of
sovereignty in political reality. The theory of division of sovereignty came into light in
political theory when in 1787 the United States of America was transformed into a federal
state from a confederation of states. While political philosophers defended the indivisibility
of sovereignty L. Oppenheim, keeping in view the existence of semi-independent states,
observed, "it may well be maintained that sovereignty is divisible".The Constitution of the
Soviet Union of 1977 also reflected the divisibility of sovereignty of the state by granting

19
sovereign rights to republics within the Union which ultimately resulted in the exercise of full
sovereignty by the republics in the post communist world.

But the traditional notion of state sovereignty did not concede the division of sovereignty.
Hans Morgenthau observed, "He who is supreme is by logical necessity superior to every
body else; he can have no superior above him or equals beside him". Hence, the member -
states of a federation could not claim sovereign rights especially in conflict with the federal
government. During Constitutional convention of 1787 in U.S.A., Madison wrote to
Randolph, "that an individual independence of the states is utterly irreconcilable with the idea
of an aggregate sovereignty". In the words of Hamilton: "Two sovereignties cannot co-exist
within the same 'limits". Thus the traditional concept never approved the division of state
sovereignty.

INDEPENDANCE

External independence of the state was also concomitant aspect of sovereignty with its
internal supremacy. According to Francis Harry Hinsley, "the idea of sovereignty was the
idea that there is a final and absolute political authority in the political community, and no
final and absolute authority exists eleswhere". “...no state can give orders to another state, for
the legal imperatives of the latter would cease to have the character upon which the internal
character of statehood depends". Autonomy, independence and equality were the three basic
elements of sovereignty as recognized by the norms of international relations among
European state~. The external aspect of nation-states sovereignty became in the sixteenth
important after the rise of the and seventeenth · centuries and development of interaction
among several states in Europe.

Each state was free to manage its external affairs according to its discretion, in so far as it did
not contradict with any specific treaty or general principles of international law. A nation’s
sovereignty in a general sense, merged with the national independence. State sovereignty
implied that it was independent and that there was no authority above it. The concept of
sovereignty involved "independence from any other" "sovereign" authority but not

20
"independence" from norms which should apply equally to all these "sovereign" states".
However, the traditional theory of sovereignty continued its emphasis on the independence of
the state implying exclusiveness, autonomy and full competence.

NON-INTERVENTION

The concept of sovereignty was also enriched through the addition of an extremely important
principle of international law- the principle of non-intervention, of non-interference in ·the
internal affairs of other countries. The Helsinki Final Act of 1975 also highlighted the
principle of non-intervention in international relations. The duty of non-intervention is a
master principle which draws together many particular rules on the legal competence and
responsibility of states. The essential element of independence and equality of the states
could only survive with the observation of this principle of international law.

SOVEREIGN EQUALITY

Sovereign equality among independent states aimed at free development of states and
protection of "small states from imperialist policies of diktat and subjugation". As the
equality of sovereignty was acknowledged by all powers, regardless of the size, strategic
value and power of the states cosncerned, many sources of conflict were eliminated. The
principle of sovereign equality ensured an equal participation of each state in the process of
international organizations and in the general conduct of international affairs.

21
 CONCLUSION

Nation states still matter. They are the sources of power with which most people readily
identify. Power becomes meaningful only in reference to sovereignty. Moreover, terms like
community, obligation, legitimacy, authority, state government and constitution all are
integrated and made coherent by the concept of sovereignty. It is a unifying theory, not a
simple description. It is a doctrine which deals with facts of political life and not fantasies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEBSITES

http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com

https://www.oreilly.com

https://opil.ouplaw.com

http://www.globalization101.org

BOOKS

Sovereignty- P.M. Ward

22
.

23