Sovereignty

Sovereignty is a supreme authority within a state. It is the soul of a state. If it goes to end than
absolutely state goes to end.
Sovereignty is the basic quality of the state. It means that in every independent state there is an
ultimate authority from which there can be no appeal. This authority is supreme both in internal
and in external matters. in case of conflicts between individuals' interest and association's
interest, the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, acts as the referee and the final arbiter.
The word sovereignty is derived from the French word “souverain” which is itself is derived from
the Latin term “superanu” which means a supreme authority having no others authority above it.
In the modern context sovereignty is associate rather with the supreme power of law-making than
with the supreme authority free from any control.

Definitions of Sovereignty
John Austin:
said "If a 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".
It means the absolute and ultimate power of the state in its territorial domain.
Aristotle:
Aristotle defined sovereignty as the supreme power in the state.
Jean Bodin
"the supreme power over citizens and subjects, unrestrained by law is known as sovereignty".

"The supreme political power vested in him whose acts are not subject to any other and whose
will cannot be overridden." -- Grotius
The commanding power of the state; it is the will of the nation organized in the state; it is the
right to give unconditional orders to all individuals in the territory of the state." --Duguit

The original, absolute, unlimited power over the individual subjects and over all associations
of subjects." -- Burgess

Characteristics of Sovereignty
1. Absoluteness
 The sovereign power is absolute and unlimited. there is no higher authority which can bind it.
Internally it has absolute power over all individuals and groups within the state. Internal
limitations like constitutional law and conventions are only self-imposed. Externally also the state
is independent of any compulsion or interference by other states. Limitations stemming from
treaties, international law and decisions of international organizations are also self-imposed by
the state and these cannot destroy sovereignty as there is no compelling force behind them.

 
2.Universality or all-comprehensiveness
 - The sovereign power is supreme over all individuals, associations and institutions within the
state. No one is exempt from its all-embracing authority. Of course, the immunity enjoyed by
foreign diplomatic personnel is granted by the state as a matter of international courtesy and can
be withdrawn at will.

3. Inalienability
Sovereignty is in alienable that means the state cannot part with its sovereignty. sovereignty
cannot be transferred or given up. Alienation of this essential attribute of the state amounts to the
death of a state. Sovereignty is the very essence of the state's personality. Rousseau who upheld
this point of view opined that power of the state could be transferred, but not its general will or
sovereignty.

4. Permanence - The sovereignty of a state is permanent. Sovereignty lasts as long as an

independent state lasts. The death of a king or president or the overthrow of the government does
not mean the destruction of sovereignty as the ruler exercises sovereign power on behalf of the
state. Sovereign power shifts to the new persons who control the governmental apparatus. So,
sovereignty lasts as long as the state lasts. While the state exists, sovereignty exists. While
sovereignty exists, state exists.

5. Indivisibility
The sovereign power may be vest in one person or jointly in a group of persons. If sovereignty is
divided the state as a single political unit is destroyed. It cannot be divided between different sets
of individuals or groups.
The supreme power of the state can be shared among different organs but sovereignty remains
the attribute of the state as a whole. Gettell writes: "If sovereignty is not absolute, no state exists;
if sovereignty is divided, more than one state exists". Thus, there cannot be two sovereign in a
state simultaneously. Sovereignty is indivisible

6. Originality: The most important characteristic of sovereignty is its original character.

Sovereignty cannot be manufactured. Dependence on another for supreme power cannot make a
state a sovereign one. Sovereignty is in-built and grows automatically from within.
7. Exclusiveness
 - It means that the state alone possesses supreme power and its legal competence to command
obedience is unchallengeable. To believe the existence of more than one sovereign is to deny the
very unity and integrity of the state.
8. Imprescriptibility
 - Sovereign power of the state is not lost by disuse. It is the basic quality of the state which
remains with it so long as the state continues to exist. It does not cease to exist by non-exercise of
the power.
 Two wings of sovereignty:
Internal sovereignty:
In a state all the individuals and also their institutions remains under in one supreme authority
known as internal sovereignty. In a state no party and even no institution is away from his
controls because it is considered a supreme authority of the state. If there is no internal
sovereignty in a state so it may cause a state to go under civil war because of individual
differences.

External sovereignty:
It is the most important wing of the state because it makes a state free of external fear. It allows
one state to make decision of their own will. If there within a state is not external sovereignty so
that territory could not consider as a state.

Types of Sovereignty:
1.Titular and Real sovereignty:
The term is used with reference to a monarch who at one time was actual sovereign, but has given
up to be such.
We know that in Britain kingship was absolute and king was the holder of the sovereignty. He
used his authority according to his will. No one could stop him. So in this there came many
revolutions against, as time passed there came democracy and king became titular and the real
sovereignty went to in the hands of people. Real sovereignty became PM, cabinet and Parliament.
Now the King is like a rubber- stamp. So now a days king is a titular sovereignty and constitution
made real sovereign democratic institutions.
2. Legal and political sovereignty:
In any state elections are held by state so in this way voters select their represents, political
parties help these voters. After the election a government is formed. In presidency system
president holds the house and in parliamentary system PM holds the house. In this way
sovereignty goes in the hand of new government and they can use it. The government which form
by the way of constitution and they use their authority known as legal sovereignty but on the
other hand all other political parties which have taken part in the election force them to fulfill
there work or promises these forces by constitution are political sovereignty.
For example: in Pakistan, the 2018 election have given the legal sovereignty in the hands of PTI
but, the political sovereignty is in the hands of other political parties like PMLN, PPP

3. De jure and de facto sovereignty:

In any state legal and real authorities are in the hand of the one person but sometimes there come
revolution in the state. Any person or institution by the help of force could snatch away all the
authorities of legal sovereignty. In this way we can see two sovereignties in the state. The
conjured become the artificially become the holder of sovereignty but state is than accepting the
real sovereignty.
For example:When Hussain Muhammad Ershad in 1982 imposed military rule in Bangladesh
and the government was of President Abdus Sattar. In this way Mohammad Ershad became de
Facto sovereign but that time Abdus Sattar was de jure sovereign.

4. Popular sovereignty:
In early times kingship was the only sovereignty in the world. So every one was under the mercy
of king. No one could stands against the king and have to follow the laws or rules of the king. But
against the king brutality many people stood and ask to give all the powers to the people. In this
way popular sovereignty came into being, where people are real sovereign and could make law of
their own will. The slogan of the popular sovereignty is that "the voice of the people is the voice
of authority".
For example: Before 1789 in France king was the real sovereign. No one stop him to do any
work but in 1789 there came revolution and the real power went in the hands of people.

Theory of sovereignty:
There are two schools about the concept of sovereignty.
Pluralist theory of sovereignty:
The pluralistic group was in the favor of welfare of the people. They tried to give sovereignty to
the institutions like, economic, social, religious, family, educational etc. instead of in the hands of
the state they don't consider state alienable, indivisible, absoluteness etc. but they want to give
these institutions.
Sovereign from of the welfare of the people. They don't consider state a supreme power over the
other institutions.
Laski, Degey, Matland and Barker believe these theory.

Laski says that sovereignty is neither absolute nor a unity. It is pluralist, constitutional and
responsible. State has no superior claim to an individual's allegiance. It can justify itself as a
public service corporation.
The pluralist also rejects the distinction between state and government. The pluralists are not
against the state but would discard sovereign state with its absolute and indivisible power.

The chief tenets of pluralist theory of sovereignty:

a. Pluralists sovereignty deals with political aspects of sovereignty.
b. State is one of the several human associations catering to various interests of the individuals.
c. state is arbiter over conflicting interests of different associations.
d. state was not absolute or supreme legally.
e. law is very antithesis of command.
f. the state is both the child and parent of law.
g. state and government are not different.

Monistic theory of sovereignty:

John Austin in his book, Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) observed "If a 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".
John Austin gave the concept of Monistic theory, he tried to said that if the supreme authority in
one hand it would be better for the state to progress.

The chief tenets of Monistic theory of sovereignty:

1. Sovereign power is essential in every political society.

2. sovereignty is a person or body of persons. It is not necessary that sovereign should be a single
person.
3. sovereign power is indivisible. Division of sovereignty leads to its destruction. It cannot be
divided.

Difference between Pluralistic and Monistic theory of Sovereignty:

Pluralistic Monistic
This group said that all the institution of they tried to say that state is a supreme
human's and state have equal value. authority and all other institution have to work
under state superior it.
we haven't to give state supreme authority This group tried to say that we have to give
state a supreme authority.
They tried to say that law is made for customs They tried to say that law is the product of the
and law gave birth to state. state.
They are not ready to consider authority of This group just want to see the authority of
state absoluteness. sate absolute.
They're free from the habitual concept of This group just want to see people for habitual
obedience. obedience.
This group don't consider sovereignty only the The consider the sovereignty only the most
most important element of the state. important element of the state.
This group want to accept only political This group want to accept on legal
sovereignty. sovereignty.
Criticism on both Pluralistic and monistic theory:
The monastic group just accept that sovereignty which is legal it is better in dictatorship or
kingship but it is not accept able in the system of democracy. The pluralistic group just accept
institution sovereignty but by accepting this state will lose its fencing position. In this way all the
institutions will become sovereign monastic group is not ready to accept limitations on the state's
sovereignty but it will stand unbelievable by the religious, cultural point of make people habitual
obedient, this is true in dictatorship or kingship but it is not workable in democracy. If we
consider pluralistic group concept about institutions sovereignty, this will not be benefited for the
people because they have to fulfill many duties at to time. In this way we came to know that bath
of these theories have merits and demerits.

Conclusion:
Sovereignty plays an important role in a state. It can play positive role as well as negative.
Positive role of sovereignty could be state for the welfare of the humanity. If it plays a positive
role, state will or progresses in no time because all the individuals do their duties honestly. But on
he other hand if it plays a negative role. It will prove a hard stone for the state's progress. We
have to keep one thing in our minds, that state was made for the welfare of the peoples, so we
have to take steps, which stand in the welfare of the individuals. By this it is clear that we ought
to on force positive sovereignty in a state.
John Austin's Theory of Sovereignty:

According to Austin Sovereignty as " if a determinate human superior not in the habit of like
superior obedience but receives habitual obedience from the bulk of given society, then that
society is political and independent and that sovereign is the determinate human superior"

John Austin uses the concept of sovereignty to define law and the continent of jurisprudence.
Inhis own words: "the matter of jurisprudence is positive law, law simply and strictly so called or
laws set by political superiors to political inferiors.
Austin's sovereignty features:
1. the sovereignty possesses unlimited powers;
2. the sovereignty must be a determinate authority;
3. sovereign is indivisible;
4. law is the command of the sovereign;
5. the society which ahs a determinate human superior, is a political society, which is
independent and free from external control.

Austin's sovereignty criticism:

Austin's sovereignty is vague. It is difficult to locate the determinate human superior.
Determinate human superior can not be absolute. He cannot violate people's rights.
Austin's theory of sovereignty is not democratic. It says that people must obey the sovereign as a
habit.
It is not applicable in the modern democratic societies. It is opposed to the idea of popular
sovereignty.
Austin theory is against democratic principle.
His theory stands for absolute monarchy.
His theory glorifies dictatorship
His theory violates the universal principle of law

1.This theory is against popular sovereignty:

This theory is deadly against Rousseau's concept of the General Will which is the very basis of
democracy. It conflicts with the basic idea of democracy. Austin's sovereign is superior and
everybody else is sub-ordinate to him.
2. it ignores the power of public opinion and political sovereignty:
Austin's concept of sovereignty ignores the claim of public opinion and political sovereignty.
Austin's theory ignores the massive influence of the electorate, public opinion and the political
sovereignty.

3. sovereign is not indivisible according to Pluralists:

According to pluralists sovereignty is not indivisible. It can be divided. Laski believes "it is
impossible to make the legal theory of sovereignty valid for political philosophy. It would be a
lasting benefit to Political Science if the whole concept of sovereignty were surrenderd"
4. Force is not the only sanction behind laws:

Conclusion:
Austin's theory of sovereignty did not seem to be applicable in modern day democracies. But that
in no way undermines the importance of his excellent work. Austin's theories about various legal
concepts might not seem true in modern times but we should not forget that Austin is regarded as
one of the noted jurist of all times as much for his work and theory of law as for the methodology
employed to arrive at his theory. Austin made numerus effort to establish law and jurisprudence
as discipline.
So we can conclude that with change in times, Austin's views might not appear very true for the
current political and legal order of the world but his greatest contribution of establishing law as
discipline that can be studies in a scientific manner secure an esteemed position for him in the
canals of jurisprudence.