Sovereignty, a cornerstone of political theory and international law, defines the ultimate authority within a state for decision-making and maintaining order. This concept, intrinsically linked to the ideas of statehood, governance, independence, and democracy, sparks considerable debate. Originating from the Latin word “superanus” via the French “souveraineté,” it initially signified supreme power. However, its practical application often diverges from this traditional definition.
A Historical Perspective on Sovereignty
The concept of sovereignty has evolved significantly throughout history, shaped by influential thinkers and pivotal events.
In 16th-century France, Jean Bodin (1530–96) strategically employed the burgeoning concept of sovereignty to fortify the French king’s authority against rebellious feudal lords. This move played a crucial role in facilitating the transition from feudalism to nationalism. Bodin’s work laid the groundwork for a more centralized and unified state.
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), an English philosopher, profoundly shaped the modern understanding of sovereignty. He asserted that in any legitimate state, a single entity, be it an individual or a collective, must possess the ultimate and absolute authority to enact laws. Hobbes argued that dividing this authority would inevitably undermine the state’s unity, leading to its disintegration. His ideas strongly advocated for a centralized and indivisible sovereign power.
John Locke (1632–1704) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) further revolutionized the concept of sovereignty. These philosophers posited that the state originates from a social contract, a formal or informal agreement among citizens. Through this contract, citizens entrust specific powers to a government to ensure their collective protection. This perspective led to the emergence of the doctrine of popular sovereignty, which emphasizes that ultimate authority resides in the people. This concept found expression in the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, asserting the right of the people to govern themselves.
The French constitution of 1791 added another dimension by declaring sovereignty as “one, indivisible, unalienable and imprescriptible,” belonging to the nation as a whole. This declaration merged the idea of popular sovereignty with national sovereignty, exercised by a nation embodied in an organized state, rather than an unorganized population.
In the 19th century, John Austin (1790–1859), an English jurist, further refined the concept by exploring who exercises sovereignty in the name of the people or the state. He concluded that sovereignty resides in a nation’s parliament, which he viewed as the supreme law-making body. According to Austin, a parliament enacts laws binding upon everyone but is not itself bound by those laws, possessing the power to change them at will. However, this description primarily applied to specific systems of government, such as that of Great Britain during that era.
Challenges to Traditional Sovereignty
Austin’s concept of legislative sovereignty did not entirely align with the American context. The U.S. Constitution places significant restrictions on the national legislature, preventing it from wielding supreme power.
The Supreme Court’s assertion of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803) further complicated the matter. While this development didn’t establish judicial sovereignty, it seemed to vest sovereign power in the Constitution itself. This system of constitutional sovereignty is made more complex by the fact that the authority to propose and approve changes to the Constitution is vested not only in Congress but also in states and in special conventions called for that purpose.
The claims by advocates of states’ rights that states continued to be sovereign were bolstered by the difficulty of finding a sole repository of sovereignty in a complex federal structure; and the concept of dual sovereignty of both the union and the component units found a theoretical basis.
In the 20th century, political scientists such as Léon Duguit, Hugo Krabbe, and Harold J. Laski challenged the doctrine of state sovereignty by developing the theory of pluralistic sovereignty. They argued that sovereignty is exercised by various political, economic, social, and religious groups within a state, shifting constantly from one group (or alliance of groups) to another. This theory posits that the state is just one form of social solidarity and lacks special authority compared to other components of society.
Modern Implications of Sovereignty
The concept of sovereignty continues to be debated and redefined in the context of globalization, international organizations, and human rights. The rise of international law and institutions has led to discussions about the limits of state sovereignty and the responsibility of states to protect their citizens. Issues such as humanitarian intervention, climate change, and global pandemics have further challenged traditional notions of sovereignty.
In conclusion, sovereignty is a multifaceted concept with a rich history and evolving meaning. From its origins as a justification for monarchical power to its modern interpretation in the context of international relations, sovereignty remains a central theme in political thought and practice. Understanding its nuances is essential for navigating the complex challenges of the 21st century.
