CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NAYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA- 800001

Final Draft in the fulfillment of the project on

“THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY”

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Prof. Dr. S.P. Singh Aanchal Srivastava

Faculty of Political Science Roll No. 2101

CNLU, Patna B.A.LLB. (Hons.)

1st Year

A|Page
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgement………………………………………………………….…..............................3

Declaration……………………………………………………………………………….......……4

4.1 Legal & Political Sovereignty……………..….………………………………………….10

4.3 Shared & Polled Sovereignty……...………………………………………….....……….14

16.

5.2 Pluralist View………………………………………………………………………...…18

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..22

B|Page
Acknowledgement

The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance from
many people who remained in veil and I am extremely fortunate to have got this all along the
completion of my project work. Whatever I have done is only due to such guidance and
assistance and I would not forget to thank them.

I respect and thank Prof. Dr. S.P. Singh, Faculty of Political Science, Chanakya Law University,
Patna for giving me an opportunity to do the project work on this project “The Concept of
Sovereignty” and providing me all the support and guidance which made me complete the
project on time. I am extremely grateful to him for providing such a nice support and guidance
though he had busy schedule managing the affairs of the faculty.

A special thank of mine goes to the Library stuff of Chanakya National Law University, Patna
for helping me in finding all the relevant sources related to my case study.

A special thank of mine goes to my seniors who have helped me out in completing the project,
where they all exchanged their own interesting ideas, thoughts and made this possible to
complete my project with all accurate information.

I want to thank my friends who treasured me for my hard work and encouraged me.

At last but not the least I wish to thank my parents for their personal support and attention. They
inspired me to go my own way and finally to God who made all the things possible for me till the
end.

Aanchal Srivastava

3|Page
Declaration

I the undersigned solemnly declare that the project report titled “The Concept of Sovereignty”
is based on my own work carried out during the course of my study under the supervision of
Prof. Dr. S.P. Singh, Faculty of Political Science, Chanakya Law University, Patna.

I assert the statements made and conclusions drawn are an outcome of my research work. I
further certify that my work contained in the report is original and has been done by me under
the general supervision of my supervisor.

The work has not been submitted to any other Institution for any other degree/diploma/certificate
in this university or any other University of India or abroad. I have followed the guidelines
provided by the university in writing the project. Wherever I have used materials (data,
theoretical analysis, and text) from other sources, I have given due credit to them in the text of
the project and giving their details in the citation.

Aanchal Srivastava
Roll No. 2101

4|Page
1. Introduction

Sovereignty means that nation states are free to decide for themselves about the kind of
democracy that they want, the kind of rulers that they want, and their policies internally and
externally. Often, the concept of sovereignty is invoked to delineate the distinction between
taking decisions on their own by nation states and resisting external pressures to sway the
decision-making process. In this respect, sovereign nations are expected to be autonomous and
independent when they pursue policies that are in their interest and their people’s interest and not
according to the dictates of a foreign power.

Sovereignty is a term that is used to refer to the independence and autonomy of modern
nation states. Unlike earlier eras where countries were ruled by Kings in historic times and by
colonial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries, sovereignty refers to the fact of absolute
independence and autonomy that nation states have with respect to the decisions taken by them
in matters concerning their citizenry1.

State sovereignty is the concept that states are in complete and exclusive control of all the people
and property within their territory. State sovereignty also includes the idea that all states are
equal as states. In other words, despite their different land masses, population sizes, or financial
capabilities, all states, ranging from tiny islands of Micronesia to vast expanse of Russia, have an
equal right to function as a state and make decisions about what occurs within their own borders.
Since all states are equal in this sense, one state does not have the right to interfere with the
internal affairs of another state.

Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference
from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating
supreme authority over some polity.[1] In international law, the important concept of sovereignty
refers to the exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty refers to the legal right to do so; de
facto sovereignty the ability in fact to do so (which becomes of special concern upon the failure
of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of
concern, and rest in the same organization)

1
Social Contract, Book II, Chapter III

5|Page
One can also refer to a monarch who reigns over a sovereign realm as a sovereign.Sovereignty is
an essential element of the state. State cannot exist without sovereignty. State is regarded
superior to other associations only because of sovereignty. In fact modern theory of state got its
proper shape and perfection only when the concept of sovereignty was introduced in it. When we
try to search for the origin of this concept we find that the term sovereignty is the product of
modern political thinking but the idea goes back to the time of Aristotle who referred to it as the
“supreme power” of the state.

In middle age, Roman jurist and civilians were also familiar to this idea. But it was Jean Bodin
who developed for the first time the theory of sovereignty systematically in his book “Six Books
on the Republic”.The term sovereignty is derived from the Latin word ‘Superanus’ meaning
supreme. It is basically a legal concept. It denotes supremacy of state. To understand the term
sovereignty, it is desirable to look into some definitions of the given by some political thinkers. 2

Jean Bodin defined sovereignty as “absolute and perpetual power of commanding in a state. It is
supreme power over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law”.

Pollock says that “Sovereignty is that power which is neither temporary nor delegated nor
subject to particular rules, which it cannot alter, nor answerable to any other power on the power
over the undivided subjects and over all earth’’

Burgers described sovereignty as “original absolute unlimited associations of subjects. It is the

underlined and independent power to command and compel obedience.”

D.F Russell defines sovereignty as “the strongest power and supreme authority within a state,
which is unlimited by law or anything else.”

According to Laski sovereign is “legally supreme over any individual or group. It possesses
supreme coercive power.”

The above definitions may differ from each other but one thing is very clear and there is no
doubt about the superior authority of sovereignty. The basic idea is that the sovereignty is able to
declare law, issue commands and take political decisions, which are binding on individuals and
associations within his jurisdiction.
2
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/sovereignty, 20/09/19, 5:32pm

6|Page
2. History

In 16th-century France Jean Bodin (1530–96) used the new concept of sovereignty to bolster the
power of the French king over the rebellious feudal lords, facilitating the transition from
feudalism to nationalism. The thinker who did the most to provide the term with its modern
meaning was the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), who argued that in every
true state some person or body of persons must have the ultimate and absolute authority to
declare the law; to divide this authority, he held, was essentially to destroy the unity of the state.

The theories of the English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) and the French philosopher
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78)—that the state is based upon a formal or informal compact of
its citizens, a social contract through which they entrust such powers to a government as may be
necessary for common protection—led to the development of the doctrine of popular sovereignty
that found expression in the American Declaration of Independence in 1776.3

Another twist was given to this concept by the statement in the French constitution of 1791 that
“Sovereignty is one, indivisible, unalienable and imprescriptible; it belongs to the Nation; no
group can attribute sovereignty to itself nor can an individual arrogate it to himself.” Thus, the
idea of popular sovereignty exercised primarily by the people became combined with the idea of
national sovereignty exercised not by an unorganized people in the state of nature, but by a
nation embodied in an organized state.

In the 19th century the English jurist John Austin (1790–1859) developed the concept further by
investigating who exercises sovereignty in the name of the people or of the state; he concluded
that sovereignty is vested in a nation’s parliament. A parliament, he argued, is a supreme organ
that enacts laws binding upon everybody else but that is not itself bound by the laws and could
change these laws at will. This description, however, fitted only a particular system of
government, such as the one that prevailed in Great Britain during the 19th century.

Austin’s notion of legislative sovereignty did not entirely fit the American situation. The
Constitution of the United States, the fundamental law of the federal union, did not endow the
national legislature with supreme power but imposed important restrictions upon it. A further

3
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sovereignty. 21/09/19, 2:13pm

7|Page
complication was added when the Supreme Court of the United States asserted successfully in
Marbury v. Madison (1803) its right to declare laws unconstitutional through a procedure called
judicial review. Although this development did not lead to judicial sovereignty, it seemed to vest
the sovereign power in the fundamental document itself, the Constitution. This system of
constitutional sovereignty was made more complex by the fact that the authority to propose
changes in the Constitution and to approve them was vested not only in Congress but also in
states and in special conventions called for that purpose. Thus, it could be argued that
sovereignty continued to reside in the states or in the people, who retained all powers not
delegated by the Constitution to the United States or expressly prohibited by the Constitution to
the states or the people (Tenth Amendment)4. Consequently, 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. Even if the competing theory
of popular sovereignty—the theory that vested sovereignty in the people of the United States—
was accepted, it still might be argued that this sovereignty need not be exercised on behalf of the
people solely by the national government but could be divided on a functional basis between the
federal and state authorities.

Another assault from within on the doctrine of state sovereignty was made in the 20th century by
those political scientists (e.g., Léon Duguit, Hugo Krabbe, and Harold J. Laski) who developed
the theory of pluralistic sovereignty (pluralism) exercised by various political, economic, social,
and religious groups that dominate the government of each state. According to this doctrine,
sovereignty in each society does not reside in any particular place but shifts constantly from one
group (or alliance of groups) to another. The pluralistic theory further contended that the state is
but one of many examples of social solidarity and possesses no special authority in comparison
to other components of society.5

4
Sovereignty: The Evolution of an Idea - Robert Jackson, Chapter 3
5
Sovereignty: The Evolution of an Idea - Robert Jackson, Chapter 11

8|Page
3. Characteristics of Sovereignty

Modern state claims supremacy in internal matter and freedom from the control of external
government on the basis of the attribute of the sovereignty. Sovereignty has the following
characteristics:

1. Sovereignty is absolute from the legal point of view.

2. Sovereignty is permanent. It lasts as long as he state. Change in Government does not end
sovereignty but only transfers it to the next bearer

3. Sovereignty of the state is universal. It extends to all within its territory.

4. Sovereignty is inalienable. Sovereignty of the state cannot be given away without destroying
the state.

5. Sovereignty cannot be divided between or shared by a plurality. To Gettell – “If sovereignty is

not absolute no state exists; if sovereignty is divided more than one state exists; but with the
emergence of the concept of federalism, the idea of dual sovereignty was provided by
Tocqueville, Wheaton and Halleck.

6. Sovereignty is exclusive. State alone has the sovereign authority and legitimate power to
make citizens obey its dictates. It is again important to note that all these characteristics of
sovereignty are peculiar to the legal notion of sovereignty. They are best represented by an
absolute monarchy. 6

In the actual working of the state – especially in the case of democratic, federal, pluralist and
constitutional government – it becomes extremely difficult to discover the seat or real character
of sovereignty.

6
https://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/jean-bodin-sovereignty, 20/09/19, 6:03pm

9|Page
4. Types of Sovereignty

The following will the categories of division that we will study in detail under sovereignty.

1) Legal & Political Sovereignty

2) Internal & External Sovereignty

3) Shared & Polled Sovereignty

4.1 Legal & Political Sovereignty

Distinction at times is drawn between legal and political sovereignty. The sovereign is supposed
to be absolute and omnipotent. It functions according to its own will. Law is simply the will of
sovereign.

There is none to question its validity. Legal sovereign grants rights to its citizens and there can
be no rights against him. It means rights of citizens depend on the will of legal sovereign and any
time he can take away. Legal sovereign has following characteristics-

1. The legal sovereignty is always definite and determinate.

2. Legal sovereignty may reside either in one person or in a body of persons.

3. It is definitely organized, precise and known to law.

4. Rights of citizen are gift of legal sovereign.

5. The will of state is expressed by the legal sovereign only.

6. Legal sovereignty is absolute. It cannot be question.

In Britain King in Parliament is the sovereign. In U.S the legal sovereign consists of the
constitutional authorities that have the power to amend constitution.

10 | P a g e
But behind the legal sovereignty there is another power, which is unknown to law. It is political
sovereignty. In practice absolute and unlimited authority of the legal sovereignty does not exist
anywhere. Even a dictator cannot act independently and exclusively. The will of legal
sovereignty is actually sharpened by many influences, which are unknown to law. All these
influences are the real power behind the legal sovereign; and this is called political sovereignty.
As Professor Gilchrist says- “The political sovereign is the sum total of the influences in the state
which lie behind the law.” The political sovereignty is not known to law. In modern
representative democracies the political sovereignty is very often identified with either the whole
mass of the people or with electorate or with public opinion. The legal sovereign cannot act
against the will of political sovereign.

Dicey says that “body is politically sovereign which the lawyers recognize there is another
sovereign to whom the legal sovereign bow- that body is political sovereignty; that which is
ultimately obeyed by the citizens of the state.” 7

A lot of confusion arises when we attempt the exact definition of political sovereignty. It is a
vague and indeterminate and cannot be located with exactness. It is suggested by some writers
that there is no justification for making a distinction between legal and political sovereignty, as
that involves the division of sovereignty, which is not possible.

4.2 Internal & External Sovereignty

Internal

Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and the political community.
A central concern is legitimacy: by what right does a government exercise authority? Claims of
legitimacy might refer to the divine right of kings, or to a social contract (i.e. popular
sovereignty). Max Weber offered a first categorization of political authority and legitimacy with
the categories of traditional, charismatic and legal-rational.

7
https://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/jean-bodin-sovereignty, 20/09/19, 10:58pm

11 | P a g e
With Sovereignty meaning holding supreme, independent authority over a region or state,
Internal Sovereignty refers to the internal affairs of the state and the location of supreme power
within it. A state that has internal sovereignty is one with a government that has been elected by
the people and has the popular legitimacy. Internal sovereignty examines the internal affairs of a
state and how it operates. It is important to have strong internal sovereignty in relation to keeping
order and peace. When you have weak internal sovereignty, organizations such as rebel groups
will undermine the authority and disrupt the peace. The presence of a strong authority allows you
to keep agreement and enforce sanctions for the violation of laws.

The ability for leadership to prevent these violations is a key variable in determining internal
sovereignty. The lack of internal sovereignty can cause war in one of two ways: first,
undermining the value of agreement by allowing costly violations; and second, requiring such
large subsidies for implementation that they render war cheaper than peace. Leadership needs to
be able to promise members, especially those like armies, police forces, or paramilitaries will
abide by agreements. The presence of strong internal sovereignty allows a state to deter
opposition groups in exchange for bargaining.

It has been said that a more decentralized authority would be more efficient in keeping peace
because the deal must please not only the leadership but also the opposition group. While the
operations and affairs within a state are relative to the level of sovereignty within that state, there
is still an argument between who should hold the authority in a sovereign state.

This argument between who should hold the authority within a sovereign state is called the
traditional doctrine of public sovereignty. This discussion is between an internal sovereign or an
authority of public sovereignty. An internal sovereign is a political body that possesses ultimate,
final and independent authority; one whose decisions are binding upon all citizens, groups and
institutions in society. Early thinkers believe sovereignty should be vested in the hands of a
single person, a monarch. They believed the overriding merit of vesting sovereignty in a single
individual was that sovereignty would therefore be indivisible; it would be expressed in a single
voice that could claim final authority.

An example of an internal sovereign or monarch is Louis XIV of France during the seventeenth
century; Louis XIV claimed that he was the state. Jean-Jacques Rousseau rejected monarchical

12 | P a g e
rule in favor of the other type of authority within a sovereign state, public sovereignty. Public
Sovereignty is the belief that ultimate authority is vested in the people themselves, expressed in
the idea of the general will. This means that the power is elected and supported by its members;
the authority has a central goal of the good of the people in mind. The idea of public sovereignty
has often been the basis for modern democratic theory.

External

External sovereignty concerns the relationship between a sovereign power and other states. For
example, the United Kingdom uses the following criterion when deciding under what conditions
other states recognizes a political entity as having sovereignty over some territory;

External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law – such as: when, if ever, is
intervention by one country into another's territory permissible?

Following the Thirty Years' War, a European religious conflict that embroiled much of the
continent, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 established the notion of territorial sovereignty as a
norm of noninterference in the affairs of other states, so-called sovereignty, even though the
actual treaty itself reaffirmed the multiple levels of sovereignty of the Holy Roman Empire. This
resulted as a natural extension of the older principle of cuius regio, eius religio (Whose realm,
his religion), leaving the Roman Catholic Church with little ability to interfere with the internal
affairs of many European states. It is a myth, however, that the Treaties of Westphalia created a
new European order of equal sovereign states.

In international law, sovereignty means that a government possesses full control over affairs
within a territorial or geographical area or limit. Determining whether a specific entity is
sovereign is not an exact science, but often a matter of diplomatic dispute. There is usually an
expectation that both de jure and de facto sovereignty rest in the same organisation at the place
and time of concern. Foreign governments use varied criteria and political considerations when
deciding whether or not to recognise the sovereignty of a state over a territory.[citation needed]
Membership in the United Nations requires that "[t]he admission of any such state to
membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon
the recommendation of the Security Council."

13 | P a g e
Sovereignty may be recognized even when the sovereign body possesses no territory or its
territory is under partial or total occupation by another power. The Holy See was in this position
between the annexation in 1870 of the Papal States by Italy and the signing of the Lateran
Treaties in 1929, a 59-year period during which it was recognised as sovereign by many (mostly
Roman Catholic) states despite possessing no territory – a situation resolved when the Lateran
Treaties granted the Holy See sovereignty over the Vatican City. Another case, sui generis,
though often contested,[citation needed] is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the third
sovereign entity inside Italian territory (after San Marino and the Vatican City State) and the
second inside the Italian capital (since in 1869 the Palazzo di Malta and the Villa Malta receive
extraterritorial rights, in this way becoming the only "sovereign" territorial possessions of the
modern Order), which is the last existing heir to one of several once militarily significant,
crusader states of sovereign military orders. In 1607 its Grand masters were also made
Reichsfürst (princes of the Holy Roman Empire) by the Holy Roman Emperor, granting them
seats in the Reichstag, at the time the closest permanent equivalent to a UN-type general
assembly; confirmed 1620)8. These sovereign rights were never deposed, only the territories
were lost. 100 modern states still maintain full diplomatic relations with the order (now de facto
"the most prestigious service club", and the UN awarded it observer status.

The governments-in-exile of many European states (for instance, Norway, Netherlands or

Czechoslovakia) during the Second World War were regarded as sovereign despite their
territories being under foreign occupation; their governance resumed as soon as the occupation
had ended. The government of Kuwait was in a similar situation vis-à-vis the Iraqi occupation of
its country during 1990–1991. The government of Republic of China was recognized as
sovereign over China from 1911 to 1971 despite that its mainland China territory became
occupied by Communist Chinese forces since 1949. In 1971 it lost UN recognition to Chinese
Communist-led People's Republic of China and its sovereign and political status as a state
became disputed and it lost its ability to use "China" as its name and therefore became
commonly known as Taiwan. 9

The International Committee of the Red Cross is commonly mistaken to be sovereign. It has
been granted various degrees of special privileges and legal immunities in many countries,
8
Sovereignty - F. H. Hinsley, Chapter 3
9
Sovereignty - F. H. Hinsley, Chapter4

14 | P a g e
including Belgium, France, and Switzerland and soon in Ireland. Similarly for Australia, Russia,
South Korea, South Africa and the US that in cases like Switzerland are considerable, the
Committee is a private organisation governed by Swiss law.

4.3 Shared & Polled Sovereignty

Just as the office of head of state can be vested jointly in several persons within a state, the
sovereign jurisdiction over a single political territory can be shared jointly by two or more
consenting powers, notably in the form of a condominium.

Likewise the member states of international organizations may voluntarily bind themselves by
treaty to a supranational organization, such as a continental union. In the case of the European
Union members states this is called "pooled sovereignty".

Another example of shared and pooled sovereignty is the Acts of Union 1707 which created the
unitary state now known as the United Kingdom. It was a full economic union, meaning the
Scottish and English systems of currency, taxation and laws regulating trade were aligned.
Nonetheless, Scotland and England never fully surrendered or pooled all of their governance
sovereignty; they retained many of their previous national institutional features and
characteristics, particularly relating to their legal, religious and educational systems. 10 In 2012,
the Scottish Government, created in 1998 through devolution in the United Kingdom, negotiated
terms with the Government of the United Kingdom for the 2014 Scottish independence
referendum which resulted in the people of Scotland deciding to continue the pooling of its
sovereignty with the rest of the United Kingdom.

5. Schools of Thoughts of Sovereignty

10
The Social Contract - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

15 | P a g e
There are two schools of thoughts prevalent while discussing the concept of sovereignty. Now,
having understood the concept, let us now look at the two prominent schools of thoughts
regarding Sovereignty.

5.1 Monistic View

In the 19th century the theory of sovereignty as a legal concept was perfected by Austin, an
English Jurist. He is regarded as a greatest exponent of Monistic Theory. In his book ‘Province
of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) Austin observed’ “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 that society (including superior)
is a society political and independent.” To Austin in every state there exists an authority to whom
a large mass of citizen show compliance. This authority is absolute, unlimited and indivisible.

Austin’s theory of sovereignty depends mainly upon his view on nature of law. According to
Austin “Law is a command given by a superior to inferior” the main tenets of Austin’s theory of
sovereignty are as follows-

5.1.1 Sovereign power is essential in every political society.

5.1.2 Sovereignty is a person or body of persons. It is not necessary that sovereign should be
a single person. Sovereignty may reside in many persons also. Austin explains that a
“Sovereign is not necessarily a single person, in the modern western world he is rarely so; but he
must have so much of the attributes of a single person as to be a determinate.”

To Austin state is a legal order, in which there is a supreme authority, which is source of all
powers. Sovereignty is concerned with man, and every state must have human superior who can
issue commands and create laws. Human laws are the proper subjects of state activity.

5.1.3 Sovereign power is indivisible. Division of sovereignty leads to its destruction. It cannot be
divided.

16 | P a g e
5.1.4 The command of sovereignty is superior to over all individuals and associations. Sovereign
is not bound to obey anyone’s order. His will is supreme. There is no question of right or wrong,
just or unjust, all his commands are to be obeyed.

5.1.5 Austin’s theory says that the obedience to sovereign must be habitual. It means that
obedience should be continuous. He also includes that is not necessary that obedience should
come from the whole society. It is sufficient, if it comes from the lay majority of people.
Obedience should come from bulk of the society otherwise there is no sovereign.

In brief we can say that sovereignty according to Austin is supreme, indivisible and
unquestionable.

Like all other theories of sovereignty Austin’s theory is also not free from criticism. The first
criticism is regarding sovereignty residing in a determinate superior. Even sovereign’s acts are
shaped by so many other influences, such as morals, values and customs of the society.

Sir Henry Maine gives the example of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. He pointed out that the Maharaja
“could have commanded anything. The smallest disobedience to his command would have been
followed by death or mutilation.” In spite of this, the Maharaja never “once in all his life issued a
command which Austin could call a law. The rules which regulated the life of his subjects were
derived from their immemorial usage.” 11

Secondly Austin says that the sovereign is possessed of unlimited powers, which is again not
acceptable. It is possible only in theory not in practice. Laski points out that “no sovereign has
anywhere possessed unlimited power and attempt to exert it has always resulted in the
establishment of safeguards.”

Thirdly, Austin says that sovereign is indivisible. All powers must be centered in the hands of
one person or a body of persons called sovereign. But this has been also disproved by

Federal system of governments. It is characteristic of federal state that power must be divided
between the federal government and its units.

11
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf, 21/09/19, 2:25pm

17 | P a g e
Austin’s theory is criticized further on the grounds of his definition of law. Austin defines law as
“command given by a superior to inferior”. This is also not true. No sovereign can ignore the
existence of customary law, which has grown through usage in every country.

It seems to be that Austin’s theory may not be accepted as valid for political philosophy. His
legal theory of sovereign narrows down “the meaning of vital terms.” It should, however be
admitted that as an analysis of strictly legal nature of sovereignty. Austin’s theory is clear and
logical.

5.2 Pluralist View

The pluralist theory of sovereignty was a reaction to monistic or legal theory of sovereignty. To
monistic theory state is supreme association and all other associations are he creation of state and
their existence depends on the will of the sovereign power.

The pluralist theory rejects this and tries to establish that there is no single source of authority
that is all competent and comprehensive.

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. State exists to coordinate functions of human association in the best
interest.

Another exponent of pluralist theory Robert M.Maclver propounds that state is one of the several
human associations, although it exercises unique functions. Important feature of the state is
supremacy of law. 12

Pluralists believe that state enjoys a privileged position because of its wider jurisdiction, which
covers all the individuals and associations within its boundary. This does not mean that it is
superior to other associations. It is also true that state has power to punish those who defy its
command but that does not mean that it is absolute. The state must justify the exercise of its
special powers. Pluralist is divided and limited.
12
The Social Contract - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

18 | P a g e
The pluralist demand that the same must justify its claim to allegiance on moral grounds.
Actually to them the management and control of society must be shared by various associations
in proportion to their contribution to the common goods. This theory stands for the
decentralization of authority.

The pluralist also rejects the distinction between state and government. They insist on a realistic
political science and consider the distinction between two as artificial.

The pluralists are not against the state but would discard sovereign state with its absolute and
indivisible power.

5.2.1 The chief tenets of pluralist theory of sovereignty are as follows.

a) Pluralist 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 should compete with other human associations to claim superior authority.

e) State was not absolute or supreme legally.

f) State is not the only source of legislation or law.

g) Law is very antithesis of command.

h) The state is both the child and parent of law.

i) He root of obedience of law isn’t coercion but the will to obey.

j) State and government are not different.

The pluralist theory of sovereignty is also not free from criticism. Critics maintain that without
establishment of a classless society, sovereignty can neither be divided nor be limited. In order to
limit the sovereignty of the state there must be a classless society.

19 | P a g e
The demands for freedom from different associations also are criticized. Division of sovereignty
among different associations is not only impossible but also improper. The pluralist view will
lead to political anarchy and social instability.

The pluralist limits the sovereignty in order to maintain independence of individuals and other
associations, however in order to maintain the rights of the individuals and associations, the state
must have sovereign power. The interest of individuals and associations, will conflict and the
state will be helpless if it does not posses sovereign power.

Inspite of all these criticism it cannot be denied that the pluralist theory of sovereignty protested
the rigid and dogmatic legalism of the Austin’s theory of sovereignty. It supports humanist and
democratic ideas. It challenged the concept of unlimited sovereignty. 13

This theory also pointed out the importance of other associations. Only state is not important but
in a society there are also many other associations, which play important role in its development.
At last we can say that the greatest contribution of this theory is that it gave state a human face,
and checked it from being a threat to the liberty.

7. Conclusions

13
https://www.managementstudyguide.com/monist-and-pluralist-view-of-sovereignty.htm, 22/09/19, 4:20pm

20 | P a g e
Under the concept of state sovereignty, no state has the authority to tell another state how to
control its internal affairs. Sovereignty both grants and limits power: it gives states complete
control over their own territory while restricting the influence that states have on one another.

Practically, sovereignty means that one state cannot demand that another state take any particular
internal action. For example, if Canada did not approve of a Brazilian plan to turn a large section
of Brazil’s rainforest into an amusement park, the Canadian reaction is limited by Brazil’s
sovereignty. Canada may meet with the Brazilian government to try to convince them to halt the
project. Canada may bring the issue before the UN to survey the world’s opinion of the project.
Canada may even make politically embarrassing public complaints in the world media. However,
Canada cannot simply tell Brazil to stop the rainforest project and expect Brazil to obey.

In this example, sovereignty gives the power to Brazil to ultimately decide what to do with its
rainforest resources and limits the power of Canada to impact this decision.

Globalization is changing this view of sovereignty, however. In the case of the Brazilian
rainforest, Brazil may consider a rainforest located wholly within its property an issue solely of
internal concern. Canada may claim that the world community has a valid claim on all limited
rainforest resources, regardless of where the rainforest is located, especially in consideration of
issues like endangered species and air pollution.

Similarly, states no longer view the treatment of citizens of one state as only the exclusive
concern of that state. International human rights law is based on the idea that the entire global
community is responsible for the rights of every individual. International treaties, therefore, bind
states to give their own citizens rights that are agreed on at a global level. In some cases, other
countries can even monitor and enforce human rights treaties against a state for the treatment of
the offending state’s own citizens.

Bibliography

21 | P a g e
 From Books :
 Sovereignty: The Evolution of an Idea - Robert Jackson
 Sovereignty - F. H. Hinsley
 Indian Polity – M. Lakshmikant
 The Social Contract - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 From Web :
 https://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/jean-bodin-sovereignty
 https://www.britannica.com/topic/sovereignty
 https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/sovereignty
 http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
 https://www.managementstudyguide.com/monist-and-pluralist-view-of-
sovereignty.htm

22 | P a g e