IGNOU MPS 001 Political Theory — Unit 9: Sovereignty (Complete Notes)

9.1 Introduction

State authority — the power to make laws, demand obedience, and punish violations — is what we encounter as sovereignty in everyday life. Despite appearing simple, sovereignty is one of the most complicated notions in Political Science. A rudimentary understanding is insufficient because state power is not merely theoretical — it directly affects citizens whenever the government is unresponsive or insensitive.

9.2 What is Sovereignty?

Sovereignty is derived from the Latin Superanus (supreme) — it denotes the supreme power of the state to extract obedience from the people who inhabit it. It constitutes one of the four essential elements of the state (without which statehood is incomplete).

Two dimensions:

Internal sovereignty: the state is supreme over any individual or organisation within its boundaries. Its power is original, total, unlimited, and all-comprehensive. None can claim superiority over or immunity from the state.
External sovereignty: in the comity of states, every state is supreme and free to determine its destiny. No other state or international organisation can claim superiority. Treaty obligations are self-imposed — none can be enforced on a state against its will.

9.2.1 Key Definitions of Sovereignty

Thinker	Definition
Bodin	“The supreme power over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law”
Grotius	“The supreme political power vested in him whose acts are not subject to any other and whose will cannot be overridden”
Blackstone	“The supreme irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled authority in which the supreme legal power resides”
Duguit	“The commanding power of the state; the will of the nation organised in the state; the right to give unconditional orders to all individuals in the territory of the state”
Willoughby	“The supreme will of the state”
Soltau	“The exercise of final legal coercive power by the state”
Hinsley	“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”
David Held	“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”

9.2.2 Meaning of Sovereignty (Traditional View)

The traditional view emphasises:

Sovereignty is an attribute of the state.
It is the supreme will of the state.
It is a legal coercive power.
The sovereign makes laws and extracts obedience.
Sovereignty lies in a person or body of persons.
The power of the sovereign is absolute and unlimited.

9.3 Development of the Concept of Sovereignty

Sovereignty as supreme state power is a modern concept — arising with the rise of the nation-state in Europe and the assertion of authority by powerful monarchs. However, the idea can be traced to ancient Greek city-states.

Key stages of development:

Ancient Greece: Aristotle defined sovereignty as the supreme power of the state but focused on its location — he held that either the deliberative organ or the law should be sovereign; he preferred the sovereignty of law.

Rome: sovereignty = fullness of state power; state as final authority in disputes; uniformity of law, centralised administration, and common citizenship were Roman contributions.

Medieval period: feudalism destroyed unified authority. The king’s authority was limited by the Church (Pope claimed superiority), feudal overlords, and local commons. Barker calls feudalism “a paradise of estates” rather than a pattern of a state. The law of God was held superior to human law. There could be no modern concept of sovereignty in this period.

Jean Bodin: first political philosopher to propound the modern concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty = supreme power over citizens unrestrained by law. It is perpetual, unlimited, and non-delegable. The sovereign is the source of law — unconditional right to make, interpret, and execute law. Sovereignty’s location depends on the form of government — in a king under monarchy; in popular bodies under democracy. Limitation: customary and constitutional law and private property limited Bodin’s sovereign.

Thomas Hobbes: further developed Bodin. Sovereignty is the creation of a social contract — the sovereign is authorised to will for the general purpose of peaceful life. Command is law; authority is absolute, unlimited, inalienable, and indivisible. “Limited sovereignty is a contradiction in terms.” One limitation: the sovereign cannot command anyone to kill, wound, or maim himself; and sovereignty is limited by the purpose for which it was created (the right to resist arises if individual life is endangered).

John Locke: stood for limited government and justified the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Advocated popular sovereignty, supremacy of Parliament, constitutional government, limited monarchy, and rule of law. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed sovereignty was divisible — legislative, executive, and federative powers should be exercised independently. The state is subservient to society. Weakness: inconsistent — at times places sovereignty in the people, at times in the legislature; failed to fully comprehend legal sovereignty.

Rousseau: located sovereignty in the people expressed as the General Will. Sovereignty and general will are interchangeable. It is unlimited, supreme, absolute, inalienable, and indivisible — but unlike Hobbes, based on consent of the people. The individual may be “forced to be free.” Power is vested in the community, not one individual. Both Hobbes and Rousseau laid the foundations of a totalitarian state.

French Revolution: asserted absolute and unlimited sovereignty on the grounds that people being sovereign, there is no need to restrict supreme power. Newly emerged nation-states claimed total internal and external sovereignty.

Hegel: stood for constitutional monarchy but with kingly veto. “The State is a perfected rationality, the eternal and necessary essence of spirit… the march of God on earth.” Completely subordinated the individual to the state. The state is internally and externally supreme; morality and international law impose no limitation. War reflects the omnipotence of the state; the victorious state is the agent of world spirit.

Austin: freed sovereignty from Hegel’s mysticism; advocated a purely legal view — absolute, unlimited, inalienable, and indivisible. Challenged later by the pluralists.

9.4 Kinds of Sovereignty

9.4.1 Real and Titular Sovereignty

Arose from a unique development in the English Constitutional system. The king was initially all-powerful, but with democracy the powers passed to the Crown (an institution), while the monarchy was retained out of popular sentiment.

Titular sovereignty: formal or nominal sovereignty — e.g., the King/Queen of England, the President of India.
Real sovereignty: actually exercises power — e.g., the Crown in England; the Prime Minister and Cabinet in India.
In the USA, no such distinction — the President is both real and titular sovereign.
This distinction makes sovereignty more an attribute of government than of the state.

9.4.2 Legal and Political Sovereignty

Legal sovereignty: a constitutional concept — identification of the holder of power in the legal sense. Commands laws; equipped with coercive powers to implement them; determinate and all-comprehensive. Example: the British King-in-Parliament — can remodel the constitution, legalise illegalities, give dictatorial powers to the government. Its power is absolute without any legal restriction.
Political sovereignty: vague and confusing — the power behind the legal sovereign, to which the legal sovereign must ultimately bow. Not recognised by law; not determinate. In a representative democracy, it lies with the electorate, which can make or unmake governments. Elections are the best forum where the will of the political sovereign is expressed.

9.4.3 De Jure and De Facto Sovereignty

Usually the de jure and de facto sovereign are the same — but in times of crisis (coup, violent overthrow), they diverge.

De facto sovereignty: based on actual control — force or factual command of the situation. Examples: communist seizure of power in Russia (Tsarist government remained de jure); German occupation in WWI and WWII; Pakistan’s status vis-à-vis Bangladesh in 1971.
De jure sovereignty: holds legal sanctity to rule.
The distinction is temporary — the de facto ruler eventually makes necessary legal changes to become de jure ruler as well.

9.4.4 Concept of Popular Sovereignty

Modern democracy is based on popular sovereignty — the source of all authority is the people.

Historical development:

Cicero (medieval): the state is “people’s affairs” — a moral community where authority arises from collective power of the people.
Althusius: people as a corporate body hold sovereignty; this power cannot be transferred. Administrators receive power through a contract for specific purposes; the people retain the right to reclaim it. Gave the people the right to resist tyranny.
Locke: government is a trustee constituted through social contract for protection of life, liberty, and property. If it fails, the people have the right to rebel and overthrow it.
Rousseau: father of the concept of popular sovereignty. Men are by nature free and equal. Through a contract, individuals become part of a sovereign body of people. The government is merely an agent of the state with limited authority. The General Will is sovereign and can only act for the welfare of the people. “It is impossible for the sovereign body to hurt its members.”

Asirvatham’s summary of popular sovereignty’s valuable ideas:

Government exists for the good of the people, not for its own good.
If people’s wishes are deliberately violated, revolution is possible.
Easy means should be provided for legally expressing public opinion.
Government should be held directly responsible through frequent elections, local self-government, referendum, initiative, and recall.
Government should exercise authority in accordance with laws, not arbitrarily.

Popular sovereignty was the central principle of the American and French Revolutions:

American Declaration of Independence (1776): governments derive “their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed”; the people have the right to alter or abolish destructive government.
French Revolution: “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights”; “the law is the expression of general will”; all citizens have the right to participate in its formation.

Limitations of popular sovereignty: the term “people” is vague — it cannot include infants, invalids, criminals, insolvents, or aliens. Even the electorate cannot be called sovereign as it is small in comparison to total population. Voters are subject to manipulation. Popular sovereignty works best in small states with direct democracy; modern states are too large and complex. In practice, both the ruling elite and opposition claim to reflect the will of the people, creating instability. Nevertheless, popular sovereignty is a permanent contribution to Political Science as a repudiation of dictatorship and totalitarianism.

9.5 Austin’s Concept of Sovereignty

John Austin (1779–1859) — in Lectures on Jurisprudence (1832) — propounded the legal/monistic/traditional view of sovereignty.

Austin’s definition: “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.”

Characteristics of sovereignty according to Austin:

Necessary for the state — sovereignty is the spirit of the state; its end means the end of the state.
Determinate — resides in a specific person or body of persons; cannot be vague (not “the people,” the electorate, or the General Will).
Supreme power — the source of all authority; commands everyone but takes commands from no one; absolute, unlimited, universal, independent of internal or external control.
Habitual obedience — the sovereign’s authority is continuous, regular, undisturbed, and permanent; if a significant part of the population refuses obedience, sovereignty is lost.
Law is the command of the sovereign — the sovereign is above customs and traditions; rights and liberties of individuals emanate from the sovereign.
Legitimate physical force — to exert command, enforce obedience, and implement laws.
Exclusive and indivisible — sovereignty cannot be divided between two or more persons; division means destruction.

Summary: sovereignty is absolute, permanent, universal, inalienable, exclusive, and indivisible.

9.6 Pluralistic Attack on Austin’s Concept of Sovereignty

Prominent pluralists: J. Neville Figgis, Paul Boncour, Durkheim, MacIver, Laski, Barker, Duguit, Krabbe, G.D.H. Cole, Miss Follet. Key figures: Laski and MacIver.

1. Sovereignty is not determinate in modern times: Austin’s determination was possible when kings ruled absolutely. In modern times, popular sovereignty prevails — the electorate and “the people” are vague terms that cannot constitute a determinate human being in Austin’s sense. In a federation, powers are divided between centre and units — the constitution is supreme but is not a human being. Even the British King-in-Parliament operates under limitations. Laski: “The real rulers of a society are not discoverable.”

2. Austin’s concept cannot be verified historically: Laski argues that historically sovereignty has always been subjected to limitations — absolute sovereignty existed only for a brief period when nation-states arose and kings asserted authority (a result of the 16th century religious struggle). “No sovereign has anywhere possessed unlimited power; and the attempt to exert it has always resulted in the safeguards.” Even the most dictatorial ruler could not violate customs and traditions. Example: the Sultan of Turkey at the height of his power was bound by a code of observance.

3. Ethical objections: Austin’s absolute sovereignty is ethically indefensible — it retards the development of the individual and his moral stature, making the individual completely servile to the state. Laski stood for decentralisation and a state responsible for its actions, protecting certain rights of the individual necessary for personality development. The state is not an end in itself — it is a means to the enrichment of human lives.

4. Law is not the command of the sovereign: Laski: to call law a command from higher to inferior is “to strain its definition to the verge of indecency.” Laws are universal — applied to both the lawmaker and the subjects. MacIver: Austin’s view of law is misleading as it denies law’s two basic attributes — universality and formality. Command belongs to the sphere of administration, not legislation. MacIver: the state is “both the child and the parent of law” — the authority of law is greater than the authority of the state; the state is merely its official guardian. Laski: law satisfies social needs; Duguit: “Law is the product of our social life. We obey law because they are for social interest.”

5. Customs and traditions limit sovereignty: customs and traditions were neither created by the state nor controlled by it. MacIver: “the state cannot destroy customs, because customs, when attacked by law, retaliate in return and in their retaliation, they attack not only the particular law but also the spirit of law-abidingness which is the basis of state.”

6. The state is an association, not the supreme power: MacIver distinguishes state from society. “To identify the social with the political is to be guilty of the grossest of all confusion.” Society is composed of different associations — the family, the church, and others — which are as natural as the state. Laski: “We are not a universe, but a multiverse.” Associations have their own autonomous inner life. The difference between state and other associations: the state’s objective is general (while limited by its instrument) whereas other associations are limited primarily by their particular objective. MacIver: the state can be at most “first among equals”. Laski: “Our first duty is to be true to our conscience. The only state to which I owe allegiance is the state in which I discover moral adequacy.”

7. Absolute sovereignty threatens international peace: the doctrine of absolute sovereignty is incompatible with humanity’s interests — it led to the two World Wars. Laski: with nuclear weapons capable of mutual assured destruction (MAD), there is an urgent need to restrict state sovereignty. Laski argues for an international government as “axiomatic in any plan for international well-being.” He believed state sovereignty would pass away just as the divine right of kings had.

Maxey’s summary of pluralism’s major postulates:

The state is but one of numerous groupings through which men seek to satisfy interests.
These groupings are not creatures of the state — they arise independently.
Functions of voluntary associations (churches, trade unions, professional societies) are as necessary as those of the state.
The monistic state is incapable of wielding absolute authority over such bodies or administering them efficiently.
The monistic concept of sovereignty is a mere legal fiction that does incalculable harm.

9.6.1 Pluralistic View of Sovereignty — A Critique

The pluralist position has its own limitations:

Inner contradiction: pluralists stand for decentralisation and group autonomy but also want the state to coordinate the activities of associations. Coordination requires overriding powers — in assigning this role, pluralists effectively return sovereignty to the state in Austin’s sense.
Modern complexity demands a supreme state: the welfare state and planning have enormously expanded state activities. Groups perform overlapping functions that clash and create disorder — the state must intervene as the final judge.
Austin not actually contradicted: Austin gave only a legal interpretation of sovereignty — a true statement of facts. International law is still developing and cannot legally limit sovereignty; customs and traditions are legally no restraint either.
Laski himself recanted: Laski later criticised the pluralist view, pointing out that pluralists failed to understand the state as an expression of class relations. He accepted Austin’s monistic doctrine: “Legally no one can deny that there exists in every state, an organ whose authority is unlimited.”

Balanced assessment: pluralism’s significance lies in asserting the importance of group life and arguing for democracy and decentralisation against absolute state authority. As Sabine wisely put it: “For my own part, I must reserve the right to be a monist when I can and a pluralist when I must.”

9.7 Sovereignty and Globalisation — New Challenges

Globalisation = increasing interaction of world inhabitants and the process of integrating national economies, cultures, technology, and governance into a global system. This has thrown many challenges to state sovereignty. David Held identifies five key aspects:

With global connectedness, the number of policy instruments available to governments and their effectiveness has declined — border controls have lessened; flow of goods, services, ideas, and cultures has increased.
Expansion of transnational forces reduces and restricts the influence particular governments can exercise over their citizens — e.g., capital flows can threaten anti-inflation measures, exchange rates, and other policies.
Traditional state activities (defence, communication) cannot be fulfilled without international collaboration.
States must increase political integration with other states to control destabilising effects — e.g., strengthening IMF and WTO.
Growth of institutions and global governance has already redefined the rights, obligations, powers, and capacities of states.

9.7.1 Sovereignty and Power-Blocs

After WWII, the world divided into two blocs led by the USA and USSR — both exerted great influence on their bloc-members’ domestic and foreign policy. India and non-aligned countries refused to join any bloc precisely to avoid restricting their sovereignty.
After USSR’s disintegration, the USA exerts large influence on the domestic and external policies of many states, especially small and weak ones.
Military alliances — NATO, SEATO, CENTO, OAS (American influence), Warsaw Pact (Soviet leadership) — gave member states meagre independent choice. Held: “A state’s capacity to initiate particular foreign policies… are restricted by its place in the international system of power relations.”
NATO operates, as Held says, “defacto, if not dejure, according to its own logic and decision-making procedures” — a supranational organisation in which the USA commands while other member states submit.
NATO creates transgovernmental decision-making systems outside the control of any single-member state. Membership does not abolish sovereignty but compels compromise on many issues.

9.7.2 Sovereignty and Global Economy

Multinational Corporations (MNCs): work across borders, outside the domain of national sovereignties. They “plan and execute production, marketing and distribution, with the world economy firmly in mind” (Held). States do little to control MNCs; MNCs greatly guide state policies.
Global financial organisations (banks in London, New York, Tokyo) and new information technology mobilise economic units (currencies, stocks, shares) across borders.
With advances in communication and transport, separate market boundaries necessary for independent national economic policies are losing importance. Levels of employment, investment, and revenue within a country are often “subordinated to the decisions of MNCs” (Held).
States must organise themselves regionally and globally (West-West, North-South, South-South, East-West groupings).
Conclusion: internationalisation of production, finance, management, and distribution is unquestionably eroding the capacity of individual sovereign states. No country — however strong — has control over its future economic policies independently.

9.7.3 Sovereignty and International Organisations

The UN and international organisations make global decisions that states must respect. The UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights set universal standards transcending national boundaries — states increasingly cannot violate these rights even in dealings with secessionist and ethnic groups.
Technical, non-controversial organisations (UPU, ITU, WMO) supplement state services and influence certain aspects of foreign policy.
Controversial organisations — IMF, World Bank, UNCTAD, WTO — have assumed supranational roles in certain areas.
IMF: while giving loans, insists on conditions — cuts on public expenditure, devaluation of currency, cuts on welfare programmes, liberalisation and privatisation — directly diminishing sovereignty. Developing countries must tolerate IMF intervention even if it causes internal troubles.
WTO: a permanent legislative body acting as watchdog in trade in goods, services, foreign investment, and intellectual property rights. Has emerged as a “virtual parliament” in economic matters — no state can go against WTO decisions even if they harm its interests.
European Union (EU): members have delegated sovereignty in certain matters to the Union. The EU has an executive (President and European Commission), legislative body (European Parliament and European Council), Court of Justice, Court of Auditors, and European Bank. EU law can be imposed on member-states. Member-states are no longer the sole centres of power within their own borders. Within the EU, “any conception of sovereignty, which assumes that it is indivisible, unlimited, exclusive and a perpetual form of public power — embodied within an individual state is defunct.”

9.7.4 Sovereignty and International Law

Traditional state sovereignty implies: (a) the right to protect its autonomy in all matters of foreign policy; (b) the right to prevent domestic courts from ruling on the behaviour of foreign states. Both are under strain — EU laws, for example, hardly ensure national sovereignty to members.
UN Declaration of Human Rights and other conventions are increasingly becoming binding on states — they may not take away sovereignty but certainly fashion it.
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: any EU citizen can demand introduction of rights included in the Convention not yet incorporated in their state’s constitution.
International law increasingly makes the individual a subject of international law — not just states. The Nuremberg Tribunal: “crimes against international law are committed by men, not abstract entities.” When international humanitarian rules clash with state laws, individuals must transgress state laws.
New international law binds itself on the concept of togetherness and closeness of states — unlike traditional international law which assumed separateness.

9.8 Summary (Key Takeaways)

Sovereignty = the supreme power of the state, by which the state exerts authority, monopolises legitimate physical force, and demands obedience.
Austin’s legal view: sovereignty is absolute, permanent, universal, inalienable, exclusive, and indivisible — still the basis of how states essentially function.
Pluralist critique (Laski, MacIver): sovereignty has never been absolute in practice; the state is an association among associations; customs, group life, ethics, and international law all limit sovereignty. Though legally unacceptable, the pluralist view is politically and socially attractive in reflecting modern democratic ideals.
Globalisation has created new and powerful limitations on sovereignty — through power-blocs, MNCs, the global economy, international organisations (IMF, WTO, EU), and international law. State sovereignty formally continues but is heavily influenced and constrained.
Conceptually, absolute sovereignty is increasingly defunct — especially within the EU where sovereignty is clearly divided and shared.