DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

POLITICAL SCIENCE
FINAL DRAFT
SOVEREIGNTY

Submitted to:

Submitted by:

Mr. Brajesh Mishra

Shivani Chauhan
Roll no.-127
B.A. LL.B(1st semester)

CHAPTERISATION
(1) Introduction..3
(2) Characteristics of Sovereignty..4
(3) Nature and basis of Sovereignty...6

INTRODUCTION
In the lexicon of political theory, the concept of sovereignty is very much conspicuous by
its nature. Sovereignty is the basic quality of the state. It is the most essential attribute of
the state which differentiates it from all other associations. In the society which is a
cobweb of associations, sovereignty makes the position of the state distinct by entrusting
to it the final law-making power. It is essentially juristic concept implying supreme and
final power. 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. It moderates and
harmonizes the conflicting claims of different individuals, groups and institutions. In the
external sphere the state is subject to no other authority
and is independent of any eternal compulsion or interference. Subjection to the provisions
of any treaty or rules of international law and membership of any international
organization like the League of Nations or the United Nations are considered as autolimitations and are obeyed at the will of the state.

CHARATERISTICS OF SOVEREIGNTY
From the traditional definitions of sovereignty the following characteristics emerge:
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 allembracing 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 - It means that 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 - Sovereignty is as permanent as the state itself. It is an inseparable
element of the state. A change in the government of the state does not entail a break in the
continuity of the state or in the exercise of its sovereign power. Sovereign power shifts to
the new persons who control the governmental apparatus.
5. Indivisibility - The indivisibility of sovereignty is a logical inference from its
absoluteness. If sovereignty is divided the state as a single political unit is destroyed. 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". Calhoun forcibly argues:
"Sovereignty is an entire thing: to divide it is to destroy it. It is the supreme power in a

state, and we might just as well speak of half a square or half a triangle as of half a
sovereignty".
6. 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.
7. 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.'

NATURE AND BASIS OF SOVEREIGNTY

The traditional meaning of sovereignty and the attributes flowing from it constitute a
narrow, legalistic view of this concept. Such a view has been challenged by many modern
writers who make an attempt to ground sovereignty not on naked power or coercion but
on legitimacy. Legitimacy of sovereignty rests on its ability to resolve conflicts, bring out
harmony and to serve the general interest of the community. Modern liberals take this
position. They give less importance to coercive power and more to ideological power of
the state. State can enforce its supreme power through consensus, developing the habit of
obedience and serving the community by performing welfare functions. However,
liberals believe in the efficacy of coercive power of the state in times of crisis in order to
save the socioeconomic and political order.
Since sovereignty is generally defined as the supreme power of the state, it is pertinent to
examine the relationship between sovereignty and power. Social philosophers have
differed on this question. One school of thought represented by Machiavelli, Hobbes,
Hegel, Nietzsche, Bernhard etc., have equated sovereignty with power, pure and simple.
On this basis some political behaviouralists like Merriam and Harold Lasswell have
established politics as the study of power and power relations in a given society.
Machiavelli and Hobbes were the first modern political thinkers who took the power
view of sovereignty. In the interest of peace, order and stability the ruler must exercise
supreme power. Machiavelli supports the absolute rule of a prince to control the
aggressive and acquisitive impulses of human beings. He was also concerned with the
maintenance and expansion of state power. He supported the absolute theory of
sovereignty free from all limitations. Hegel raised the state to mystical heights and
justified war among nation-states to prove their respective superiority. Bernhard,
Nietzsche and the fascists advocated absolute power of the state and regarded state
sovereignty as nothing other than naked power and brute force.
An important dimension of the power approach to sovereignty is provided by the
Marxists. They hold that sovereignty is a class power. In a class-ridden society this power
is used by the economically dominant class to further its own interests and to oppress the
dispossessed and deprived class. Sovereignty is not shared among various interests, but it
is centralised power of the ruling class. In a classless society of the future, sovereignty

(which is a class power) along with the state will have no use. To achieve this ultimate
objective the Working class must capture state power (sovereignty) through revolution
and establish its own dictatorship which will pave the way for the withering away of the
state.
Modern elite theorists maintain that in a democratic society power is shared by
competing groups of elites. Power is taken to be diffused rather than centralised in such
societies. Plural elites keep power divided and their competition for the sharing of power
is the best safeguard against monopoly of power by any single group.
Pluralist writers advocate the division of supreme power amongst different groups and
associations. They challenge the monistic concept of state sovereignty as both unreal and
dangerous.
As opposed to the power approach to sovereignty, influential social thinkers like
Rousseau, Green, Laski and MacIver hold that sovereignty is not power. To Rousseau the
basis of sovereignty is general will which represents the real wills of the community. He
writes: "Might does not make right and that duty of obedience is owed only to legitimate
powers". English idealistic philosopher Green declared: "Will, not force, is the basis of
the state". The object of sovereignty is to serve the general interest and to create
conditions conducive to good life. The essence of sovereignty is not naked power but the
will of the people. According to Laski, an exponent of the modern welfare (service) state,
the state "becomes an organisation for enabling the mass of men to realise social good on
the largest possible scale". Being a pluralist MacIver refuses to accept that sovereignty is
the monopoly of the state and maintains that "Power should be relative to function". The
state is an association." It commands only because it serves, it owns only because it
owes". He maintains that the basis of sovereignty is justice, order, and security; not power
or force.
The truth lies somewhere between the two schools of thought. Sovereignty is a blending
of both naked power and people's consent (will) although this consent may be a contrived
one. 'Every state exercises its sovereign power with the help of some material and
ideological apparatuses. While material apparatuses or instruments use physical force to
obtain obedience, ideological instruments make sovereignty effective by creating a sense
of obedience (law-abidingness) in the people and impart legitimacy to the existing socio-

economic and political order. If any individual or group disobeys the commands of the
sovereign and threatens the existing order, the material apparatuses of sovereignty,
namely, the police, military, bureaucracy, courts, prisons and other instruments of
coercion are used. These are used against any external danger to state sovereignty.
However, these are used by the state sparingly and only as a last resort. After all, physical
force is an expensive and transitory instrument to secure people's compliance to the
sovereign's commands.