Sovereignty: Historical Evolution --- Krishna Menon

According to its defendants, it seeks to establish order and clarity in this chaotic and unstable
world. To understand sovereignty, we need to understand the history of medieval Europe. At
that time, church possessed all powers with respect to public and private domains of society.
There was no difference between the public sphere and the private sphere. Kings and
emperors had acknowledged a higher authority than themselves in the form of God.
However, the spread of renaissance or revival across Europe led to undermining of the
authority of the church. Philosophers and political thinkers started propagating the idea of
secularism. Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 ended the 30-years war and then after the concept
of sovereign states emerged. Possession of private property was now allowed and the public
and private spheres were now separate. As per the concept of absolute sovereignty, the king
or queen possessed absolute/unquestionable rights over a particular geographical territory that
could be expanded through colonisation.
Theories of state: 2 types: Internal and External
Internal sovereignty: Within certain territorial boundaries, the state is considered to be
supreme. It possesses ultimate and independent authority and its decisions are binding on all
citizens. It can also make use of coercion or force to ensure obedience.
External Sovereignty: As per the understanding of external sovereignty, no state can
interfere or dictate terms to any other state. It talks about independence of a sovereign body
from any foreign intervention.
Three issues arise pertaining to sovereignty: 1) Limits of sovereignty, 2) Location of
sovereignty, 3) Relationship between state, sovereignty and civil society.
Jean Bodin was a French thinker who wrote Les Six livres de la Republique. According to
him, politics in France was highly divided and decentralized leading to lack of clarity and
stability. Therefore, a supreme, centralized authority was needed. With regards to the limit of
the sovereign, he said that natural law and customary law would limit it.
Hobbes understanding was in contrast with that of Bodin. According to him, before the
establishment of a sovereign state, we lived in the state of nature. Men were nasty, brutish
and short. They were extremely selfish and could take anyones life to fulfil their own needs.
In order to come of out of this perpetual war-like state, they give up all their rights to a
sovereign who in return promises to ensure protection and security to all by enforcing laws.
No religious, moral or natural authority could limit the sovereign. Natural and customary law
will have no force without the consent of the sovereign.
Locke felt that state exists for protection of rights of individuals and gain legitimacy from
their consent. According to him, sovereign power rests with the individuals who can make the
state accountable if it fails to secure their rights.
James Buchanan regarded this situation as the paradox of sovereignty. On one hand we
say that the state possessed all sovereign powers. On the other hand, we say that sovereignty
rests with the citizens.
Jean Humpton explained this paradox by giving example of babysitters. They are hired
because it is assumed that they can have control over the unruly kids. But later it is found out
that they themselves are unruly. A sovereign state is created because citizens cannot protect
themselves but sovereignty actually lies with the citizens. She talks about convention
consent according to which authority exercised by any elected body will be given consent to
only if the basis of exercising that power is moral or rational.
Rousseau talked about the concept of general will that bestowed unlimited powers upon
the state. According to him, people will decide the laws which shall govern them and who
the sovereign authority will be. As such there will be no difference between the state and the
community or between the government and the people.
Criticism of Hobbes and Rousseau: Their ideas of sovereign state have tyrannical
implications since the state is regarded as omnipotent. It can use its unlimited power and
become an oppressive force.
Legal Theory of Sovereignty by John Austin:
Austin was a positivist according to whom state shall possess ultimate power. It must be
obeyed. However, no one can give commands to the state. Morality was irrelevant to him.
Laws will be formulated by the sovereign and must be obeyed. This monistic position is
generally not applicable in democratic setups.
Harold Laski, who was a pluralist criticized Austins theory by saying that the individual is
not required to follow those laws that lead to injustice. He gave importance to morality.
Marx disagreed with the view that the state represented general public power and public will.
According to him, state represented only certain particular interests, economic processes and
institutions.
Functions of a sovereign state:
Organization of physical space (in terms of territory).
Securing an organized market.
Defending private property.
Levying taxes.
Establishing legal order.
Cementing cultural identities (nation-state).
Military protection.
Each state possesses supreme authority over a particular territory and resources therein.
Criticism of the notion of sovereignty- Internally, power has been decentralized (such as
under federal structures) but this has been accompied by an elaborate system of checks and
balances. As such it is difficult to identify internal sovereignty.
Externally, international laws, treaties, conventions and organizations have limited the
sovereignty. For example, India is a signatory to many international treaties (along with other
nations) that provide/dictate guidelines in many affairs.
Beitz talked about several problems with respect to external sovereignty. Disagreements arise
regarding the nature and character of international law and to what extent should the states be
bound by it. States are economically interdependent now. Thus, the concept of external
sovereignty has limited applicability. He gives an example. State A intervenes in the matters
of State B because the latter has violated certain internationally accepted norms pertaining to
human rights. But country B should have political independence such that no other state can
intervene in its affairs.
Such a dilemma gives birth to the following responses:
National interest is given primary importance irrespective of any moral or ethical
consideration.
Upholding cosmopolitan/universally applicable moral values even if it is against the
interests of the state. Tolstoy - interventionist
Morality can never be universal since different communities have different moral
values. For example, what is regarded as good in Iran may be regarded as bad in the
US. Consensus among people of the community, with regard to a particular moral
value is however important.
Respecting sovereignty will induce internal sovereignty.
Nation-states today have become increasingly interlinked and interdependent, especially
in economic terms (processes of production, technological advancements, international
finance). Capital has become very mobile. MNCs are the agents of these changes.
Although nation-states possess certain level of autonomy, they are not completely
sovereign.
Paul Hirst makes the distinction between internationalized economy and globalized
economy. In case of internationalized economy, national policies remain effective.
Companies can indulge in trade with other economies guided by the national policies.
What we are witnessing today are internationalized economies. Thus, the importance of
national policies remains intact and nation-states can be regarded as sovereign. In case of
globalized economy, national policies have no value. Global market forces govern the
trade and provide solutions to problems. In an internationalized economy, forms of
international regulation created by nation-states remain important. Thus, sovereignty
remains relevant.
People still continue to be identified by the boundaries of the nation-state they live in.
Territorial limits determine citizenship. Only the highly skilled and educated and the
poorest and impoverished leave the nation states.
Hirst says that nation states in modern times are not sovereign because they are
omnipotent but because they police their borders and are responsible for the affairs of
their citizens. He further states that nation-states themselves have created supra-state
agencies (such as the UN, WTO, EU etc etc.) and continue to legitimize and support the
functioning of these agencies.
State can now transfer power to agencies both above and below it. Above: It (along with
other states) creates international agencies that operate above it. It exercises its
sovereignty by creating such agencies. Similarly, internally, it transfers power and
authority to lower regional and local levels (decentralization of power). Again it exercises
its sovereignty.
The above described situation is a paradox in itself. The more internationalized the
economies become, the more will be the need of the sovereign nation-state.
The last challenge is regarding the emergence of the global civil society in the form of
human rights organizations, NGOs like Amnesty International, Greenpeace etc. They
carry forward certain social movements that cut across national boundaries.