Sovereignty

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Sovereignty is one of the oldest and most contested ideas in political life. Strip away the legal Latin and the philosophical jargon, and what remains is a deceptively simple question: who gets to be in charge, and what gives them the right? The Roman jurist Ulpian put it plainly in the Digest: "The people transferred all their imperium and power to the Emperor." And yet the entity that holds that power has been a king, a parliament, a general will, a treaty organization, and sometimes nothing at all except a disputed claim on a map. This documentary traces how the word that first appeared in English in the 14th century, derived from the Vulgar Latin for "chief" and shaped by the English word "reign," became the defining argument of modern political life. We will look at how absolute sovereignty was theorized, why it was slowly eroded, and what remains of it in a world where even the most powerful states share power with supranational bodies they cannot fully control.

• 2. A Concept in Four Dimensions

  ›

  Stephen D. Krasner identified four distinct meanings that the word sovereignty carries simultaneously, and the distinction matters enormously in practice. Domestic sovereignty describes the actual control exercised by an internal authority. Interdependence sovereignty describes control over what crosses a state's borders. International legal sovereignty means formal recognition by other states. Westphalian sovereignty means that no outside authority exists within the state's territory at all. These four do not automatically travel together. A state can hold legal recognition from the international community while having no real control on the ground. A governing body can exercise day-to-day authority over a territory without any other state acknowledging its right to do so. Immanuel Wallerstein pushed this further, calling sovereignty a hypothetical trade: two potentially conflicting powers, weighing the costs of conflict against the costs of concession, exchange recognitions as their least expensive strategy. Beyond Krasner's four, scholars have added empirical sovereignty and juridical sovereignty as a pair. Empirical sovereignty asks whether the people in power have genuine legitimacy and whether they exercise it in legitimate ways; Tilly cited the example of nobles in parts of Europe who were allowed to exercise private rights, a tradition Catalonia formalized in its own constitution. Juridical sovereignty, by contrast, concerns whether other states recognize a government's right to act freely without interference. Jackson, Rosberg, and Jones showed that for many African states, legal recognition from abroad mattered more to their survival than material resources or military strength. Douglass North added that institutions seek structure, and these two forms of sovereignty together supply it. Once institutions settle into a structure, however, they cannot act without what scholars now call administrative sovereignty: the machinery of identification cards, port administration, and regulatory apparatus that a state runs with credibility and reliability over time.

• 3. From Ulpian to Bodin

  ›

  Three sentences from the Roman jurist Ulpian, preserved in the Digest, carry most of the weight of classical sovereignty theory. The people handed all power to the emperor. The laws do not bind the emperor. A decision by the emperor has the force of law. Ulpian never used the word sovereignty, but he described its substance: a supreme authority whose power originates in the people but stands above the legal constraints it creates for everyone else. Medieval Europe knew these passages, yet medieval monarchs were never fully sovereign in practice. Feudal aristocrats constrained them, custom constrained them, and the Church constrained them further. Whatever sovereignty existed in that period lived mostly as the de jure rights of nobility and royalty, without the concentrated executive reality those rights implied. The decisive theoretical break came with Jean Bodin. Writing in 1576, partly as a response to the chaos of the French wars of religion, Bodin published Les Six Livres de la Republique, frequently described as the first European text to theorize state sovereignty. His sovereign had to be absolute, meaning the power to legislate without the consent of subjects and without being bound by the laws of predecessors. It also had to be perpetual, not temporarily delegated to a magistrate or crisis leader. Bodin's reasoning was logical rather than mystical: if any outside force could impose a time limit on sovereign power, then that outside force would be the real sovereign. Bodin did not argue that the sovereign was free of all constraint. Natural law, divine law, the law of nations, and the fundamental laws of the French monarchy that governed succession all bound the ruler. The lois royales, the succession rules of the French crown, Bodin described as natural laws that no king could override. He even suggested, as practical advice rather than legal obligation, that a wise sovereign would maintain a senate for counsel, delegate administrative tasks to magistrates, and use the Estates as a communication channel. His ideal, in his own words, was a government conducted partly aristocratically and partly democratically.

• 4. The Social Contract Tradition

  ›

  Thomas Hobbes published Leviathan in 1651, and the argument he made has shaped every debate about sovereignty since. Without cooperation, Hobbes wrote, human life is nasty, brutish and short. To escape that condition people form a commonwealth and submit to a sovereign power. Where Bodin grounded sovereignty in natural and divine law, Hobbes grounded it in negotiation: the relationship between ruler and ruled is a contract, not a natural hierarchy. The sovereign, under Hobbes, had to be both absolute and indivisible. Absolute, because any external arbitrator empowered to check the sovereign would itself be the higher power. Indivisible, because multiple authorities sharing final power would produce irresolvable disputes. When the ruler fails to protect the people, Hobbes concluded, the people recover the ability to protect themselves by forming a new contract. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, born in 1712 and dead in 1778, rejected this conclusion without rejecting the contractarian framework. In Du Contrat Social, published in 1762, he argued that sovereignty is the general will of the people. It is inalienable because a will cannot be transferred; it is indivisible because it is essentially general; it is always right about the common good even when the people's judgment about how to reach it is flawed. The legislator, in Rousseau's system, has no authority of his own; he is only a guide who drafts and proposes laws, while the people alone have authority to make and impose them. Rousseau also condemned the distinction, foundational to constitutional monarchy and representative democracy, between the origin of sovereignty and its exercise. John Locke and Montesquieu, both central figures in this tradition, differed from Rousseau and from Hobbes precisely on the question of whether sovereignty can be alienated. Hendrik Spruyt offered a later and more materialist account: sovereign states emerged not inevitably but because of a particular conjuncture of social and political interests in Europe, driven partly by changes in international trade that created coalitions favoring sovereign entities. Once a state is recognized as sovereign, Spruyt observed, it is rarely recolonized, merged, or dissolved.

• 5. Westphalia and Its Limits

  ›

  The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, ending the Thirty Years' War, established the principle that has given its name to a whole style of thinking about states: no interference in the internal affairs of other sovereigns. This norm extended the older Latin principle of cuius regio, eius religio, meaning the religion of a territory follows its ruler, leaving the Roman Catholic Church with reduced ability to direct the internal affairs of European states. Historians have noted, however, that the treaties themselves actually reaffirmed the multiple and overlapping sovereignty layers of the Holy Roman Empire, making Westphalia as much myth as founding moment. The Holy See illustrates how far practice can diverge from principle. After Italy annexed the Papal States in 1870, the Holy See held no territory at all for 59 years, until the Lateran Treaties in 1929 granted it sovereignty over Vatican City. During those 59 years, mostly Roman Catholic states continued to recognize it as sovereign. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a similarly unusual case: recognized as sovereign by more than 100 modern states and holding observer status at the United Nations, it has held extraterritorial rights at the Palazzo di Malta and the Villa Malta since 1869. Its Grand Masters were made princes of the Holy Roman Empire in 1607 and given seats in the Reichstag, a recognition confirmed in 1620. Governments in exile operated under a related logic during the Second World War. Norway, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, and other European governments continued to be recognized as sovereign while their territories were under foreign occupation, resuming governance when the occupation ended. The government of Kuwait held the same position during the Iraqi occupation of 1990-1991. The Republic of China was generally recognized as sovereign over China from 1911 until 1971, when the People's Republic of China took the United Nations seat, even though the ROC's actual control had been confined to Taiwan since the Communist victory in the civil war in 1949.

• 6. Sovereignty After World War II

  ›

  Carl Schmitt, writing in the years just before World War II, argued that states as sovereigns could not be judged or punished and that sovereignty overrode constitutional and international constraints. After the Holocaust, the vast majority of states rejected that position and signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The Genocide Convention followed, legally requiring nations to punish genocide. Beginning in 1990, the Westphalian principle of non-intervention was no longer observed where the United Nations or another international organization endorsed a political or military action. Actions in Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Cambodia, and Liberia would previously have been regarded as illegitimate interference. The 2005 Responsibility to Protect agreement, endorsed by all UN member states at the World Summit that year, made the revision explicit: if a state fails to protect its citizens from massive injustice or is incapable of doing so, outside actors may assume that responsibility. UN Charter Article 2(7) still formally recognizes state sovereignty and the principle of non-interference, while Chapter VII powers of the Security Council explicitly allow the use of force against a state to restore peace. European integration represents the second major post-war shift. Member states of the European Union have pooled sovereignty, meaning they are no longer absolutely sovereign on matters covered by EU governance. Jacques Maritain and Bertrand de Jouvenel attacked the earlier concept of sovereignty root and branch; Maritain argued it should be discarded entirely because it obstructs international law and a world state, internally encourages centralism over pluralism, and undermines democratic accountability. Sovereigntist movements in multiple countries have resisted these curtailments, seeking to restore pre-war norms by reclaiming authority from transnational governance structures.

• 7. Internal and External Authority

  ›

  Max Weber defined sovereignty as a community's monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and that definition carries a specific implication: any group claiming the right to use violence must either be subordinated to the sovereign, proven illegitimate, or defeated. Internal sovereignty, in this framework, is about who holds that monopoly inside the state and what gives them the right to hold it. The traditional doctrine placed sovereignty in the hands of a single ruler, on the argument that indivisible power expressed in a single voice is the only kind that can claim final authority. Louis XIV of France in the seventeenth century was the paradigm case: he claimed that he was the state. Rousseau rejected that, placing ultimate authority in the people themselves, expressed through what he called the general will. Public sovereignty, the idea that the people hold and express final authority, became the basis of modern democratic theory. John Austin argued that in the United Kingdom, sovereignty belonged neither to the Crown nor to the people but to what he called the Queen-in-Parliament, giving rise to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as the fundamental principle of the British constitution. Critics noted that majority control under parliamentary sovereignty can produce unlimited constitutional authority, what has been called elective dictatorship or modern autocracy. The distinction between internal and external sovereignty runs through several disputed cases. Iraq in 2003 was occupied but not annexed, meaning no foreign state claimed sovereignty over it despite controlling the ground. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were annexed by the Soviet Union and governed by pro-Soviet administrators, yet their pre-war governments maintained exile existence and continued international recognition; when they re-enacted independence in 1991, they did so on the basis of direct continuity from the pre-Soviet republics. Poland's situation adds another layer: the post-1989 Polish state claims continuity from the Second Polish Republic that ended in 1939, treating the People's Republic of Poland that governed from 1945 to 1989 as an illegal entity, while still maintaining the territorial outline that government left behind rather than the pre-war borders that extended into areas now in Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia.