Concept of Sovereignty in Political Science

The term Sovereignty is derived from the Latin word “Superanus”, which means Supreme or Paramount.

According to Aristotle, “Sovereignty is supreme power of the state.”

The terms “Sovereign” and “Sovereignty” were first used by the French jurists in the 15^th century. Bodin’s publication “The Republic” in 1516 use the term Sovereignty in Political Science.

Aspects of Sovereignty:

There are two aspects of Sovereignty: -

1. Internal Sovereignty
2. External Sovereignty

1. Internal Sovereignty – It issues orders to all men and all associations within that area; it receives orders from none of them. Its will is subject to no legal limitation of any kind. What it proposes is right by mere announcements of intention.

2. External Sovereignty – State is subject to no other authority and is independent of any compulsion on the part of other states. Every independent state reserves the authority to renounce trade treaties and to enter into military agreements. Each state is independent of other state.

Definitions of Sovereignty:

Definition of Sovereignty by some eminent personalities are as follows: -

1. According to Jellinek, “The characteristics of the State by virtue of which it cannot be legally bound except by its own or limited by any other power other than itself.”

1. According to Bodin, “Sovereignty is the supreme power of the state over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law.”

1. According to Willoughby, “Sovereignty is the supreme will of the state.”

1. According to Woodrow Wilson, “Sovereignty is the daily operative power of framing and giving effect to the laws.”

Kinds of Sovereignty:

Sovereignty can be categorised as: -

1. Nominal/Real Sovereignty –

Nominal sovereignty refers to authority that exists in form but not in actual power. In such cases, the sovereign is recognized as the head of state but does not possess effective control over governance. A classic example is the British Monarch, who is the ceremonial head of state but does not exercise real political power.

Real sovereignty, on the other hand, refers to the actual source of authority that controls the functioning of the state. In democratic systems, the real sovereign is often the elected government or the people through their representatives. While a nominal sovereign may have legal recognition, real sovereignty lies with those who exercise power in practice.

2. Legal Sovereignty –

Legal sovereignty is the authority that is recognized by law as the supreme law-making body. It resides in the institution or organ that has the ultimate power to legislate and enforce laws within a state. Legal sovereignty is defined by legal theorists like John Austin, who emphasized the role of a determinate human superior whose commands are habitually obeyed by the citizens. In parliamentary democracies such as India, the Parliament is considered the legal sovereign because it holds the power to make and amend laws within the framework of the Constitution. Legal sovereignty is typically unchallengeable within its legal limits, and its decisions are binding on all.

3. Political Sovereignty –

Political sovereignty refers to the actual power that lies behind the legal sovereign. While legal sovereignty may reside in an institution like Parliament, political sovereignty is exercised by the electorate or the general will of the people. It is not formally codified but exists in the form of public opinion, electoral mandates, political parties, and pressure groups. In practice, legal institutions function according to the will of the politically sovereign people. Political sovereignty ensures that governments remain accountable and responsive to the needs and preferences of the population, maintaining the spirit of democracy.

4. Popular Sovereignty –

Popular sovereignty is the principle that the ultimate source of political authority rests with the people. This concept is foundational to modern democratic theory and was prominently advocated by philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In a system based on popular sovereignty, all government power is derived from the consent of the governed, typically expressed through regular elections, referenda, and active civic participation. The Indian Constitution reflects this concept in its Preamble, which begins with the words, “We, the People of India.” This indicates that the legitimacy of all laws and institutions flows from the people themselves.

5. De Facto De Jure Sovereignty –

De jure sovereignty refers to the lawful, legitimate authority to govern a state, which is recognized both internally and by the international community. This form of sovereignty is constitutionally sanctioned and adheres to established legal norms. For example, the Government of India is the de jure sovereign as it functions according to the Constitution and is recognized by other nations. De facto sovereignty, in contrast, refers to a situation where power is exercised by an authority that may not have legal or constitutional legitimacy but controls the state in reality. This is often seen in cases of military coups or revolutionary governments. A historical example would be the rule of General Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, where he exercised de facto sovereignty despite questions over his de jure legitimacy.

The various kinds of sovereignty, nominal, real, legal, political, popular, de facto, and de jure, highlight the distinction between legal authority and practical power, as well as between formal structures and the people's will. In modern democracies, sovereignty is no longer viewed as absolute or indivisible; rather, it is distributed and limited by constitutional principles, democratic accountability, and international norm.

Characteristics/Attributes of Sovereignty:

Various characteristics/attributes of Sovereignty ae as follows: -

1. Permanence –

Sovereignty lasts as long as an independent state lasts. It doesn’t cease with the death or temporary dispossession of a particular bearer, shifts immediately to a new bearer as the centre of gravity shifts from one part of physical body to another when it undergoes external change.

2. Exclusiveness –

By exclusiveness we mean that there can be no two sovereigns in one independent state and if the two sovereigns exist in the same state, the unity of that state will be destroyed. There can’t exist another sovereign state within the existing sovereign state.

3. All Comprehensiveness –

Every individual and every association of individual is subject to the sovereignty of the state. No group, however, rich or powerful it may be, can resist or disobey the sovereign authority.

4. Inalienability –

By inalienability we mean, that the state cannot part with its sovereignty. Sovereignty can no more be alienated than a tree can alienate its right to sprout or a man can transfer his life or personality to another self-destruction.

5. Unity –

Unity is the very spirit of Sovereignty. The sovereign state is united just as we are united.

6. Imprescriptibility –

Imprescriptibility is the state of being immune from prescription, meaning a right, quality, or property cannot be lost or forfeited over time, even if it is not exercised for a period. If sovereignty doesn’t exercise his sovereignty for a certain period of time, it does not lead to the destruction of sovereignty. It lasts as long as the state lasts.

7. Indivisibility –

Sovereignty is an entire thing. To divide it is to destroy it. It is the supreme power in a state.

8. Absoluteness –

Sovereignty is absolute and unlimited. The sovereign is entitled to do whatever he likes. Sovereignty is subject to none.

9. Originality –

By originality we mean that the sovereignty wields power by virtue of his own right and not by virtue of any mercy.

Limitations of Sovereignty:

1. Constitutional Limitations –

In constitutional democracies, sovereignty is limited by the Constitution. Government actions must conform to constitutional provisions, such as fundamental rights. In India, the Constitution is supreme, the Parliament cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution (Basic Structure Doctrine).

2. Rule of Law –

The rule of law places restrictions on arbitrary use of power. Sovereign powers must operate within the framework of established laws and judicial review.

3. International Law and Organisations –

State sovereignty is limited by international obligations, such as treaties, conventions, and customary international law. Membership in the United Nations, World Trade Organisation, etc. requires the state to comply with global norms, thereby reducing absolute sovereignty.

For eg.: India’s commitment under the Paris Agreement influence its environmental policies.

4. Globalisation –

In a globalised world, economic, cultural, and technological interdependence limits sovereignty. States must adapt to global market pressures, multinational corporations, and cross-border challenges like climate change, terrorism, and pandemics.

5. Human Rights Norms –

The doctrine of humanitarian intervention challenges the traditional concept of non-intervention in internal affairs. Sovereignty is not a shield against gross human rights violations.

6. Federal Structure –

In federal states like India or the USA, sovereignty is divided between central and state governments. This division limits the central government’s authority over state subjects.

7. Popular Sovereignty and Democracy –

In democracies, sovereignty ultimately rests with the people. Governments are accountable to the electorate, which limits the arbitrary exercise of power.

Eg.: Regular elections, public opinion, media, and civil society act as checks.

8. Judicial Review –

Courts, especially Constitutional Courts, have the power to strike down laws or executive actions that exceed the limits of legal authority. In India, Article 13 of the Constitution empowers courts to invalidate laws violating fundamental rights.

9. Economic Dependence –

Many countries rely on international financial institutions (IMF, World Bank) or foreign aid, which can dictate domestic policy in exchange for loans or assistance.

While the classical idea of sovereignty implies absolute and unlimited power, the modern understanding, especially in the context of democratic constitutionalism and international law, acknowledges that sovereignty is limited by both internal mechanisms (like law and constitution) and external influences (like globalization and treaties).

Legal/Monistic/Austin’s Classical Theory of Sovereignty:

1. The Legal or Monistic theory of sovereignty is most closely associated with John Austin, who developed this classical theory in the 19th century as part of his legal positivist approach. This theory views sovereignty as the supreme, absolute, and indivisible authority within a political system.

1. According to Austin, the sovereign is a determinate human superior whose commands are habitually obeyed by the people, and who does not habitually obey any other authority.

1. The term "legal" highlights that sovereignty, in this theory, is grounded in law and legal authority rather than custom, morality, or consent.

1. The label "monistic" refers to the belief that sovereignty must reside in a single, unified source, meaning it cannot be divided between different institutions or shared between the state and other entities (such as the Church or provinces in a federal system).

1. Thus, the legal/monistic/Austinian theory asserts that sovereignty is absolute, indivisible, inalienable, and legally supreme, making it a centralized and unquestioned source of law and command in the state. This classical view has been critiqued by modern theorists for being too rigid and ignoring the complexities of democratic and pluralistic societies.

Criticism of Austin’s Classical Theory of Sovereignty:

Critiques argue that: -

1. Sovereignty is not Indivisible according to Pluralists –

The pluralists challenge the claims of the state to supremacy on the ground that society consists of many associations and the state is also one among them. Thus, the state cannot be endowed with the Sovereign power of the community. Sovereignty is divisible and it must be divided between the State and various other associations of individuals. 

2. Sovereign is not Absolute –

According to John Austin, Sovereign is absolute and has no limitations on its authority. Laski points out that no sovereign has anywhere possessed unlimited power and attempt to exert it has always resulted in the establishment of safeguards. This theory is not practical.

3. Force is not the Only Sanction behind Laws –

T.H. Green has pointed out that law is obeyed not because of physical sanctions behind it but because of its contents. It is the consciousness on the part of the citizens that obedience to law is essential for the promotion of common welfare.

4. Law is not the Command of the Sovereign –

Austin is of the opinion that the determinate human superior is the only law maker and his commands are law. All commands of the determinate superior are not law.

Henry Maine heavily criticised Austin’s theory of Sovereignty. He believes that sovereignty does not reside in the determinate human superior.

5. It is Against Popular Sovereignty –

Monistic Theory is criticised on the ground that it is inconsistent with the idea of “Popular Sovereignty”. In fact, it is an anti-thesis of Rousseau’s Doctrine that general will is sovereign. Pluralists argue that society is federal and plural rather than monistic.

Pluralistic Theory of Sovereignty:

1. Pluralistic Theory of Sovereignty was a reaction to Monistic/Legal Theory of Sovereignty.

1. This theory stands for the decentralisation of Authority.

1. Pluralistic Theory of Sovereignty assumes that all citizens belong to groups and many will have multiple group membership. State enjoys a privileged position because of its wider jurisdiction.

1. Highlights of the Pluralistic Theory include:
2. Over concentration of power in the hands of the state is harmful.
3. They want a state in which power is distributed among different groups and associations.
4. Absolute Sovereignty undermines the autonomous associations. It is tyrannical to treat state as the only source and upholder of power.
5. While the Monistic Theory is associated with the legal aspects of sovereignty, the Pluralistic Theory emphasises on the sociological character of the State.
6. 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.

Criticism of Pluralistic Theory of Sovereignty:

Critiques argue that: -

1. In Order to avoid Social Conflict, Unified Power must be given to State –

One major criticism of pluralism is that it undermines social cohesion and legal uniformity. In a society with multiple power centres, conflicting commands and overlapping authorities may arise. To prevent such confusion and ensure social order, critics argue that there must be a unified, supreme authority—the state. Only a centralized sovereign power can maintain law and order, enforce legal norms uniformly, and mediate between competing group interests. Without a final authority, disputes between associations may escalate, resulting in social unrest or even violence.

2. Superiority of the Interests of the Dominant Group over Those of the Vulnerable Group of Society –

Critics also highlight the elitist bias in pluralistic systems. While pluralists claim that power is dispersed among various associations, in reality, some groups (such as corporations, religious majorities, or wealthy elites) often possess disproportionate influence. This can lead to the marginalization of weaker or vulnerable groups, such as minorities, the poor, or historically disadvantaged communities. As a result, pluralism may inadvertently justify or reinforce social inequality, where the powerful dominate policymaking, access to resources, and legal protections, undermining substantive justice in society.

3. Division of Sovereignty in Fact leads to Destruction of Sovereignty –

Sovereignty, as traditionally defined, implies absolute, indivisible, and supreme authority. The pluralist notion that sovereignty can be divided among multiple associations is seen as contradictory to this definition. Critics argue that if multiple groups exercise sovereign powers independently, the very concept of sovereignty becomes meaningless. The legal unity and coherence of the state break down, making it difficult to identify who has the final authority. This fragmentation threatens the sovereign integrity of the state and weakens its ability to govern effectively.

4. The Pluralist View Will Lead to Political Anarchy and Social Instability –

Critics claim that unchecked pluralism can result in political anarchy and instability. When multiple institutions claim authority and demand obedience, citizens may become confused about where their primary loyalty lies. This can lead to conflicting allegiances, legal uncertainty, and erosion of state legitimacy. In extreme cases, it could encourage secessionist movements, religious extremism, or parallel governance structures, all of which challenge the unity and sovereignty of the state. Therefore, critics insist on a strong, centralized authority to preserve political stability and constitutional order.