Sovereignty, Power or Authority?

Even to this late date and with the term, “like so many other words in our political lexicon “, what then is Sovereignty? Sovereignty, strictly, is the locus of ultimate legitimate authority in a political society, once the Prince or "the Crown," later parliament or the people. In my essay, I will discuss the origins of Sovereignty, the different types of Sovereignty, Sovereignty’s future.

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. The idea of Sovereignty is ever-changing throughout history. During the Classical period, the Roman Jurist Ulpian observed that, the imperium of the people is transferred to the Emperor, the Emperor is not bound by the law and the Emperor’s word is law. In the late 1550s, a time where civil war desperately cries out for a stronger central authority, Sovereignty reemerged. This occurred as Monarchs had begun to gain power into their own hands at the expense of nobility and nation states were rising.

The two main theories behind Sovereignty are the Concept of De Facto and De Jure. De Facto or actual sovereignty is one where control in facts exists while, De Jure is the theoretical right to exercise exclusive control over one's subjects. Some notable true de facto leaders have been of the and General of . Both of these men exercised near-total control over their respective nations for many years, despite not having either legal constitutional office or the legal authority to exercise power. In the , the British Sovereign is the theoretical executive authority, even though executive decisions are made by the Prime Minister and his on the Sovereign's behalf. Hence, the term "Her Majesty's Government".

In contrast to Somalia, nations and international bodies do not recognise it as a de fact independent nation even though the government exercises absolute control over its claimed territory. This is probably because of unlawful, unconstitutional, or otherwise illegitimate means of ruling Somalia.

This is a preview of the whole essay

External and Internal dimensions of sovereignty also exist in the world of politics. The former focuses on a state's external environment and characterises relations among states within the international system, the latter depicts a state's setting within its own territory. The external dimension of the concept of sovereignty goes back to Thomas Hobbes. In contrast to internal sovereignty, external sovereignty implies the absence of a local supreme authority. For example, the commonwealth countries that were once ruled by the British.

In operational terms, internal sovereignty in today's modern democracy means the ability of a government to formulate, implement, and manage public policy. Thus, in terms of this inquiry, which focuses on the regulatory and rule-making dimension of public policy-making, governments exercise internal sovereignty when they make laws and regulations.

Moving on, the principle of Sovereignty has been modified as a result of a number of political developments which have taken place in the 19th and 20th centuries. I will elaborate further about Sovereignty in the UK. Like Singapore, where the President is like the Queen in UK, power and decision making lies with the Prime Minister and Parliament. Hence, the term “Parliamentary Sovereignty”. According to its principles, Parliament is the only body that can make law for the UK. No other authority can overrule and change the laws which have already been made by Parliament. As it stands, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that British courts are obliged to enforce any law passed by Parliament. This is very different from the liberal Americans. For instance, Supreme Court can declare the law passed by Congress to be unconstitutional.

In addition, I will use the example of the incorporation of European convention on Human Rights to show that it has not further eroded parliamentary sovereignty. It is believed that the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights would erode the Parliamentary sovereignty because judges would be even the power to strike. The 1998 Human Rights Act, however, limited the power of judges to declaring laws to be incompatible with the convention. Parliament will then be able to use a fast-track procedure to amend the laws incompatible.

However, British’s membership of the European Union (EU) raises limitations on its sovereignty. EU law binds all member states. Therefore, it takes precedence over British domestic law. Parliament could repeal previous legislation and withdraw from the EU, but, in practice, this is unlikely.

There are indeed many views on Sovereignty. Some of which come from differing ideology, thus shaping the idea of sovereignty in their country. To an Anarchist, sovereignty of the state and government is denied. Anarchists often argue for a specific individual kind of sovereignty, such as the Anarch as a sovereign individual. To an Imperialist, he will argue that sovereignty rightfully exists with those states that hold the greatest ability to impose the will of said state, by force or threat of force, over the populace or other states with weaker military or political will. They effectively deny the sovereignty of the individual in deference.

How about Sovereignty co-existing with Democracy? A popular ideal for the people of today. Democracy is known as “Popular Sovereignty”. I believe it was given this name because a small amount of power is passed on to the citizens. Such instances will be mass electorate and referendums. In this manner, Popular Sovereignty is indeed ideal and desired in most states. However, “Popular sovereignty” of the people can also be downgraded and or shelved.

Finally, will sovereignty be inevitable in the future? Will there always be the supreme authority guiding the nations. I wholeheartedly believe that sovereignty will exist like how it did during the dawn of human beings. Even if it is the slightest situation in a household, “sovereignty” in that sense, lies with the parents. On a national and international level, sovereignty may eventually merge with concepts such as democracy and perhaps be a double edges sword when it merges with brute force and violence. As Lassa Oppeheim said “There exists perhaps no conception more controversial than that of sovereignty. It has never been entirely agreed upon”, the exact definition and practical use of sovereignty has already been blurred.

(1067 words)

References

http://www.kuleuven.be/ep/viewpic.php?LAN=E&TABLE=EP&ID=150

http://www.globalissues.org/

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/sovereignty/?nid=1023

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

http://www.geopolitika.lt/?artc=677

British Politics In Focus- Textbook