Theories OF Sovereignty PDF

Preview

Summary

Sovereignty has primarily been discussed from two theoretical perspectives. John Austin offers one such viewpoint through his Monistic theory. Austin's theory of sovereignty is another name for it. The Pluralistic theory is the other option. These two theories' explanations of sovereignty are diamet...

Description

THEORIES OF SOVEREIGNTY INTRODUCTION Sovereignty has primarily been discussed from two theoretical perspectives. John Austin offers one such viewpoint through his Monistic theory. Austin's theory of sovereignty is another name for it. The Pluralistic theory is the other option. These two theories' explanations of sovereignty are diametrically opposed. In this unit, we'll compare and contrast these two sovereignty theories. THEORIES OF SOVEREIGNTY The two theories of sovereignty, namely, Austin’s theory of sovereignty and the Pluralist theory of sovereignty are discussed as follows : Austin's Theory of Sovereignty In modern times, the evolution of sovereignty as a theory has roughly paralleled the state's expansion in terms of power, functions, and prestige. John Austin, an English jurist, perfected the theory of sovereignty as a legal concept (i.e. sovereignty expressed in terms of law) in the nineteenth century. He is regarded as the most eloquent proponent of the Monistic sovereignty theory. This theory is based on the teachings of Thomas Hobbes and Jeremy Bentham, two English philosophers. Because it envisions a single sovereign in the state, it is known as the Monistic theory of sovereignty. The sovereign can be a single person or a group of people. In addition, because sovereignty is a legal concept, the theory is known as the Legal-Monistic theory of sovereignty. Because John Austin is credited with developing the monistic explanation of sovereignty, this theory is also known as Austin's theory of sovereignty. "If a determinate human superior not in the habit of obedience to a like superior receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in that society, and that society (including the superior) is a society political and independent," wrote John Austin in his famous book, Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832). An examination of the preceding definition reveals the following implications: To begin, sovereignty must be vested in a "determinate person" or "determinate body" that serves as the state's ultimate source of power. Second, the determinate superior's power is limitless and absolute. The sovereign authority has the power to demand obedience from others, but it never does so to other authorities. Third, a people's obedience to an authority will not always transform that authority into sovereign power.

Fourth, submission to the sovereign authority must be voluntary and thus unbroken and uninterrupted. Austin also points out that all of the inhabitants do not have to submit to the superior. It is sufficient if the "bulk," that is, the majority of a society, obeys the determined superior on a regular basis. Fifth, the sovereign is the only one who can make laws. Laws are the sovereign's commands that are binding on everyone within the state's territorial jurisdiction. The sovereign will punish those who break or violate these commands. Sixth, sovereignty is a single, indivisible entity that cannot be divided between two or more parties. A state can only have one sovereign authority. According to the analysis of Austin's theory of sovereignty, sovereignty is defined as the supreme power in a state that is determinate, absolute, inalienable, and allencompassing.

Critical Evaluation of Austin’s Theory Many writers, including English philosopher Sidgwick, British jurist and historian Sir Henry Maine, and others, have slammed Austin's theory. The main criticism levelled at Austin's theory is that it is incompatible with the modern concept of popular sovereignty. Austin's fascination with the legal aspect of sovereignty causes him to lose sight of popular sovereignty, which holds that the people are the ultimate source of all authority. Another criticism of Austin's theory of sovereignty is that it could lead to the emergence of an all-powerful ruler. When a person or a group of people exercises sovereign power, they become extremely powerful and have no accountability to anyone. This theory could lead to a government that is irresponsible. The government is free to do whatever it wants. It does not have to answer to anyone about how it operates. This allows it to make decisions that are not in the best interests of the people. It's also worth noting that sovereignty isn't always certain. In a federal state, finding the sovereign is extremely difficult. In the federal state of the United States, for example, sovereignty is shared by neither the President nor the legislature, namely the Congress. As stated in the constitution, it belongs to the people. In India, the situation is similar. Furthermore, Austin was chastised for defining law as the sovereign's command. Customary laws, on the other hand, are supreme in many countries and are not issued in the form of commands. However, such laws have a significant impact on the behaviour of even despots. Sir Henry Maine uses Ranjit Singh of Punjab as an example of a human superior who fits the Austinian concept. Even a despotic ruler

like Ranjit Singh, however, would not dare to change the customary laws that governed his people's behaviour. Austin's sovereignty theory has also been criticised for putting too much emphasis on force. According to Austin, people follow the law because they are afraid of being punished. However, this is only partially accurate. People obey the law because it is beneficial to them. It can also be said that theory is undemocratic because it gives no place in the state to public opinion. People have no right to speak out against the government's actions, and they must obey whatever the authorities decide. The state, according to proponents of the Pluralist theory of sovereignty, is an association like any other. According to the Pluralists, sovereignty should not be vested solely in the hands of the state, but rather in the hands of various groups and associations who should have equal sovereign power alongside the state. Regardless of the criticisms levelled against John Austin's monistic view of sovereignty, it must be noted that Austin is a proponent of absolute and unlimited sovereignty purely from a legal or formal standpoint. He does not prescribe for an irresponsible sovereign, but he does maintain that the sovereign cannot be formally held accountable to any authority similar to himself: his authority is legally superior to all individuals and groups under his jurisdiction. Austin has provided a valuable service by clearly separating the legal and political sovereigns. Pluralist Theory of Sovereignty Pluralism, or the Pluralist theory of sovereignty, arose as a reaction to the previous section's discussion of the Monistic theory of sovereignty. The Pluralist theory arose in response to the monists' overemphasis on state power. Emile Durkheim (French sociologist), Otto von Gierke (German scholar), F.W. Maitland (English historian), G.D.H. Cole (English scholar), Sidney and Beatrice Webb (British economists), Miss M.P. Follet (American scholar), and Professor Harold Laski are some of the most prominent proponents of the Pluralist theory (British scholar). The Pluralist theory of sovereignty rejects the Monistic theory of sovereignty and denies that the state's supreme power is absolute and indivisible. Pluralism's Principles: Pluralistic Nature of Society : The Pluralist theory acknowledges the importance of various associations formed by men in pursuit of their various interests in society. The church and other religious organisations, trade unions, cooperative societies, voluntary associations, and other similar organisations are examples of such organisations. At best, the state is merely one of these organisations, standing alongside them rather than above them. These associations are not distinct from the state.

Role of the State as Coordinator : The state coordinates the activities of the other associations in the society, just as an association coordinates the activities of its members. The state is a means of resolving these associations' conflicting claims. It does so by developing a common basis for their operation, not by imposing its own will on them, but by harmonising and coordinating their various interests in order to secure the "common good," or the overall interest of society. The State must justify its claim to authority : According to the Pluralist theory, the state's claim to superior authority cannot be taken for granted. The state has a unique position in that its jurisdiction extends to all individuals and organisations within its borders. It has coercive powers, allowing it to punish those who disobey its commands. However, the exercise of the state's special powers must be justified. As an association of associations, the state has a moral obligation to harmonise the interests of all organisations operating in society, without allowing "vested interests" to influence how it exercises its power.

Decentralisation of Authority: Pluralists believe that a monolithic view of the state cannot deal with the modern world's complexity of economic and political relations. As a result, society's management and control must be shared among various organisations in proportion to their contribution to the common good. As a result, pluralists advocate for decentralisation of authority so that all power does not rest in the hands of the state. Critical Assessment of Pluralist Theory: The pluralist theory of sovereignty is criticised on the grounds that dividing sovereignty among the various associations that exist in society will result in the loss of sovereignty. It will no longer be a sovereign power, and its value will plummet. In fact, it will lead to the state's disintegration. If the state collapses, the entire society will suffer. It's difficult to imagine a peaceful and secure life without the state's authority. Another criticism of this theory is that there will be confusion if sovereign power is exercised by the state and other organisations. No one will listen to anyone because everyone will have sovereign power. There will be a clash of interests in such a situation because there will be no one to coordinate the activities of other associations and organisations. The society will devolve into chaos. Additionally, some social groups may be more organised and vocal than others. The interests of the dominant groups may prevail over the interests of the vulnerable sections of society in such situations. In such circumstances, the state bears responsibility for safeguarding the common good, as it must reconcile the competing claims of various interest groups.

The pluralistic theory, according to critics, is more destructive than constructive. Because only one organisation should have sovereign power, and that organisation should be the state. Only the state should have the authority to make laws and to enforce them. If a large number of organisations have the power to make laws, the society will be destroyed. Despite the criticisms levelled at the Pluralist theory of sovereignty, it is important to remember that the pluralist theory was a democratic response to state absolutism. It emphasised the state's limitations while also acknowledging the role and importance of various groups and associations in society. LET US COMBINE OUR RESULTS. • John Austin, an English jurist, perfected the theory of sovereignty as a legal concept in the nineteenth century. He is regarded as the most eloquent proponent of the LegalMonistic sovereignty theory. Because it envisions a single sovereign in the state, it is known as the Monistic theory of sovereignty. • Sovereignty is a legal concept in which the sovereign's authority has legal precedence over all individuals and groups within the sovereign's jurisdiction. In his famous book, Province of Jurisprudence Determined, John Austin expressed his views on sovereignty (1832). • Pluralism, also known as the Pluralist Theory of Sovereignty, arose as a reaction to the Monistic Theory of Sovereignty. The Pluralist theory acknowledges the importance of various associations in society. Religious organisations, trade unions, cooperative societies, and voluntary organisations are examples of such organisations. At best, the state is merely one of these organisations, standing alongside them rather than above them. • Pluralists argue that the state can only serve as a coordinator, coordinating the activities of other associations in society and attempting to resolve conflicting claims. Pluralists advocate for decentralisation of power so that all power does not rest in the hands of the state....