What is sovereignty and how philosophers define it

In many contemporary political crises and issues, the concepts of sovereignty and territorial integrity played out clearly. 

For instance, the two-state solution seen as offering a lasting end to the longstanding Israel-Palestine conflict entails territorial demarcation between the state of Israel and the proposed state of Palestine. 

Also, back in 2016, when the United Kingdom voted in a referendum to leave the European Union – a process that has been called Brexit – this was seen by many as the restoration of the sovereignty of the British parliament in Westminster, London.

Such issues underline that not only are the concepts of sovereignty and territorial integrity central in terms of academic concerns, but they also have a real-world impact on the everyday lives of people. 

Hence, here an attempt is made to analyse the concept of sovereignty and present its central characteristics with examples from contemporary politics. 

What is sovereignty?

The concept of sovereignty is one of the most central concepts in the discipline of political science. It is connected with another, perhaps, the central concept in the discipline, the state. 

One of the most important theorists associated with the concept of sovereignty is John Austin who in the 19th century can be said to have laid its three broad characteristics. 

First, sovereignty connotes supreme authority that must be identifiable in the form of an individual such as a monarch in medieval times or, as we are more accustomed to in modern times, in the form of a body of individuals such as parliament that represents the people. 

Second, the people in a polity must render habitual obedience to the sovereign as a mark of the latter’s authority. Third, there is no authority higher than the sovereign to which it can become subservient.

The United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union was seen as exemplifying the third characteristic. That is, the British parliament should not accept the superiority of the European Parliament in Brussels.

Leviathan

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes and his classic work Leviathan (1651) can most immediately be identified with the kind of sovereignty that the first point makes in terms of unmissable and unmistakable presence. 

The cover page of the original edition of Hobbes’s work depicts the Leviathan, which is a monster that emerges from the sea as it looms over the English landscape. The term Leviathan leaves no doubt about where sovereign authority lies. 

At the same time, if one considers the second point about the habitual obedience that individuals are obliged to render, then it becomes clear that there are harsh costs to be borne by those who do not do so. 

The more that individuals are in the habit of rendering habitual obedience, the more that the conveniences of living in the polity are enhanced. Imagine the chaos if no one stopped when the traffic lights went red. 

At the same time, there is an element of fear when it comes to not rendering obedience to the sovereign, as punitive measures will quickly follow.

Sovereignty and territorial integrity

Moreover, the authority of the sovereign must have a clear territorial demarcation. This is usually understood to cover the full territorial extent of the sovereign’s jurisdiction, including the air space over the territory and extending to some distance into the sea if the territory has a coastline. 

This understanding of what can be called the territorial integrity of sovereignty encompasses the idea of safe and secure borders that surround the territory. It would also incorporate the resources below the surface such as minerals. 

The prolonged Israel-Palestine dispute, for instance, entails problems over identifying the borders between the state of Israel and the proposed state of Palestine and whether such a Palestinian state will have complete control over the air space that covers its territory.

Shifts in sovereignty

One of the great shifts in the concept of sovereignty has been a movement away from identifying it with an individual such as a monarch and associating it with the popular will of the people. 

This shift from absolute to popular sovereignty over the centuries can perhaps best capture the way in which the concept of sovereignty has been configured in modern times. 

Also, in the concept of sovereignty, one can find an element of the mystification of state power by placing it on an elevated pedestal. However, in the 20th century, one can note a certain de-mystification of sovereignty at the hands of many political theorists.

Pluralistic view of sovereignty

French Philosopher Michel Foucault, who died in June 1984, urged that there’s a need to cut off the sovereign or the King’s head. For he believed that power does not exist in a centralised form, but in far more diffuse, peripheral, capillary and subtle forms.

Here there is the idea of sovereign power not outside of us, but all around us, disciplining us into docility and even acting inside us as it regulates the very conditions of life in what has been called ‘bio-politics’. Such ideas have given the concept of sovereignty a different kind of meaning altogether.

Moreover, there’s a group of not-so-well-known theorists called the English pluralists who, at the beginning of the 20th century, mooted a softer, pluralist version of sovereignty in contrast to the severity that sovereignty is usually associated with when it is located in a single monistic site of power. 

English pluralists such as GDH Cole and, to some extent, Harold Laski argued that associations and groups that existed at an intermediate level between the state and the individual such as trade guilds or trade unions also retained aspects of sovereignty. In this manner, the state rather than maintaining some special pre-eminence was an association among many other associations.

In contrast to the softness of sovereignty mentioned above, we have a very stark notion of sovereignty in the writings of another 20th century theorist like Carl Schmitt. 

In Schmitt’s conception of sovereignty, it is the authoritative political decision (whose only referent is the decision itself), and its ability to create a state of exception. The term ‘state of exception’ means the point at which the judicial and legal system is overturned on account of an emergency or threat, and the sovereign’s will takes over in the form of doing whatever is deemed fit for the polity. 

Need to refashion the idea of sovereignty? 

We can conclude by suggesting that most theories of sovereignty have tended to assume a sternness or starkness rather than any softness. This is done to underline the special status of the state as the supreme and most pre-eminent of human associations. 

States have been loath to share or pool their sovereignty as this has been seen as undermining their special status of authority. The European Union is an example of pooled sovereignty. 

But problems of the troubled, interconnected and globalised 21st century such as climate change, cybercrime, and financial crises that crisscross borders demand further refashioning of the concept.

Hence, it will be interesting to see the ways in which the concept of sovereignty evolves. 

Post Read Question

How has the concept of sovereignty evolved over time? 

Critically evaluate the concept of sovereignty in relation to issues like climate change, cybercrime, and financial crises which are not confined to national borders. 

How does the renewed focus on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor raise concerns for India regarding territorial integrity?

Britain’s exit from the European Union was seen as the restoration of the sovereignty of the British parliament. Comment. 

(Amir Ali is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)