Sovereignty is the authority possessed by the governing individual or institution of a society. Sovereign authority is distinct in that it is unrestricted by legal regulation since the sovereign authority is itself the source of all law. Conceptions of sovereignty are narrow and increasingly anachronistic. Scholars must consider deeply the purpose and role of sovereignty in the contemporary world. The idea of state sovereignty appears to have developed first in Europe, in the late middle ages, where it emerged once a division was made between the sacred authority of the church and the secular authority of the state. So long as state power was subject to religious institutions, like the Catholic church, state sovereignty could not emerge. In Britain, state sovereignty is possessed by the Crown in Parliament: law passed by Parliament and consented to by the Crown has unchallengeable legal authority.
RETHINKING THE SOVEREIGNTY DEBATE IN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW - Kal Raustiala. Many observers argue that sovereignty is threatened by the ongoing expansion of international economic institutions. This article explores a school of thought that counterintuitively argues that institutions such as the World Trade Organization in fact strengthen sovereignty. These theories collectively highlight an under-explored proposition: that changes in the international system or in domestic politics have already compromised sovereignty and thus international institutions, while rendering the erosion of sovereignty more legible, actually serve as a means to reassert or reclaim sovereignty. First, they challenge prevailing wisdom and thus offer an alternative guide for policy. Second, they suggest that our conceptions of sovereignty are unduly narrow and may be increasingly anachronistic. In particular, scholars must consider more deeply the purpose and role of sovereignty in the contemporary world.
globalization and transnational social movements
Raimo Vayrynen, Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame.
Abstract: Traditionally, sovereign states have been defined, in terms of their external and internal dimensions, as mutually exclusive territorial jurisdictions. It is unrealistic to define state sovereignty as a counterpose to the global system, as these phenomena have become mutually embedded. States and their sovereignty are not disappearing on the contrary, they may be gaining new tasks and resources but they cannot exercise their agentive power as effectively as before. This means that the internal dimension of state sovereignty has been transformed more thoroughly than the external one.
Sovereignty - An Institutional Perspective. In a world of nuclear weapons and economic interdependence, any adequate analysis of the nature of sovereignty operationalized with regard to transborder controls and extraterritoriality must be informed by an institutional perspective. - STEPHEN D. KRASNER, Department of Political Science Stanford University.
Floating Sovereignty: A Pathology or
a Necessary Means of State Evolution?
The framing of the debate concerning sovereignty in terms of the dualism of retention or rejection conceals the floating character of sovereignty and constrains the capacity of the state to mutate, adapt and respond adequately to the diverse and complex processes which range in, through and above it.
(i) sovereignty's historical entanglement with statehood makes it unsuitable for non-state political organisations;
(ii) although the state has been the necessary condition for sovereignty, the latter is no longer necessary for the evolution of the state;
(iii) the traditional ideological function performed by sovereignty, namely the legitimation of state power, could be performed by other organizing principles which prioritize governmental efficiency over territorial extent and democratic criteria over nationalist ones.
Sovereignty re-examined: the courts,
parliament, and statutes
NW Barber, Brasenose College, Oxford. In this article the relationship between Parliament and courts is examined. The views of writers on sovereignty are considered and criticized. Two criticisms of the sovereignty theorists are made: first, that they wrongly assume that a legal system must attribute supreme legal power to a single source and, second, that they wrongly assume that statutes in the English system constitute absolute exclusionary reasons for decision.