Popular Sovereignty The Princeton Encyclopedia Of Self Determination

Self-determination conflicts are once again on the front burner of international politics. This website provides a basic tool for understanding the key terms associated with self-determination, as well as detailed case studies to highlight how those terms are applied in a selection of conflicts. In order to foster ongoing dialogue and research on topics relating to self-determination, content will be added as frequently as possible and we provide links to current conflicts and issues which are not yet... The Encyclopedia Princetoniensis provides a forum for the objective exchange of ideas on issues of self-determination. Our aim is to facilitate both the study of claims as well as their resolution by capturing the multicultural, dynamic dimension of self-determination in today's world. "It is excellent news that this Encyclopaedia initiative is under way.

It will, I have absolutely no doubt, be an extremely valuable addition to the literature on self-determination and . . . will have great practical value for all manner of people who are involved in issues of self-determination." Self-determination conflicts are once again on the front burner of international politics. This project worked to generate essays that define and explore the key terms associated with self-determination, detailed case studies to highlight how those terms are applied in a selection of conflicts, and overview essays...

The broader aim has been to foster ongoing dialogue and research on topics relating to self-determination, to contribute to their resolution, and to capture fully the multicultural, dynamic dimension of self-determination in today's world. These activities took place in parallel with focused LISD research and policy work in Afghanistan, the Balkans, and elsewhere. Encyclopedia Princetoniensis: The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination (PESD) is an internet accessible encyclopedia of definitions, case studies, and analytical essays on subjects related to self-determination by leading academics and practitioners across various disciplines and... PESD provides a comprehensive, credible source of information on self-determination issues. In its internet-based electronic format, PESD offers immediate access to information necessary for in-depth comparative analyses as well as real-time policy making decisions. Entries follow rigorous academic standards, striving to set the parameters of debate for concepts related to self-determination, including sovereignty, citizenship, democracy, human rights, autonomy, and federalism.

Contributors are at the forefront of their respective fields and, together, create a strong conceptual framework for academic discussions, political negotiations, and conflict resolution. Unlike other resources, PESD strives to be globally accessible in real time, with internet access and translations into multiple languages; to facilitate education and networking among researchers, students, and institutions; and to be an... For wide-ranging coverage of self-determination issues, PESD includes three types of entries: Initial entries to PESD cover key definitions and case studies and essays related to the Balkans. As an ongoing project, content is commissioned, peer-reviewed, and added to PESD on a regular basis. Sovereignty is supreme authority.

It involves authority over all others within its field of operation, and the absence of any other superior authority in that same field. It is essentially a legal construct, rather than one reflecting the possession of power and authority in practice (sometimes referred to as political sovereignty). Sovereignty is a concept used predominantly in the domestic context of the legal authority wielded within and by a State. It is thus more a concept of constitutional law than of international law, since on the international plane no State has as a matter of law authority over all other States. The notion of sovereignty as it is now understood only entered the vocabulary of political discourse in the second half of the 16th century, at a time when modern conceptions of the State were... Before then notions of supreme authority in the community as a whole were based more on religious than temporal considerations.

But even in the middle ages the word souverain (itself derived from the Latin superanus, meaning “above”) was used to denote an authority, political or other, which within its particular hierarchy had no authority... As States in Western Europe evolved in the 16th century and subsequently, the need grew for the State’s authority to have a firm temporal basis. In parallel there also developed a need for rulers of these evolving States to confirm their authority within their States to the maximum extent possible. It was against this background that the term “sovereignty” was introduced into political science by Bodin in De la République (1577). Building on older notions of what was souverain, the concept was introduced and developed in political theory in the context of the power of the ruler of the State over everything within the State. Bodin, writing in support of centralised State absolutism, defined sovereignty as the absolute and perpetual power within a State: sovereignty was the attribute of a king in a monarchy and of the people in...

For Bodin such power was the supreme power within the State without any restriction other than the Commandments of God and the Law of Nature. That supreme power could not be limited by any Constitution or by positive law. Hobbes, in De Cive (1642), went further than Bodin in maintaining that a sovereign was not bound by anything; others (such as Pufendorf, in De Jure Naturae et Gentium (1672)) took a more restrictive... But virtually all agreed that sovereignty was indivisible - either a State and its ruler was sovereign, or it was not. The disintegration of the German Empire in the eighteenth century saw the emergence into the international community of several hundred reigning princes of the Empire’s former member States. After the Westphalian Peace of 1648 these States and their rulers enjoyed in practice even if not in theory a large degree of independence.

Yet it was not felt appropriate to treat them as sovereign States of the same standing as the major European States such as France, Sweden and England. Instead, full sovereignty was attributed to all rulers who held supreme authority within their States and enjoyed unqualified independence in their relations with other rulers. Such “sovereign rulers” ranked equally as amongst their fellow-sovereign rulers, but above those other rulers who in some way did not have supreme authority within their States or unqualified external independence but were to... While Kings and Emperors were accordingly acknowledged to be of the highest rank in terms of their sovereign authority, the standing of the many lesser rulers, such as Princes of varying status, Grand Dukes,... At a time when a ruler could properly say “L’État, c’est moi”, such considerations of comparative ranking were not just a matter of personal aggrandisement but touched on issues of high politics in the... These developments confirmed what had been apparent since its origins in the sixteenth century, namely that “sovereignty” was perceived primarily in terms of internal constitutional power and authority, conceived as the highest, temporally underived...

They also established that, contrary to earlier views and despite some continuing theoretical objections (e.g. by Rousseau, Contrat Social (1762)), sovereignty was in practice potentially divisible - a practice confirmed in particular by the transformation of the United States in 1787 from a confederation of States into a federal... In the essentially religious societies in which the evolution of modern statal communities was taking place, no temporal ruler could assert his supreme authority within the State without at the same time recognising the... The constitutional structures of the different States developed different ways of accommodating this need to combine spiritual and temporal authority - thus in some the ruler himself possessed divine status, in others the ruler... Whatever the technique, however, it was essentially one devised by the constitutional developments within the State concerned. At the beginning of the 21st century the continued theoretical utility of the concept of sovereignty is increasingly open to question.

As a concept denoting supreme legal authority it never was appropriate for the international position of States, since no State has such authority over all other States. In its proper field of internal constitutional law, the growing interdependence of States has both reduced the areas in which a State may truly be said to exercise supreme legal authority within its own... Quite apart from such emerging developments in the scope of States’ legal power and authority, the practical realities of international life make it no longer appropriate for a State to determine its sovereign status... Politically, however, “sovereignty” has lost none of its appeal, much of it at bottom nationalistic and emotional. Such political use of notions of sovereignty is nowadays little more than a nostalgic attempt to invoke the memory of past freedoms, independence and supremacy. (1) Sovereignty and international law: independence and equality.

Within the overall context of self-determination the place of sovereignty in international law requires some explanation, since self-determination is usually (although erroneously) seen as a quest for sovereignty and independence. Sovereignty as a principle of international law is to be distinguished sharply from sovereignty in its internal and constitutional aspects. It is implicit in the nature of sovereignty as supreme authority that such a notion of sovereignty is inapplicable to the role of sovereign States on the international plane and within international law. Internationally, no State has supreme legal power and authority over other States in general, nor are States generally subservient to the legal power and authority of other States (although in former times such claims... Moreover, State sovereignty on the international plane would be inconsistent with the conception of international law as a body of rules of conduct binding upon States irrespective of their internal domestic law, for this... Sovereignty is also not to be confused with international personality.

The former is based on notions of supreme authority and independence. International personality connotes the possession of rights, duties, powers and capacities in international law: whatever person or entity possesses rights, duties, powers and capacities in international law has international personality, even if that person... Sovereign States characteristically possess the full range of international legal rights, duties, powers and capacities, and undoubtedly possess international personality. But many States which are in one way or another subject to the authority of another State and may well therefore not be fully sovereign, may nevertheless, through the possession of at least some... Sovereignty being supreme authority necessarily implies independence. “Toute nation qui se gouverne elle-même, sous quelque forme que ce soit, sans dépendance d’aucun étranger, est un État souverain” (Vattel, Le droit des gens (1773 ed.), Bk.

1, Ch. 1, s.4). A ruler or State which is sovereign is, strictly, independent of any other temporal legal authority so far as concerns its legal powers within its borders, and is equally independent as regards its legal... A sovereign ruler’s domestic legal authority to act both internally and externally is not in law dependent on any other earthly authority. In modern times independence (despite difficulties of application which can arise in practice) has come to be regarded as the essential quality of ‘sovereign’ States, and on the international plane as in effect coterminous... Independence was referred to in classic terms by Judge Anzilotti in 1931[1] as involving

“the existence of [a State], within its frontiers ..., as a separate State and not subject to the authority of any other State or group of States. Independence as thus understood is really no more than the normal condition of States according to international law; it may also be described as sovereignty (supreme potestas), or external sovereignty, by which is meant... As long as these restrictions [i.e. upon a State’s liberty and arising out of ordinary international law or contractual engagements] do not place the State under the legal authority of another State, the former remains an independent State however extensive... At its most basic, the principle of self-determination can be defined as a community's right to choose its political destiny. This can include choices regarding the exercise of sovereignty and independent external relations (external self-determination) or it can refer to the selection of forms of government (internal self-determination).

The fundamental concept of self-determination-the right to choose-has its roots in the American and French revolutions in the eighteenth century with their emphasis on justice, liberty, and freedom from authoritarian rule. It found its most prominent expressions following World Wars I and II. In the aftermath of the First World War, self-determination was perceived to be Woodrow Wilson's guiding principle for redrawing European and world maps to establish a new, just order. Following World War II, self-determination was enshrined in the United Nations Charter, initiating its transformation into a legal right under international law. In practice, this notion provided the justification and impetus for de-colonization and is often conflated with independence. More recently, the term is associated with struggles by groups within a state for greater autonomy or independence-primarily ethno-nationalist claims or counter-reactions to oppression or authoritarianism.

Current academic debates and international diplomacy tend to emphasize internal self-determination in proposals for resolving claims, often shying away from the term altogether to avoid mistakenly conflating every question of self-determination with a quest... In law as in theory, the principle itself refers to the right to choose and should neither privilege nor dismiss specific outcomes. Discussion continues in academic, legal, as well as diplomatic circles as to the delineation of the 'self'-in other words, who are the peoples entitled to self-determination-and what is implied or allowed by the application... Contemporary understanding of the principle defines self-determination as the right to choose for all peoples, but with flexibility as to the application of that right in the context of particular claims. From the nationalist wars of the nineteenth century to the reunification of Germany after the Cold War, self-determination has been responsible for shattering large empires and small states alike as well as for state... Since World War I, self-determination has acquired a classical or Wilsonian meaning: a community striving for full independence and sovereignty at the expense of the existing state(s) and other communities.

In this sense, self-determination automatically entails a change in existing sovereign boundaries and also implies the right to form a government and administration according to that community's wishes. Historically, this notion of self-determination served the assertion of statehood and national identity at the expense of large multinational empires (e.g., Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and czarist Russian); contributed to the dissolution of colonial empires; and,... Struggles for autonomy and secession have been and continue to be a source of conflict in Africa, Asia, and Europe-witness the ongoing self-determination conflicts in places as diverse as Chechnya, Kosovo, Sri Lanka, and... Though its roots lie in the ideals of the American and French Revolutions, self-determination as a political concept was initially articulated as a tool for maintaining order and spreading democratic ideals in the early... Prior to the Bolshevik revolution, Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin espoused self-determination as an anti-imperialist measure necessary for world peace.[1] Woodrow Wilson conceived of self-determination as a basis for offering the peoples of the... Following on the tenets of his Fourteen Points speech, Wilson insisted upon self-determination for peoples ruled by the Germans and the Habsburgs.

People Also Search

• Popular Sovereignty | The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination
• The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination
• The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination (PESD)
• Sovereignty - The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination
• Self-Determination | The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination
• Popular sovereignty - Wikipedia
• Legal Aspects of Self-Determination | The Princeton Encyclopedia of ...
• Popular sovereignty in the United States - Wikipedia
• Philip Pettit* POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY AND
• Self-determination | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica