University of Kwazulu-Natal

Sovereignty Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy

Bonisiwe Shabane
-
sovereignty stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of political authority. Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions — the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. The state is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied. An assemblage of states forms a sovereign states system. The history of sovereignty can be understood through two broad movements, manifested in both practical institutions and political thought.

The first is the development of a system of sovereign states, culminating at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Contemporaneously, sovereignty became prominent in political thought through the writings of Machiavelli, Luther, Bodin, and Hobbes. The second movement is the circumscription of the sovereign state, which began in practice after World War II and has since continued through European integration and the growth and strengthening of laws and practices... The most prominent corresponding political thought occurs in the writings of critics of sovereignty like Bertrand de Jouvenel and Jacques Maritain. In medievalist Ernest Kantorowicz’s classic, The King’s Two Bodies (1957), he describes a profound transformation in the concept of political authority over the course of the Middle Ages. The change began when the concept of the body of Christ evolved into a notion of two bodies — one, the corpus naturale, the consecrated host on the altar, the other, the corpus mysticum,...

This latter notion — of a collective social organization having an enduring, mystical essence — would come to be transferred to political entities, the body politic. Kantorowicz then describes the emergence, in the late Middle Ages, of the concept of the king’s two bodies, vivified in Shakespeare’s Richard II and applicable to the early modern body politic. Whereas the king’s natural, mortal body would pass away with his death, he was also thought to have an enduring, supernatural one that could not be destroyed, even by assassination, for it represented the... The modern polity that emerged dominant in early modern Europe manifested the qualities of the collectivity that Kantorowicz described — a single, unified one, confined within territorial borders, possessing a single set of interests,... Though in early modern times, kings would hold this authority, later practitioners of it would include the people ruling through a constitution, nations, the Communist Party, dictators, juntas, and theocracies. The modern polity is known as the state, and the fundamental characteristic of authority within it, sovereignty.

The evolution that Kantorowicz described is formative, for sovereignty is a signature feature of modern politics. Some scholars have doubted whether a stable, essential notion of sovereignty exists. But there is in fact a definition that captures what sovereignty came to mean in early modern Europe and of which most subsequent definitions are a variant: supreme authority within a territory. This is the quality that early modern states possessed, but which popes, emperors, kings, bishops, and most nobles and vassals during the Middle Ages lacked. Each component of this definition highlights an important aspect of the concept. First, a holder of sovereignty possesses authority.

That is to say, the person or entity does not merely wield coercive power, defined as A’s ability to cause B to do what he would otherwise not do. Authority is rather what philosopher R.P. Wolff proposed: “the right to command and correlatively the right to be obeyed” (Wolff, 1990, 20). What is most important here is the term “right,” connoting legitimacy. A holder of sovereignty derives authority from some mutually acknowledged source of legitimacy — natural law, a divine mandate, hereditary law, a constitution, even international law. In the contemporary era, some body of law is ubiquitously the source of sovereignty.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is the premier reference work in philosophy, and covers an enormous range of philosophical topics through in-depth entries. Under the leadership of Co-Principal Editors, Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, the SEP brings together over two thousand philosophers and scholars from around the world to maintain a unique, truly dynamic reference work. Each area of philosophy is served by a team of subject editors. The Editorial Board, which consists of these subject editors, numbers about 170 philosophers, and they identify which entries are needed and which experts should be solicited to contribute them. All submissions are refereed by these subject editors or independent experts before publication, and authors are expected to update their entries on a periodic basis.

Sovereignty is generally defined as supreme, independent control and lawmaking authority over a territory.[1][2][3] It is expressed through the power to rule and make law. Sovereignty entails hierarchy within a state as well as external autonomy, which refers to the ability of a state to act independently in international affairs.[4] In any state, sovereignty is assigned to the person,... While Article 2(7) of the UN Charter explicitly recognizes the sovereignty of states, and in general there is a principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states, the UN Security Council’s Chapter... Moreover, the recent Responsibility to Protect (R2P) authorizes the United Nations to take action to “avert a humanitarian catastrophe” within a state when that state’s government cannot or will not act. A state is generally considered to have sovereignty over a territory when it has consistently exercised state authority there without objection from other states.[7] De jure sovereignty refers to the legal right to do... This can become an issue of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and reside within the...

The term arises from the unattested Vulgar Latin *superanus (itself a derived form of Latin super – "over") meaning "chief", "ruler".[8] Its spelling, which has varied since the word's first appearance in English in... The concept of sovereignty has had multiple conflicting components, varying definitions, and diverse and inconsistent applications throughout history.[11][12][13][14] The current notion of state sovereignty contains four aspects: territory, population, authority and recognition.[13] According to... Krasner, the term could also be understood in four different ways: Often, these four aspects all appear together, but this is not necessarily the case – they are not affected by one another, and there are historical examples of states that were non-sovereign in one... In his classic, The King's Two Bodies (1957), medievalist Ernst Kantorowicz describes a profound transformation in the concept of political authority over the course of the Middle Ages. The change began when the concept of the body of Christ evolved into a notion of two bodies-one, the corpus naturale, the consecrated host on the altar, the other, the corpus mysticum, the social...

This latter notion-of a collective social organization having an enduring, mystical essence-would come to be transferred to political entities, the body politic. Kantorowicz then describes the emergence, in the late Middle Ages, of the concept of the king's two bodies, vivified in Shakespeare's Richard II and applicable to the early modern body politic. Whereas the king's natural, mortal body would pass away with his death, he was also thought to have an enduring, supernatural one that could not be destroyed, even by assassination, for it represented the... The modern polity that emerged dominant in early modern Europe manifested the qualities of the collectivity that Kantorowicz described-a single, unified one, confined within territorial borders, possessing a single set of interests, ruled by... Though in early modern times, kings would hold this authority, later practitioners of it would include the people ruling through a constitution, nations, the Communist Party, dictators, juntas, and theocracies. The modern polity is known as the state, and the fundamental characteristic of authority within it, sovereignty.

The evolution that Kantorowicz described is formative, for sovereignty is a signature feature of modern politics. Some scholars Sovereignty is a highly controversial concept in political science and social theories, offering a full array of issues to be analysed. In recent times, newly the thesis is under discussion that political concepts and international laws are not to be based on a static, absolute truth out there, but should rather be built up from... According to Rothkopf (Rothkopf, 2008), a prominent analyst in international policies, specialized in the study of social elites, sovereignty is the reflection of a society’s current believes and values. To find a framework to which all involved can agree and enter in communication which each other, will be a central part in current and future peace building.

Where people wish to live together in peace, ideas and concepts must be translated, conversed into a language which everybody involved understands and can agree to. This approach can be found by Appiah, a philosopher near to the United Nations policies, whose works are appreciated for his special sensitivity in the multiculturalism as a social phenomena (Appiah, 2003). Under the 17th Century's English Constitution sovereignty has been discussed under circumstances comparable with issues of our time; diverging ideas, disagreement in religious believes and a weak legal framework were the major threat to... After cruel revolutions, further civil wars seemed to knock at the doors of the English Parliament which to avoid was prior political task. Struggle about the power and stability in the Kingdom motivated many political philosophers of those times to put under prove the meaning and roles of sovereignty in the state. To understand these divergent ideas about the concept of sovereignty will be the core issue under discussion in this essay.

Difficulties in constitutional theory should be made visible by a descriptivist analysis taking as reference the constitutional theory of John Locke developed in his work “Second Treaties of Government” (Locke, 1689). How individual believes, the law and the state correlate and are synthesised in sovereignty and why this concept has been of major interest during times of constitutional crisis will become understandable hereunder. A reading of Kant's political writings to evaluate his feelings on the desirability of a world state and its form. I argue that Kant leaves room for a constitutional confederationalist view of a world state in which the world state has some, but not all, elements of Kant's ideal domestic sovereignty. The last section evaluates modern interpretations of Kant's legacy on the matter in accordance with this reading. Critics of Immanuel Kant’s legal and political philosophy argue that his theory of the state collapses into one of two extremes.

For some, Kant is a quietist who regards positive law as the instantiation of justice and thereby deprives himself of a moral standpoint for the criticism of positive law. For others, Kant is an anarchist who denies the authority of law whenever it deviates from the demands of justice. I argue that these interpretations are the opposing products of a common error: the failure to distinguish between Kant’s justification of the right of the state to exercise public authority and his corresponding theory... Once these aspects of his theory of the state are disentangled, Kant’s transformative vision comes into view. Far from reducing the idea of a state to either an authoritative fiat or a utopian vision of justice, Kant offers a standpoint for recognizing (1) the public authority of existing states, (2) the... In the following article on the basis of Agamben's and Arendt's philosophical tradition the idea of authority will be examined and interpreted in the light of the Agamben's most provocative and crucial concept-idea of...

Genuine understanding of the concept will be attempted by using genealogical and hermeneutical method. Despite the historical and philosophical richness and depth of material, Arendt's investigation lacks precise definition of the term and also nothing is said about the place and function of authority in modern social and... Arendt confines herself with historical elucidation and negative representation of authority. She tells more about what was not its meaning, rather defining it in positive terms. However, opposite can be said on Giorgio Agamben. Methodological resemblance of authors is evident, both chose archeological and historical form of inquiry, but as Agamben characterized his attitude, his aim was to develop the problematic thought and to say what remains unsaid...

Therefore, we can interpret the notions of authority and power, as they are mixed with each other in the sovereign's figure of indifference. Indivisibility has long been among the defining characteristics of sovereignty. As Hans J. Morgenthau once stated this point, “sovereignty over the same territory cannot reside simultaneously in two different authorities, that is, sovereignty is indivisible.”[1] Sovereignty cannot be divided without ceasing to be sovereignty proper, and precisely... Dividing sovereignty between two or more authorities within a given state would therefore be to dissolve that state into parts. The indivisibility of sovereignty is thus a necessary condition of the unity of the state.

But although indivisibility has long been regarded a necessary attribute of sovereignty, scholars have equally long argued that this requirement does not correspond to empirical facts and, therefore, ought to be abandoned in favor... In modern times, sovereignty has almost invariably been internally divided between different authorities, and externally it has been constantly compromised through contractual and other means.[2] From this contention it has been a short step... Indivisible sovereignty not only turns the state into a bounded and exclusive moral community but also renders its legal authority exceptional in the sense that it necessarily will lack a foundation outside itself. As Derrida has argued, “the state’s use of power is originally excessive and abusive. . .

. it is thus no doubt necessary to erode not only its principle of indivisibility but its right to the exception, its right to suspend rights and law.”[4] But getting rid of the notion of indivisible sovereignty has not been easy. Despite the fact that many of those who have questioned the concept of sovereignty have made indivisibility their prime target, this has done little to the change the ways in which the concept of... Without the concept of sovereignty, the way in which modern politics is conducted would become hard to comprehend, let alone justify.[6] This difficulty indicates something important about the concept of sovereignty and its relationship to political practice.

People Also Search

Sovereignty, Though Its Meanings Have Varied Across History, Also Has

Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of political authority. Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions — the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. The state is the political institution in which so...

The First Is The Development Of A System Of Sovereign

The first is the development of a system of sovereign states, culminating at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Contemporaneously, sovereignty became prominent in political thought through the writings of Machiavelli, Luther, Bodin, and Hobbes. The second movement is the circumscription of the sovereign state, which began in practice after World War II and has since continued through European integr...

This Latter Notion — Of A Collective Social Organization Having

This latter notion — of a collective social organization having an enduring, mystical essence — would come to be transferred to political entities, the body politic. Kantorowicz then describes the emergence, in the late Middle Ages, of the concept of the king’s two bodies, vivified in Shakespeare’s Richard II and applicable to the early modern body politic. Whereas the king’s natural, mortal body ...

The Evolution That Kantorowicz Described Is Formative, For Sovereignty Is

The evolution that Kantorowicz described is formative, for sovereignty is a signature feature of modern politics. Some scholars have doubted whether a stable, essential notion of sovereignty exists. But there is in fact a definition that captures what sovereignty came to mean in early modern Europe and of which most subsequent definitions are a variant: supreme authority within a territory. This i...

That Is To Say, The Person Or Entity Does Not

That is to say, the person or entity does not merely wield coercive power, defined as A’s ability to cause B to do what he would otherwise not do. Authority is rather what philosopher R.P. Wolff proposed: “the right to command and correlatively the right to be obeyed” (Wolff, 1990, 20). What is most important here is the term “right,” connoting legitimacy. A holder of sovereignty derives authority...