WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY and WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?
or
IS THERE A SOVEREIGN IN THE WORLD?
It seems that the theorists have presented, with variations
and combinations, only three possible sources of sovereignty -
Man [generic], Nature, or God. Of the three, I have chosen to
focus on Man.
Sovereignty is an idea, and inanimate Nature cannot think or traffic
in ideas. If we say, on the one hand, as the original theorists
did, that God has placed law within man and the rest of His Creation,
then we are declaring God to be the actual source, not Nature.
If, on the other hand, we say, as all sorts of political existentialists
do, that there is Law in Nature without there having been a Lawgiver
who placed it there, then, in actuality, we are declaring the
approved human interpreters of Nature, to be the source.
This is not to dismiss the thoughts of Hegel-Marx-Lenin, or other
political evolutionists and historical determinists, or the nontheistic
Environmentalists. Iit is simply to insist that in a world of
many voices, the interpretation depends upon the interpreter.
If we ask, "Who speaks for coral?", we can be sure that
the answer will not be, "Coral itself." Likewise, if
we ask, "What does History teach?", we can be sure that
the answer will depend upon who it is that interprets History.
At this point in time, though it could be interesting, I am not
sure there is an audience for what might appear to be a medieval
discussion of God and government. So I limit myself to the question
of whether or not Man, individually or collectively, can be the
source of sovereignty.
A great variety of modern theorists have believed that sovereignty
comes from Man, either as an individual or in collective society.
These would include those who believe in the supremacy of Reason,
since it is Man's Reason they believe to be supreme.
If we determine what the theoretical sovereign must be like, we
can easily consider whether or not Man qualifies. There seem to
be four attributes that the theorists agree a bona fide Sovereign
must posssess.
1. His word is Law. No other power can annul his word. He is
above the law.
2. His will is absolute and infallible. His authority and power
do not depend upon the will of another. No other power can thwart
his will.
3. His authority can be delegated, but not divided or alienated.
Nothing can remove his sovereignty.
4. He is the highest authority over a geographical territory,
its inhabitants and resources.
Can Man, individually or collectively, possess these four
characteristics of sovereignty? Looking at each characteristic
one by one is a good enough way to find out.
1. His word is Law. No other power can annul his word. He
is above the law.
"Hobbes asserts that...the sovereign can himself commit
no breach of covenant, and hence cannot forfeit his right to the
people; the sovereign can do no injustice (though he may commit
iniquity); the sovereign cannot be punished; he is judge of the
means necessary for the defence of the state; has the right to
decide what doctrines can be taught among the subjects; the law-making
power; the judicial power; the right to carry on war; the right
to appoint officers; the rewarding and punishing power."
5
Austin claimed that, "every supreme government is free from
legal restraints, or (what is the same proposition dressed in
a different phrase) every supreme government is legally despotic."
6 The Massachusetts Proclamation of Jan.23, 1776 declared that,
"It is a maxim that in every Government there must exist,
somewhere, a supreme, sovereign, absolute and uncontrollable power..."
7
Whoever makes the law that must be obeyed is the sovereign. "In
the seventeenth century Locke's Of Civil Government stated in
chapter thirteen that, 'there can be but one supreme power, which
is the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate.'
Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan stated in chapter twenty-six that 'the
legislator...is...the sovereign.' " 8
This assumes, of course, that the Law is always enforced. Legislators
and legislatures, however, come and go; and so do their laws.
While their laws stand, they are only obeyed by those who obey
them. Laws are often disobeyed by criminal gangs, black market
operators, and ordinary people who choose to pay less tax than
they should. Most crimes go unpunished, as if the law did not
exist.
There is a very serious problem with believing that sovereignty
emanates in some way from man. Man, then, is the existential Lawgiver.
He can, and must, determine for himself what is permissible and
what is impermissable, what is just and what is unjust, what is
good and what is bad. This is also what Nietzsche proclaimed before,
we are told, he went insane.
If sovereignty resides in man, then there is no difference between
what is justified and what is just. Whatever man justifies is
just. This is how Tolstoy described Napoleon: "It was clear
that he had been long convinced that it was impossible for him
to make a mistake, and that to his mind whatever he did was right,
not because it conformed to any idea of what was right or wrong,
but because it was he who did it." 9
Man, using his Reason, can justify any action, be it the slaughter
of the most innocent and helpless; the slaughter of a class of
people; or the slaughter of an entire people. Such actions and
justifications are not inconsistent with the claim that the sovereign
is not subject to the law he imposes.
On the other hand, if Man collectively is sovereign, then who
is subject to law? By definition, the sovereign is above the law.
Are only parts of the sovereign subject to law?
2. His will is absolute and infallible. His authority and power
do not depend upon the will of another. No other power can thwart
his will. He is almighty.
A human being is a limited creature. He cannot rule himself,
not his own body or mind, not even his own breath or heartbeat.
He cannot make himself what he wants to be, unless his ambitions
are quite small. He cannot keep his life, or rebuke his death.
Most would grant that no individual human could be so powerful
as to need nothing from any other power, but the theorists seem
to think that collective political Man is different. "Independence
is, then, the characteristic mark of the state, and this independence
is, in Haller's theory, the equivalent of sovereignty." 10
Even an isolated China, whether Middle Kingdom or Worker's Paradise,
found it necessary to recognize the existence of other powers,
limiting the areas in which any nation has a right, to use a metaphor,
to swing its fists. There is an interdependence of unequal states,
with even the most powerful having its limits.
"Pradier-Fodéré says that metaphysically there
ought not to be half-sovereign States, but historically, there
have been and there may be again." 11 Perhaps all states
are half-sovereign, or one-fourth, or nine-tenths sovereign.
By what standard could the will of a human sovereign be considered
infallible? Only by measuring that will by itself, rendering the
claim meaningless. All individual humans are fallible. By what
logic or calculus could all humanity, or a select group of it,
become infallible?
3. His authority can be delegated, but not divided or alienated.
Nothing can remove his sovereignty.
How do we reconcile a sovereignty that emanates from man with
the death of Alexander the Great and the consequent division of
his empire? If anyone has ever been sovereign, surely Alexander
the Great was. Didn't death remove and divide his sovereignty?
How do we reconcile an inalienable sovereignty with the protracted,
excruciating demise of a paralyzed Lenin as he sought to keep
Stalin from gaining power? What if we look at 1917 with its three
different Russian sovereigns - the Tsar, Kerensky and the Duma,
Lenin and the Party? Did they have a common source of sovereignty,
or are there many equally sufficient sources?
Is there such a thing as unauthorized government? Or does sovereignty
only mean, "Obey those in charge?" Even that becomes
difficult to do in times of disintegration, when no one, or everyone,
is in charge.
Bodin spoke of "The absolute and perpetual power of a commonwealth,"
12 but commonwealths, empires, kingdoms, and countries come and
go. If the authority of the sovereign can neither be divided,
delegated, nor removed, then it must always remain intact. However,
as the syllogism tells us, "All men die." So do all
empires. The dead do not claim or exercise sovereignty.
Once sovereign, always sovereign? The sands of time have a way
of burying such pretensions. Nations destroy themselves and each
other Does that mean sovereignty never really existed?
If the authority of the sovereign can neither be divided, delegated,
nor removed, then there can never have been a time when that sovereignty
did not exist. But every human sovereign, individual or state,
has had a beginning, before which it did not exist. Every state
has gained its claim to sovereignty by conquest, actual or inherited,
i.e. by taking over what belonged to another.
If, as some theorize, the people as a whole are sovereign, then
the state is not. The people have the right to remove those to
whom authority has been delegated. Anything which inhibits that
right is illegitimate. Every state inhibits that right as best
it can, and removes supreme power from the people, bestowing it
on itself.
There are many ways in which supreme power is alienated and divided.
"The great authorities on International Law have not failed
to find in this division of sovereignty a logical contradiction,
even an apparent absurdity, but in view of the perplexing conditions
to be interpreted and construed, no other way of escape seems
open." 13
4. He is the highest authority over a geographical territory,
its inhabitants and resources.
In Bodin's view, "It is necessary that those who are
sovereigns should not be subject to commands emanating from any
other and that they should be able to give laws to their subjects,
and nullify and quash disadvantageous laws for the purpose of
substituting others; but this cannot be done by one who is subject
to the laws or to those who have the right of command over him."
14
All people and states are subject to the patterns and vagaries
of nature. Think of the importance of the fog at Dunkirk or upon
the Delaware River when Washington crossed; the Black Plague,
the winter in Moscow, the Irish potato famine, and on and on.
These are events that are beyond the control of Man, and they
demonstrate how limited his power is. Natural resources and topography,
the basics of state existence, are also beyond his power.
Some would say that such natural phenomena are not political,
but clearly they play a great part in the political course of
individuals and nations. It may well be that natural events, i.e.
events over which men have no control, play a greater part in
the determination of political affairs than all the parliaments
that have ever sat or armies that have ever marched. Nature must
be relevant to Natural Law.
In this world, the claim that Man can be the highest authority
over a geographical territory seems farfetched. The only place
where it was ever true was on Broadway, where the lyricist described
the virtues of Camelot: "By order, summer lingers til September.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear...."
Nature, it seems, teaches that any concept of human sovereignty
is a fantasy.
If you would like to send this article to a friend, please select and copy the text above, and paste into body of email message. Please replace the word "friend" with the email address of your friend . Thank you.
(go back)
What is National Sovereignty?
Where Does Sovereignty Come From?
Hobbes Reconsidered
Realpolitik Morality
Anti-State
Revolt
Intervention
One World, One Sovereign
Notes & Bibliography