9. “Titular and Actual sovereignty”
Titular sovereignty
• Titular sovereign is one who
enjoys all the legal powers in
theory. Titular sovereign is one
who enjoys all the legal
powers in theory.
• The best example of a titular
sovereign is afforded by the King
or Queen of Great Britain.
Actual sovereignty
• In actual practice his powers
are enjoyed by some other
authority. In actual fact, he or
she is a ceremonial head
because all the powers are
exercised by the Cabinet and
the Parliament.
• The Parliament of Great British is
thus the actual sovereign because
it enjoys real and effective
authority.
10. “Legal and Political sovereignty”
Legal sovereignty
• Legal sovereignty represents
the lawyer's conception of
sovereignty. It is associated
with the supreme law-making
authority in the state.
Political sovereignty
• The body which has the power
to issue final commands in the
form of laws is the legal
sovereign in a state. This
power may be vested in one
person or a body of persons. It
may be a king or dictator or
parliament.
11. “De-facto and De-jure
sovereignty”
De-facto sovereignty
• De-facto sovereign is one who
has no legal claim to
sovereignty but possesses it in
fact and exercises necessary
force to make and enforce its
laws.
De-jure sovereignty
• De-jure sovereign is one who
has a legal claim to
sovereignty but does not
possess it in fact.
12. “Popular sovereignty”
• Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of
the people's rule is the principle that the
authority of a state and its government is
created and sustained by the consent of its
people, through their elected representatives
(Rule by the People), who are the source of
all political power.
15. “Permanence”
Permanence is the chief characteristics of sovereignty. Sovereignty lasts
as long as an independent state lasts. The death of the king, the overthrow
of the government and the addiction of power does not lead to the
destruction of sovereignty.
16. “Exclusiveness”
By exclusiveness we mean that there can be two sovereigns, in one
independent state and if the two sovereigns exist in a state, the unity of
that state will be destroyed. There cannot exist another sovereign slate
within the existing sovereign state.
17. “Originality”
By originality we mean that the sovereign wields power by virtue of his
own right and not by virtue of anybody’s mercy.
19. “Indivisibility”
Indivisibility is the life-blood of sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot be
divided state, American statesman Calhoun has declared, “Sovereignty
is an entire thing; to divide it is to destroy it. It is the supreme power in a
state and we might just well divide it is to destroy it.
20. “All Comprehensiveness”
The State is all comprehensive and the sovereign power is universally
applicable. Every individual and every association of individual is
subject to the sovereignty of the state. No association or group of
individuals, however, rich or powerful it may be, can resist or disobey
the sovereign authority.
21. “Inalienability”
Inalienability is another characteristic of sovereignty. Sovereignty is
inalienable. By inalienability we mean that the State cannot part with its
sovereignty. In other words, we can say that the sovereign does not
remain the sovereign or the sovereign state, if he or the state transfers
his or its sovereignty to any other person or any other state.
22. “Imperscriptibility”
By imprescriptibility, we mean that if the sovereign does not exercise
his sovereignty for a certain period of time, it does not lead to the
destruction of sovereignty. It lasts as long as the state lasts.
23. “Unity”
Unity is the very spirit of Sovereignty. The sovereign state
is united just as we are united.
28. “Limited powers”
Two important repositories that exercise this authority, are political and
legal sovereign but none of the two can claim the use of unlimited
powers.
29. “Location of sovereignty”
According to Austin, in every society sovereignty can be clearly located.
No doubt, this view seems to be valid if applied to British political
system. But in a federal system, no such authority can be located.
30. “Is sovereignty indivisible?”
From Austin’s point of view sovereignty can not be divided. These are
the governmental powers that stand divided and not the sovereignty of
state.
31. “Pluralist’s Attack”
This point of view was projected by the guild socialists in Britain and
Duguit in France. Certain scholars of sociology, who considered state
and government as mere branches of social life, also upheld the same
view.
• Importance of Associations.
• Criticism.
32. “Nature of Law”
Austin defined law strictly in legal sense and regarded coercion as the
basis of law.
Austin presented, in fact, purely juridical aspect of law and ignored the
fact that laws take its raw material from sociological environments and
from other sources such as religion and usages.
35. “Islamic
concept of
sovereignty”
• “Lo! your lord Allah who
created the heavens and
the earth in six Days, then
he mounted He the Throne-
He covereth the night with
the day, which is haste to
follow it, and the hath made
the sun and the moon and
the stars subservient by His
commands .His verily is all
creation and commandment.
Blessed be Allah, the lord of
the worlds!”
36. “Ambiguity of all western concepts”
In the modern democratic states, no institution can claim absolute
power in the sense as was envisaged in the concept of sovereignty as
expounded by Bodin, Hobbes, Rousseau and Austin. They believed
that absolute power in any human repository would lead to tyranny.
37. “Legal Sovereignty”
It implies that in an Islamic state, Quran and Sunnah stand
paramount.
Whoso obeyth the Messenger obeyth Allah and whoso
turneth away: We have not sent thee as a warder over
them.(Quran 1V: 80) Verily in the messenger of Allah ye
have a good example for him who looketh Allah and the
last day, and remembereth Allah much.(Quran XX|||:21)
38. “Islamic concept of sovereignty”
Attributes Universality
Absolutism and
Indivisibility
40. “Conclusion”
This concluding chapter summarizes the current state of
the positive international law of governmental illegitimacy,
arguing that the absence of a meaningful ‘democratic
entitlement’ in the international system ought not to be
lamented. Though superficially attractive, assertions of new
democratic legitimism pose serious dangers to international
peace and security and democracy itself.