home

Sovereignty

 

 

 

Different Kinds of Sovereignty

By Pooja Articles

The five different kinds of sovereignty are as follows: (1) Nominal arid Real Sovereignty (2) Legal Sovereignty (3) Political Sovereignty (4) Popular Sovereignty (5) Deo Facto and De Jure Sovereignty.

(1) Nominal arid Real Sovereignty:

In ancient times many states had monarchies and their rulers were monarchs. They wielded absolute power and their senates and parliaments were quite powerless. At that time they exercised real sovereignty. Therefore, they are regarded as real sovereigns. For example, Kings were sovereigns and hence they were all powerful in England before fifteenth century, in U.S.S.R. before eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and in France before 1789. The state of affairs changed in England after the Glorious Revolution in 1688.

Now the King is like a rubber- stamp. The British king has a right to encourage, warn and advise his Ministers or seek any information about the administration. Except these ordinary powers, all other powers of the British king are wielded by his Ministers.

Lowell has summed up the position of the British Sovereign in these words: “According to the early history of the constitution, the ministers were the counsellors of the king. It was for them to advise and for him to decide. Now the parts are almost reversed. The king is consulted but the ministers decide”.

(2) Legal Sovereignty:

Legal sovereignty is that authority of the state which has the legal power to issue final commands. It is the authority of the state to whose directions the law of the State attributes final legal force. In every independent and ordered state there are some laws which must be obeyed by the people and there must be a power to issue and enforce these laws. The power which has the legal authority to issue and enforce these laws’ is legal sovereignty.

In England, the King-in-Parliament is sovereign. According to Dicey, “The British Parliament is so omnipotent legally speaking…. that it can adjudge an infant of full age, it may attain a man of treason after death; it may legitimize an illegitimate child or if it sees fit, make a man a judge in his own case”.

The authority of the legal sovereign is absolute and law is simply the will of the sovereign. Since the authority of the sovereign is unrestrained, reserves the legal right to do whatever he desires. It is the legal sovereign who grants and enforces all the rights enjoyed by the citizens and, therefore, there cannot be any right against him. The legal sovereign is, thus, always definite and determinate.

Only the legal sovereign has the power to declare in legal terms the will of the stale. The authority of the sovereign is absolute and supreme. This authority may reside either in the monarch or in an absolute monarchy or it may reside in the body of persons.

(3) Political Sovereignty:

Dicey believes that “behind the sovereign which the lawyer recognises, there is another sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow. Such sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow is called political sovereign. In every Ordered state the legal sovereign has to pay due attention to the political sovereign.

According to Professor Gilchrist, “The political sovereign means the sum-total of influences in a State which lie behind the law. In modern representative government we might define it roughly as the power of the people”. In other words by political sovereign in the representative democracies, we mean the whole mass of the people or the electorate or the public opinion. But at the same time, it cannot be emphatically asserted that political sovereignty can definitely be identified with the whole mass of the people, the electorate or the public opinion. Political sovereignty is a vague and indeterminate term.

Political sovereignty rests in that class of people under whose influence the mass of the people is or the people are. Political sovereignty rests in the electorate, in the public opinion and in all other influences in the state which mould and shape the public opinion.

In the words of Professor R.N. Gilchrist, “Political sovereign manifests itself by voting, by the press, by speeches, and in many other ways not easy to describe or define. It is, however, not organised and it can becom6 effective only when organised. But the organisations of political sovereignty lead to legal sovereignty. The two are aspects of the one sovereignty of the state”. As a matter of fact, legal and political sovereignty are the two aspects of the one sovereignty of the state. But at the same time both the aspects stands poles apart.

Legal sovereign is a law-making authority in legal terms, whereas political sovereignty is behind the legal sovereign. The legal sovereign can express his will in legal terms. But the political sovereign cannot do so. Legal sovereign is determinate, definite and visible whereas political sovereign is not determinate and clear.

It is recognised. Legal sovereignty is vested in the electorate, public opinion and other influences of the state which mould or shape the public opinion. Legal sovereign is recognised by lawyers while political sovereign is not.

Legal sovereign cannot go against the will of the political sovereign whereas political sovereign, though not legally powerful, controls over the legal sovereign. The concept of legal sovereign is clear whereas the concept of political sovereign is vague. Legal sovereign is elected by the political sovereign whereas political sovereign is the electorate or the people. These are the points of difference between the legal sovereign and the political sovereign.

(4) Popular Sovereignty:

Popular sovereignty roughly means the power of the masses as contrasted with the Power of the individual ruler of the class. It implies manhood, suffrage, with each individual having only one vote and the control of the legislature by the representatives of the people. In popular sovereignty public is regarded as supreme. In the ancient times many writers on Political Science used popular sovereignty as a weapon to refute absolutism of the monarchs.

According to Dr. Garner, “Sovereignty of the people, therefore, can mean nothing more than the power of the majority of the electorate, in a country where a system of approximate universal suffrage prevails, acting through legally established channels to express their will and make it prevail”.

 

 

 

 

 

Sovranismo e mercato globale

Giovanni De Sio Cesari

 

La elezione di di Trump ha portato in auge il  neologiosmo sovranismo:  mi pare pero che non sempre se ne coglie il sens

Viene genericamente  assimilato ai nazionalismi ma si tratta di cosa diversa. I nazionalismi del secolo breve erano cosa diversa perche si fondavano su asseriti  primati etnici e soprattutto esasperavano la tendenza ( gia comune fino ad allora ) che la guerre fossero il  principale strumento per la  grandezza e la prosperità  delle nazioni   e si contrapponeva e  si accompagnava  all’idea  che solo una rivoluzione violenta, sanguinosa e protratta (dittatoriale) potesse risolvere tutti i problemi.  Ma nel nuovo sovranismo non si contempla  alcuna guerra ne alcun primato etnico nazionale  ma è sostanziata  da problemi di politica economica 

Una economia globalizzata è retta dal mercato perche questo si muove a livello globale mentre gli stati si muovono a livello locale

In pratica l’imprenditore  sceglie il paese  che più gli conviene e gli stati non possono  fare altro che offrire le condizioni migliori   per salari, normativa, tassazioni,  Ma il mercato si muove secondo proprie  logiche di profitto mentre lo stato ha esigenze sociali e di redistribuzione La  esigenza del sovranismo è quella che lo stato riprenda il suo ruolo nella vita economica di  regolare le norme della produzione e della importazioni: se vendi nel mio paese devi farlo alle mie condizioni

Si era creduto che  la globalizzazione avrebbe portato  prosperità per tutti:  si  è costatato, a posteriori, che in effetti  essa  ha data un forte impulso   alle nazioni emergenti e grande ricchezza alla elitte economiche degli stati avanzati   ma insicurezza e povertà a una  parte consistente degli altri lavoratori con conseguente dissoluzione della classe media ( i nuovi poveri)

Il malcontento allora dilaga e  di fronte al sistema della oggettiva impotenza dei governi nei confronti del mercato  e cerca un anti-sistema che ridia  sovranità al potere politico (e  democratico)  

Non so dire (e   forse nessuno lo sa)  se il ritorno al sovranismo porti o meno  alla catastrofe  ma spenso   che se non si fa niente andremo certamente alla catastrofe 

Noterei che, dopo il dilagare dei cosi detti populismi, alla fine, molto  alla fine,  ci si  rende conto della importanza  della insicurezza economica dilagante:  ma l’establishment economico politica   sembra non  dare  nessuna indicazioni di cosa fare per contrastarla: sembrano  osservatori capitati li per caso e non di persone che hanno le responsabilità di guidare l’economia del mondo  Si parla vagamente ,molto vagamente di sussidi  ai meno fortunati

Ma i  poveri classici ( diciamo cosi) e   gli emarginati in generale accettano la assistenza pubblica: i nuovi poveri,  la classe media in crisi, vuole lavoro  retribuito e sicuro come quello dei padri e non assistenza che viene percepita come degradante  e comunque  insufficiente

In  USA 49 milioni di persone godono di  buoni pasti gratuiti : un certo numero li accettano, molti magari ci marciano pure ma pensate all’umiliazione di doverli accettare per chi aveva un lavoro sicuro e ben retribuito

Considerate la Obamacare:  per noi europei la assistenza pubblica è un diritto primario acquisito ma per la american life dream è diverso :  ognuno deve pagarsi la sua assicurazione medica lavorando “hard “ se necessario   Poi vi è la assistenza per i poveri cioe per  quelli che non vogliono lavorare e preferiscono vivacchiare alle spalle di quelli che lavorano. La povertà è colpa, è incapacità, è mancaza di impegno in un paese di immigrati che hanno varcato l’oceano per farcela, per affermarsi non certo per vivacchiare  con l’assistenza pubblica  

 Tutto questo presuppone la facilita di trovare lavoro, buone retribuzioni , la mobilita sociale Questo ha promesso Trump e per questo ha vinto contro tutti e contro tutto

Non è pero  detto che il protezionismo sia la soluzione  a ogni male   per i motivi che potremmo  sintetizzare nel fatto che  occorrono sempre meno addetti alla produzione a  prescindere dalla globalizzazione che tende ad occupare i lavoratori del terzo mondo  che costano molto di meno.  Il problema è quello di spostare i lavoratori  creando posti in  altri settore : è un processo che è in atto da piu di un secolo con il passaggio prima alla industria e poi al settore terziario  e che negli ultimi decenni  si è inceppato e che andrebbe  riattivato

 Noterei pure che cercare di riportare le industrie in USA non è certo un novità come sembrerebbe : è stata anche la politica precedente che ha dato anche buoni frutti ma ha riportato soprattutto imprese con scarso personale  e per le quali quindi la manodopera non era un grosso problema   

Penso pero che  qualunque soluzione possiamo immaginare possa  essere comunque attuata solo se lo stato riprende il controllo  Se il controllo  reale  rimane al mercato globale non possiamo fare altro  che seguire le sue regole: 

Non so se la ricetta di Trump sia quella giusta ma c la gente ha creduto che potesse essere un buon rimedio

  Il problema è che per vincere le elezioni bisogna proporre qualche rimedio Se non è il protezionismo magari parleremo di alternanza lavoro scuola, di chiedere l’aiuto dei marziani,  di recitare tutti insieme il rosario ,  di invocare il grande satana

Ma  non possiamo riproporre le stesse ricette che hanno creato il problema nella speranza che esse lo risolvano

L’America non è  la povera e arretrata Italia, è il grande paese dalle risorse  infinite , è  la nazione guida del mondo, ha superato  la crisi meglio dell’Europa, dicono : ma ci sono 49 milioni di persone che accettano  buoni pasto, c’è  tanto  malcontento  da eleggere addirittura un Trump , cosa che piu ci si penso piu pare incredibile

Passando alla nostra povera italia, anche Renzi ha avuto popolarità perche si è presentato come il rottamatore, quello che voleva cambiare verso  all’Europa ( cioe alla sua politica economica). Se il PD non proporrà nulla che continuare  la politica economica   di sempre  il M5S vincerà le elezioni malgrado tutte le mancanze,  malgrado  il fallimento di  Raggi,  cosi come  è avvenuto per Trump

 

 

 

 

 

Sovereignty

 

ByEric Brahm

 

The Concept of Sovereignty

Sovereignty is the central organizing principle of the system of states. However, it is also one of the most poorly understood concepts in international relations. This confusion emerges from at least two sources. First, as will be discussed below, sovereignty is in fact a relatively recent innovation connected to the emergence of the nation-state as the primary unit of political organization. Second, what is more, a number of contemporary issues have placed increasing limits on the exercise of sovereign authority. These two factors raise questions about the fixity of the concept of sovereignty often assumed by international relations scholars. A more sophisticated view of sovereignty now envisions states and nonstate actors as engaged in a continual process of renegotiating the nature of sovereignty.[1]

At its core, sovereignty is typically taken to mean the possession of absolute authority within a bounded territorial space. There is essentially an internal and external dimension of sovereignty. Internally, a sovereign government is a fixed authority with a settled population that possesses a monopoly on the use of force. It is the supreme authority within its territory. Externally, sovereignty is the entry ticket into the society of states. Recognition on the part of other states helps to ensure territorial integrity and is the entree into participating in diplomacy and international organizations on an equal footing with other states.

i

Contemporary Challenges

Although many see threats to state sovereignty from a wide variety of sources, many of these can be grouped in three broad areas: the rise of human rights, economic globalization, and the growth of supranational institutions, the latter being partially driven by economic integration and the cause of human rights.

The emergence of human rights as a subject of concern in international law effects sovereignty because these agreed upon principles place clear limits on the authority of governments to act within their borders. The growth of multinational corporations and the free flow of capital have placed constraints on states' ability to direct economic development and fashion social and economic policy. Finally, both to facilitate and to limit the more troubling effects of these developments, along with a range of other purposes, supranational organizations have emerged as a significant source of authority that, at least to some degree, place limits on state sovereignty. It is too early to tell for certain, but recent US action in Afghanistan and Iraq suggest that sovereignty will be further constrained in the fight against transnational terrorism.

The Protection of Human Rights

The United Nations Charter contains a contradiction that has become ever more troublesome,e particularly after the end of the Cold War. On the one hand, the Charter contains clear defense of the territorial integrity of states, a reaction to Nazi aggression during World War II. At the same time, it also contains commitments to individual human rights and the rights of groups to self-determination. Conventions on genocide, torture, and the like restricted state behavior within its own borders. Regional organizations were articulating human rights principles as well. The growth of human rights law limits sovereignty by providing individuals rights vis-B-vis the state. However, in the context of the Cold War, US-Soviet rivalry paralyzed the Security Council and it rarely acted in defense of these principles.

At the same time, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) emerged in the 1960s-70s fighting for the cause of human rights. Groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch serve as watchdogs to publicize the human rights record of governments limiting state action in some ways.[4] The publicity is sometimes enough to alter state behavior. At other times, the information serves to prompt other states to apply diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and increasingly common to contemplate humanitarian intervention.

In the 1990s, the Security Council began to reinterpret the Charter to more frequently favor human rights over the protection of state sovereignty. Through a series of resolutions, the United Nations has justified intervention in the internal affairs of states without their acquiescence.[5] In cases such as Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, the Security Council has gradually expanded the definition of international threats to peace and security to justify intervention in circumstances that would have been inconceivable in the past. At the same time, as these cases and Rwanda show, states are often only willing to risk their troops when there is some national interest at stake. There is also great reluctance to interpret any of these instances as precedent-setting as states fear they may be the target of intervention in the future.

Economic Globalization

For many, economic globalization places significant limits on the behavior of nation-states at present. For those who see the retreat of the nation-state, the growing power of unaccountable market forces and international organizations provokes calls for change.[6] As will be further elaborated below, the growth of multilateral institutions to manage the global economy constrains state action.[7] The increasing mobility of capital has led states to pursue increasingly similar policies along the neo-liberal model.[8] Given the intensification of global competition, government spending and revenue-generation are increasingly constrained.[9] While some do not go so far as to declare the end of the welfare state, many see a worldwide convergence toward a more limited welfare state.[10] Others find that, while the tasks of the state may be changing, the state very much remains the key driver of globalization processes.[11] That is not to say that all states have equal influence in the process. Nor can the outcomes be reduced to strictly positive or negative because the multitude of processes involved impact different states in different ways.[12]

Supranational Organizations

Given the emergence of a whole range of transborder issues from economic globalization to the environment to terrorism, one of the key discussions surrounds whether the nation-state is obsolete as the best form of political organization to deal with these problems. Economic and social processes increasingly fail to conform to nation-state borders, making it increasingly difficult for states to control their territory, a central component of sovereignty. This raises important questions about the proper site of political authority. As governance structures are established at the global level to deal with the growing number of global problems, debate has ensued as to how to make these arrangements accountable and democratic.

Many organizations are state-based, such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, or the European Union. Therefore, in principle, states are firmly in control and any ceding of sovereign authority is in their interest to do so. However, bureaucracies, once established, often seek to carve out additional authority for themselves. States also may find functional benefit in ceding authority to supranational organizations.[13]

What is more, a whole range of private organizations have emerged to infringe on sovereign authority as well. In addition to human rights NGOs discussed above, global civil society organizations have emerged around numerous issues. Civil society groups have had a growing, yet uneven, effect on nation-states and international organizations.[14] In addition, as economic interdependence grows, private governance arrangements, such as the Bank for International Settlements, are also becoming more prevalent.[15] Private security organizations even conduct war on behalf of states, whether as mercenaries in western African civil wars or as contractors to the US military around the world.[16]

Together all of this suggests that the concept of sovereignty is under considerable pressure. Some aspects of sovereignty still exist and are honored in most circumstances, but many inroads are being made into state authority by many actors in many different circumstances. Where this will lead has yet to be determined.