Advertisement

About the Impossibility of Absolute State Sovereignty

The Early Years
  • Jorge Emilio Núñez
Article

Abstract

State sovereignty is often thought to be absolute, unlimited. This paper argues that there is no such a thing as absolute State sovereignty. Indeed, absolute sovereignty is impossible because all sovereignty is necessarily underpinned by its conditions of possibility—i.e. limited sovereignty is the norm, though the nature of the limitations varies. The article consists of two main sections: (a) the concept of sovereignty: this section is focused on some of the limitations the concept of sovereignty itself presents; and (b) a historical account of the notion of sovereignty as it was used in the Ancient Times. The particular focus on early notions of a modern concept such as sovereignty has to do with the fact that this early notion has been anthropomorphised with societal evolution. Therein, the current concept of State sovereignty embraces the same limitations it had in its ancient form as a non-fully developed conceptual idea. The implications of understanding State sovereignty as limited rather than absolute are several, both directly and indirectly. A main immediate consequence is that sovereign States can cooperate together, limit their sovereignty and still be considered sovereign.

Keywords

State sovereignty Absolute sovereignty Limited sovereignty Unlimited sovereignty 

References

  1. 1.
    Carrio, G. 1965. Notas sobre derecho y lenguaje. Argentina: Abeledo Perrot.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martin, E.A., and J. Law (eds.). 2006. A dictionary of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jackson, R. (ed.). 1999. Sovereignty at the millennium. Great Britain: Political Studies Association, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hart, H.L.A. 1994. The concept of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hinsley, F.H. 1986. Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Place.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kostakopoulou, D. 2002. Floating sovereignty: A pathology or a necessary means of a state evolution? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22(1): 135–156.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stroud, F.C.M. 2003. A natural history of the common law. Columbia: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenwood Onuf, N. 1991. Sovereignty: Outline of a conceptual history. Alternatives: Global, Local Political 16(4): 425–446.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Núñez, J.E. 2011. The origins of sovereignty in the Hellenic world. In International law, conventions and justice, ed. David A. Frenkel. Athens: ATINER.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rommen, H.A. 1950. The state in catholic thought, a treatise in political philosophy. London: B. Herder Book Co.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Creveld, M. 2004. The rise and decline of the state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kantorowicz, E. 1997. The king’s two bodies, a study of mediaeval political theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Munn, M. 2006. The mother of the gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia, a study of sovereignty in ancient religion. California: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horne, C.F. 2007. The code of Hammurabi. Epilogue: Forgotten Books.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morgan, R.C. 1854. The book of Esther: Typical of the kingdom of God. London: Binns and Goodwin.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mulgan, R.G. 1987. Aristotle’s political theory, an introduction for students of political science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chamberlain, C. 1984. The meaning of prohairesis in Aristotle’s. Philadelphia: The American Philological Association.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson, C.N. 1990. Aristotle’s theory of the state. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hansen, M.H., ed. 1992. The ancient Greek city–state. In The royal academy of sciences and letters.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee, D., trans. 1987. The republic of Plato. Baltimore: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barker, E. 1952. Greek political theory: Plato and his predecessors. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herodotus. 2008. The histories (trans: Waterfield, Robin). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lister, R.P. 1979. The travels of Herodotus. London: Gordon & Cremonesi.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    How, W.W., and J. Wells. 1989. A commentary on Herodotus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Merriam, C.E. 2001. History of the theory of sovereignty since Rousseau. Kitchener: Batoche Books.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Waterfield, R., trans. 2008. The histories of Herodotus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bodin, J. 1903. The six books of commonweale. London: Impenfis G. Bishop.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maritain, J. 1950. The concept of sovereignty. The American Political Science Review  44(2): 343–357.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Opello, W.C., and S.J. Rosow. 1999. The nation-state and global order, a historical introduction to contemporary politics. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Millar, F. 2002. Rome, the Greek world, and the east—Vol. I—The Roman Republic and the Augustan Revolution. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sheehan, J.J. 2006. The problem of sovereignty in European history. The American Historical Review  111(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Birks, P. 1985. The Roman law concept of dominium and the idea of absolute ownership. Acta Juridica 1: 1–37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations