Advertisement

Sovereignty and Validity: On the Relation Between the Concepts and the Role of Acceptance

  • Antonia Waltermann
Chapter
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 122)

Abstract

Austin defined law as the commands of a sovereign. This paper investigates the relation between the concept of sovereignty and legal validity, departing from Austin’s jurisprudence by distinguishing between constitutive and constituted sovereignty. The aim of this paper is not to prescribe one particular understanding of law, sovereignty, or validity. Rather, it is to investigate what implications one particular understanding of sovereignty has for our understanding of law and validity. Accordingly, this paper posits that a focus on popular sovereignty, which is constitutive, does not cohere well with certain understandings of legal validity, namely validity from pedigree and validity from reason. The understanding of validity that fits best with a focus on popular sovereignty is from acceptance, and a further distinction can be made in this regard with acceptance of an institutional system of law and acceptance of individual rules.

Keywords

Sovereignty Popular sovereignty Validity Pedigree Institutional system of law Constitutive sovereignty Exclusive legal positivism Natural law Pouvoir constituant Austinian sovereign 

References

  1. Austin, J. 1869. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  2. Besson, S. 2011. Sovereignty. In Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. R. Wuolfrum. Oxford Public International Law [Online].Google Scholar
  3. Bix, B. 2015. John Austin. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. Spring 2015 Edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/austin-john/
  4. Chan, S. 2008. Is Adultery a Crime in New York? City Room [Online]. [Accessed 06 November 2015].Google Scholar
  5. Dicey, A.V. 1915. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Dworkin, R. 1968. The Model of Rules. University of Chicago Law Review 35: 17–24, 29–40.Google Scholar
  7. Elzinga, D.J., and R. De Lange, eds. 2001. Handboek van het Nederlandse Staatsrecht. Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Finnis, J. 2014. Aquinas’ Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. Summer 2014 Edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/aquinas-moral-political/
  9. Focus. 2008. 40 Jahre Notstandsgesetze.Google Scholar
  10. Goldsworthy, J. 1999. The Sovereignty of Parliament: History and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hage, J. 2011. A Model of Juridical Acts: Part 1: The World of Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19: 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2017. ‘Logical Tools for Legal Pluralism. In Law and the New Logics, ed. P. Glenn and L.D. Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hampton, J. 1997. Political Philosophy. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hart, H.L.A. 2012. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill, R.E. 1970. Legal Validity and Legal Obligation. The Yale Law Journal 80: 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kortmann, C. 2008. Constitutioneel Rech. Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Lumer, C. 1999. Geltung, Gültigkeit. In Enzyklopädie Philosophie, ed. H.J. Sandkühler. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  18. Marmor, A. 2001. Positive Law and Objective Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2006. Legal Positivism: Still Descriptive and Morally Neutral. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 683–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Munzer, S. 1972. Introduction: The Subject of Legal Validity. In Legal Validity. The Hague: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murphy, M.C. 2003. Natural Law Jurisprudence. Legal Theory 9: 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ———. 2006. Natural Law in Jurisprudence and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prakke, L., and C. Kortmann, eds. 2004. Constitutional Law of 15 EU Member States. Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Ross, A. 1999. Validity and the Conflict Between Legal Positivism and Natural Law. In Normativity and Norms: Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes, ed. S.L. Paulson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Semmelmann, C. 2013. General Principles in EU Law Between a Compensatory Role and an Intrinsic Value. European Law Journal 19: 457–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shapiro, S.J. 2007. The “Hart-Dworkin” Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed. Public law and Legal Theory Working Paper [Online].Google Scholar
  27. Steinberg, R.H. 2004. Who Is Sovereign Commemorative Issue - Balance of Power: Redefining Sovereignty in Contemporary International Law. Standford Journal of International Law 40: 329–346.Google Scholar
  28. Swiffen, A. 2011. Law Without a Lawgiver: Legal Authority After Sovereignty. Law, Culture and the Humanities 7: 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Troper, M. 2012. Sovereignty. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, ed. M. Rosenfeld and A. Sajó. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Waltermann, A. 2016. Sovereignties. Maastricht University (Dissertation).Google Scholar
  31. Waluchow, W. 2009. Four Concepts of Validity: Reflections on Inclusive and Exclusive Positivism. In The Rule of Recognition and the U.S. Constitution, ed. M. Adler and K.E. Himma. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations