SOVEREIGNTY

Geoffrey Catchpole, Member, on 7 October 2003

After reviewing some dictionary definitions, which related ‘sovereignty’ to ‘supremacy’, ’state’, ’ruler’, etc. the speaker settled upon ‘absolute independent authority’ as the most convenient description.

The evolution of the concept was then traced.

The Stoics sought the spiritual health of individuals by positing a ‘state of nature’ in which all men were equal, while acknowledging that current inequalities are lapses. The Romans sought to control their empire by positing first ‘imperium’ (loyalty to the legal community) as supreme, then (when Seneca and Cicero revived the Stoic concept) a ‘natural law’ alongside ‘positive law’, which later enabled Justinian to deify himself as a natural supreme authority.

The Middle Ages were dominated by feudalism and by the Universal Church, but Machiavelli argued that states simply competed for power, concluding that everyone’s prime duty was patriotism. Bodin, wishing to support his king, claimed that ‘absolute and perpetual power in the state’ must be exercised by ‘a recognized legal sovereign’. Hobbes went further, arguing for a ‘mortal God’ capable of ensuring law and morality.

Eventually, feudalism gave way to nationalism – nations became independent bodies, declaring their own morality and religions; there was no universal higher authority and no basis for either internationalism or constitutionalism – the nation-state emerged. However, 16^th century claims for religious freedom were followed by 17^th century claims for political freedom (stimulated in England through its civil war).

Ideas of a ‘social contract’ were expressed.

Locke declared that ‘an original contract’ awarded community power to government by majority in order to assure ‘natural rights’ of ‘life, liberty and estate’ to citizens. Rousseau then declared the ‘General Will’ to be absolute, but that was to be interpreted by aristocratic government rather than by corruptible monarchs.

In Britain, the Whigs saw government as a balance of interests between crown, aristocracy, church and people. Bentham sought a representative democracy through government seeking ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’, whereas Burke (reflecting on the French Revolution) founded modern conservatism on custom and practice – ‘the individual is foolish, but the species is wise’– democracy endangers order.

In the 19^th century, however, Hegel introduced a dynamic of history through his analysis of thesis/antithesis/synthesis, while underpinning authority as ‘Mind/Idea/God’ in the ultimate. Reflecting him in Britain, Bosanquet declared that ‘sovereignty is exercise of the General Will expressed in law, insofar as law is what it ought to be’.

Darwin’s addition that survival success is the criterion of value helped bring a common belief in progress.

That optimism was to some extent challenged by the effects of the Industrial Revolution and working-class belief that only collective power (e.g. in unions) would bring individual rights. When fears that state social engineering would further limit freedoms, Mill claimed that the state should support personal liberty rather than collective mediocrity through the tyranny of the majority. T.H.Green argued that ‘the function of government is to maintain conditions of life in which morality shall be possible’ and he defined morality as ‘the disinterested performance of self-imposed duties’– thus ‘will, not force, is the basis of the state’. By the end of the century freedom to ‘fulfil one’s personality’ came to be seen as dependent upon equal opportunities, a redistribution of wealth, health and general welfare.

By the 20^th century discussion turned on who and how should social control be exercised on behalf of a society of individuals with both rights and duties, which involves churches, unions, politicians and particular claimants for influence on decisions. Struggles for power developed both within and between states. Internally the rise and fall of dictatorships gave way to ideas of democracy, constitutionalism and representative government. Externally, international relations moved from defensive state alliances towards global and regional authorities. The issue of war versus law became topical, as did questions of the sovereignty of international institutions.

As the concept of ‘sovereignty’ thus became diffused, the status of ‘federal’ authority was raised. In the US the Supreme Court defers to the Constitution, which may be changed by Congress, States and Special Conventions, so concepts of ‘constitutional sovereignty’ were succeeded by those of ‘dual’ or ‘pluralistic’ sovereignty. Both the League of Nations and the United Nations organisations were based upon the principle of ‘the sovereign equality of all Members’. There is, therefore, internally and externally no longer any single ‘supreme sovereign power’ which goes unchallenged.

In the 21^st century the power of influence is the most that is now claimed by many commentators. Some clerics still refer to an underlying ‘shared world of absolute values’ whereas others, reflecting what has been described as the ‘market-state’ analysis, argue only that ‘a pluralist society of states needs practical means of co-operation’, possibly through market agencies only, in order to effect policy – either to achieve ‘harmony’ or simply to avoid conflict.

Whatever the view may be on a rationale for ‘sovereignty’ claims, survival of the individual in a relativistic universe appears a dominant requirement for policy decisions. In popular use I suggest that the term has lost any theological or ethical backing, but retains a mystical power, ill-defined but powerful, focused upon icons such as flag, Queen or pound. ‘Sovereignty’ has become divisible (e.g. ‘…remaining national sovereignty’ ) and commodified – it can be traded in the political market. The term can be attached to whatever is expedient – such as defence, taxation or social service. Like the doctrine of ‘natural rights’, its beauty lies in the eye of the beholder (today, the lawyer), while the notion of personal obligation put forward by T.H.Green is less fashionable.

In the subsequent discussion of the presentation one view expressed was that since power has now been distributed, so has ‘sovereignty’. It was also argued that limitations on proclaimed ‘sovereignty’ were recognized well before the Stoics proposed a universal moral order as a basis, whereas since our ‘Glorious Revolution’ parliament has been regarded as ‘sovereign’. One American participant claimed that the US structure is aimed to secure the sovereignty of ‘the people’. It was agreed that conventions rather than ‘law’ determine international policies, but it was also generally felt that the safeguard for the sovereignty of ‘the people’ lies in a constitution which may provide a separation of powers, for revisions and a variety of

Geoffrey Catchpole