Sovereignty

Author(s):  
Hermann Heller

This 1927 work addresses the paradox of sovereignty, that is, how the sovereign can be both the highest authority and subject to law. Unlike Kelsen and Schmitt who seek to dissolve the paradox, this text sees the tensions that the paradox highlights as an essential part of a society ruled by law. Sovereignty, in the sense of national sovereignty, is often perceived in liberal democracies today as being under threat, or at least “in transition,” as power devolves from nation states to international bodies. This threat to national sovereignty is at the same time considered a threat to a different idea of sovereignty, popular sovereignty—the sovereignty of “the people”—as important decisions seem increasingly to be made by institutions outside of a country’s political system or by elite-dominated institutions within. This text was written in 1927 amidst the very similar tensions of the Weimar Republic. In an exploration of history, constitutional and political theory, and international law, it shows that democrats must defend a legal idea of sovereignty suitable for a pluralistic world.

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia Urbinati

Populism is the name of a global phenomenon whose definitional precariousness is proverbial. It resists generalizations and makes scholars of politics comparativist by necessity, as its language and content are imbued with the political culture of the society in which it arises. A rich body of socio-historical analyses allows us to situate populism within the global phenomenon called democracy, as its ideological core is nourished by the two main entities—the nation and the people—that have fleshed out popular sovereignty in the age of democratization. Populism consists in a transmutation of the democratic principles of the majority and the people in a way that is meant to celebrate one subset of the people as opposed to another, through a leader embodying it and an audience legitimizing it. This may make populism collide with constitutional democracy, even if its main tenets are embedded in the democratic universe of meanings and language. In this article, I illustrate the context-based character of populism and how its cyclical appearances reflect the forms of representative government. I review the main contemporary interpretations of the concept and argue that some basic agreement now exists on populism's rhetorical character and its strategy for achieving power in democratic societies. Finally, I sketch the main characteristics of populism in power and explain how it tends to transform the fundamentals of democracy: the people and the majority, elections, and representation.


Author(s):  
Zoran Oklopcic

Chapter 5 confronted the imagination of the right to self-determination in international law. It focused on the ways in which interpretations of that right hinge on jurists’ implicit cartographies, their scopic regimes, affective predilections, disciplinary self-images, concealed calculi of suffering, visions of alternative universes, false binaries, and their idiosyncratic levels of (im)patience and anxiety, which—together with their quasi-nationalistic professional commitments and dreams of disciplinary sovereignty—remain some of the main factors that determine how international lawyers interpret the national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political autonomy of everyone else. After having proposed a number of new ways of looking at the claims of the right to self-determination, Chapter 6 ends on a sobering note: as long as jurists remain preoccupied with their own disciplinary self-determination and ‘linguistic’ purity, they will continue reproducing the flat, monochromatic, and vacuous imaginary of popular sovereignty.


Author(s):  
Ulrich K. Preuss

Constitutionalism comprises a set of ideas, principles and rules, all of which deal with the question of how to develop a political system which excludes as far as possible the chance of arbitrary rule. While according to one of the classic sources of constitutionalism, article sixteen of the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, ‘any society in which rights are not guaranteed, or in which the separation of powers is not defined, has no constitution’, the scope of constitutional principles is in fact broader. In addition to these two defining principles, the following are essential: popular sovereignty; the rule of law; rules about the selection of powerholders and about their accountability to the ruled; and principles about the making, unmaking, revision, interpretation and enforcement of a constitution. Despite close affiliations, constitutionalism and democracy are not the same. Whereas democracy is an institutional device which realizes the right of the people to govern themselves, constitutionalism aims to establish institutional restraints on the power of the rulers, even if they are popularly elected and legitimized. Constitutionalism embodies the self-rationalizing and self-restraining principles of popular government.


Author(s):  
Chris Thornhill

This chapter presents an account of the constitutional law of transnational society from a distinctively political perspective. It uses a neoclassical definition of the constitution as the legal norms that frame the actions of a political system to examine and construct constitutional functions that reach beyond the legal systems of nation-states. It advances the thesis that the concept of transnational constitutional law can be applied to three separate legal-political domains in contemporary global society. This concept can be used to analyze constitutional aspects of international law, and it can be applied to national constitutional law, both of which have a strong transnational dimension and are supported by normative elements that are formed through transnational processes. This concept can also be applied to characterize and examine an emergent, conclusively transnational legal order, in which legal formation occurs in more spontaneous and contingent fashion. In each domain, constitutional norms produce an underlying inclusionary structure for distinct political functions in society, and transnational constitutional law is defined, most essentially, by its ability to support the relative autonomy of political exchanges and political interactions.


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Вера Романовская ◽  
Vera Romanovskaya

The current article is devoted to the analysis of the problem of state sovereignty. For the purpose of resolving complicated scientific and practical problems of modern times the authors of the article draw the readers’ attention to the necessity of referring to the investigation of historical experience which received its categorial and conceptual reflection in different political and legal theories and conceptions. In connection with it, the authors of the article consider the little-studied views of two outstanding French academic lawyers Leon Duguit and Raymond Carre de Malberg, who lived in the second half of the XIX — the first half of the XX century, on the problem of state sovereignty, popular sovereignty, and national sovereignty. The authors bring to light the similarities and differences of views on the notion and legal nature of sovereignty, analyze critical remarks about the theory of popular and national sovereignty made by L. Duguit and R. Carre de Malberg. The authors of the article come to a conclusion about the importance of maintaining the notion “state sovereignty” as the key value component of the modern world order, including both the area of international law and the internal political sphere of state.


Thesis Eleven ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 139 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Partha Chatterjee

The paper traces the continuities between empires and successor nation-states and examines how imperial prerogatives continue to operate in the global system. The author also looks at the failure of postcolonial states to deliver on their promises after achieving national sovereignty. In all this, the focus is on conceptualizing the category of ‘the people’, which is supposedly the source of legitimate power in the contemporary world. In particular the paper zooms in on the historical continuity that characterized traditional empires and is just as present in the context of contemporary world powers – the right to invoke imperial prerogatives to declare colonial exceptions.


Daímon ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 81-96
Author(s):  
Pablo Scotto

En su discurso del 10 de mayo de 1793 sobre la Constitución, Robespierre combina una concepción fiduciaria de los representantes públicos con una defensa de las virtudes de la democracia, el único sistema político en el que los gobernantes, al ser parte del pueblo, tienen los mismos intereses que este. Es esta defensa de la soberanía popular, así como de la primacía del poder legislativo, lo que constituye la esencia de su “economía política popular”, una expresión que toma de Rousseau. Para Robespierre, solamente esta clase de economía es compatible con una República cuyo primer objetivo sea la garantía de los derechos naturales del hombre. In his 10th May 1793 speech on the Constitution, Robespierre combines a fiduciary conception of public representatives with a defence of the virtues of democracy, the only political system in which the rulers, being part of the people, have the same interests as the latter. It is this defence of popular sovereignty, as well as of the primacy of the legislative power, what constitutes the essence of his “popular political economy”, an expression he takes from Rousseau. For Robespierre, only this kind of economy is compatible with a Republic whose first objective is to guarantee the natural rights of man.


1986 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
James G. March ◽  
Johan P. Olsen

ABSTRACTThis paper is about criteria for assessing alternative political institutions in a society committed to popular sovereignty. The issues are classic, and we do not attempt a comprehensive review of the ways in which they run through political and economic thought since Aristotle. An aggregative perspective on political institutions, which describes politics in terms of aggregating exogenous, prior preferences of citizens, is contrasted with an integrative perspective, which describes politics more in terms of the development of preferences within a framework of rights and norms. The evaluation of aggregative processes and institutions highlights questions of efficiency, preferences, and endowments. The evaluation of integrative institutions focuses on questions of competence and integrity. Many of the most influential contemporary discussions of political institutions are based on an aggregative framework that is relatively inattentive to issues of political integration. This contemporary emphasis on metaphors of aggregation, however, represents a phase in a history of oscillation between aggregation and integration in politics and political theory, and there are signs that the emphasis may shift in the next few decades to a greater consciousness of integration. Although the cyclic process is not escaped through awareness of it, such awareness may provide a basis for a more thoughtful approach to the search for appropriate institutions within a political system dedicated to popular sovereignty.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 58-76
Author(s):  
Zulkifli Hasan

Anti-democractic thought is typically, though not always associated with the western ideology and product of secularism that is alien to Islam. In fact, there are scholars who totally reject democracy and consider it as a system, which is not only incompatible with Islam but a modern form of shirk. The struggle and failure of democracy in the Middle East seems affirming these rejectionist views. In fact, the people who have lost faith in democracy in the Arab countries now may incline towards radicalism and extremism in their political thought. The failure of democracy in the Muslim world then opens the question of compatibility of democracy with Islam. In modern context, particularly with the collapse of Islamic empire and the rise of nation states in the 20th and 21st centuries, the concept of democracy should be understood within its true meaning. This article hence aims at generating discourse pertaining to several issues on the concept of democracy from Islamic perspective within the context of pluralistic world today. This article employs analytical and critical qualitative methods in analysing the issues. In conclusion thereof, the study finds that democracy is compatible with Islamic principles. Keywords: Democracy, Islam, al-Hurriyyah, al-Hakimiyyah     Demokrasi sering kali dikaitkan dengan ideologi Barat dan produk sekularisme yang asing dalam Islam. Hatta ada segelintir golongan yang menolak demokrasi secara total dan menganggapnya sebagai perbuatan menyekutukan Tuhan dan bertentangan dengan  prinsip Shari’ah Islam. Insiden dan tragedi kegagalan sistem demokrasi yang berlaku di Timur Tengah seakan mengiyakan pandangan-pandangan yang mengkritik kerelevanan demokrasi di dunia Islam. Malahan, ia menerbitkan satu kegelisahan yang lain di mana warga yang sebelum ini mempunyai sedikit keyakinan pada demokrasi kini sudah mula cenderung dan memikirkan perjuangan yang lebih radikal dan ekstrim. Segala faktor ini menimbulkan persoalan tipikal yang kerap kali diajukan, adakah demokrasi itu selari dengan Islam. Dalam konteks dunia masakini khususnya setelah kejatuhan empayar Islam dan timbulnya konsep negara bangsa, konsep demokrasi ini seharusnya difahami dengan makna yang lebih luas dan terbuka sesuai dengan peredaran zaman. Sehubungan dengan itu, artikel ini bertujuan membicarakan beberapa persoalan mengenai konsep demokrasi menurut perspektif Islam sesuai dengan konteks dunia yang pluralistik pada hari ini. Artikel ini menggunakan kaedah analitis dan kritis kualitatif bagi menghuraikan isu-isu berkaitan dengan menyeluruh. Dapatan awal mendapati bahawa secara umumnya demokrasi itu adalah selari dengan prinsip-prinsip yang terkandung dalam ajaran Islam.   Kata Kunci: Demokrasi, Islam, al-Hurriyyah, al-Hakimiyyah.  


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Offe

The “will of the (national) people” is the ubiquitously invoked reference unit of populist politics. The essay tries to demystify the notion that such will can be conceived of as a unique and unified substance deriving from collective ethnic identity. Arguably, all political theory is concerned with arguing for ways by which citizens can make e pluribus unum—for example, by coming to agree on procedures and institutions by which conflicts of interest and ideas can be settled according to standards of fairness. It is argued that populists in their political rhetoric and practice typically try to circumvent the burden of such argument and proof. Instead, they appeal to the notion of some preexisting existential unity of the people’s will, which they can redeem only through practices of repression and exclusion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document