A project report on:

“ANALYZING THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGNTY IN

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS ”

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MR. AMIT KUMAR MISHRA MS. SOMYA AGRAWAL

(TEACHING ASSOCIATE)
SEMESTER IX

BAL/102/18

1
 ACKNOWLEGDEMENT

The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance from
many people and I am extremely privileged to have got this all along the completion of my
project. All that I have done is due to such supervision and assistance and I would not forget to
thank them.”

Firstly, I am extremely obliged to Dharmashastra National Law University to provide me such

an opportunity to do this project.

I respect and thank to Our Respected Vice-Chancellor Prof. (Dr.) V. Nagaraj, Dean Of
Academics Mr. Manwendra Kumar Tiwari and owe my deep gratitude to my project guide Mr.
Amit Kumar Mishra (Teaching Associate) she guided me “all along, till the completion of my
project work by providing all the necessary information for developing a good system.”

At last, I would like to thank my family & friends.

Ms. Somya Agrawal

BAL/102/18

11th Nov, 2022

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………...…….4
2. ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION ……..……………………….……………………………….……..5
3. LEGAL SPHERE OF SOVERIENGTY…………………………………………………..………6
4. BODIN AND HOBBS………………………………………………………………………..……8
5. ISSUE OF SOVEREINGTY…………………………..………………….………………....…….9
6. CRITICAL ANALYSIS………………………………………………………...……..…………10
7. CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………………………….12

3
 INTRODUCTION

“The principles of state sovereignty and non-interference rest at the very heart of International
law and springs from the 1648 Westphalian treaty. Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of
international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs to
the exclusion of all external powers.1 This is founded on the principle of non-interference in
another country’s domestic affairs and that each state irrespective of its size is equal in
International law.” 

“Under current international law, sovereignty is defined as- “Sovereignty in the sense of
contemporary public international law denotes the basic international legal status of a state that is
not subject, within its territorial jurisdiction, to the governmental, executive, legislative, or
judicial jurisdiction of a foreign state or to foreign law other than public international law.”2

It is also defined as the ‘ultimate authority, held by a person or institution, against which there is
no appeal’.3 In other words, “Sovereignty is the ultimate power, authority and/or jurisdiction
over a people and a territory. No other person, group, tribe or state can tell a sovereign entity
what to do with its land and/or people. A sovereign entity can decide and administer its own
laws, can determine the use of its land and can do pretty much as it pleases, free of external
influence (within the limitations of international law).”

“Sovereignty: The supreme, absolute and uncontrollable power by which any independent state
is governed, supreme political authority, paramount control of the constitution and frame of
government and its administration, self-sufficient source of political power, from which all
specific political powers are derived, the international independence of a state, combined with

1
Benton, Lauren. A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires. Cambridge University
Press, (2009), pg. 196
2
H Steinberger, ‘Sovereignty’, in Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law,
Encyclopedia for Public International Law, vol 10 (North Holland, 1987) 414.
3
World Encyclopedia (Oxford University Press, 2008) sovereignty.

4
the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political
society, or state which is sovereign and independent.”4

ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION

It is considered that the first known definition of sovereignty appears in Justinian's Digest in the
following wording: “Liberi populus externus is qui nullius alterius populi potestatis est
subiectus.”5

In the Romanian specialized literature the emergence sovereignty is put into the equation along
with the emergence of states. Grigore Geamănu, for example, stated that sovereignty appears as
an institution “from the moment the states begin to exist.”

“P. Negulescu stated that the concept of sovereignty appears in the 15th century for designating
the position of the king in the feudal hierarchy and it comes from Vulgar Latin, the
preposition super (above), from which arose the adjective superanusand the noun supremitas,
which means the situation a man who, in terms of hierarchy, has no one above him, he is not
subordinated to anyone.”6

In the Middle Ages the concept of sovereignty will record important developments. Jean Bodin,
in his Les six livres de la Republique (1576)/Six books on the Republic (1576) defines
sovereignty as summa potetas, which recognizes no other higher authority.

“The beginning of the modern era marks a change of system, after the peace treaties of
Westphalia, ending the War of 30 years (1618-1648), in order to ensure the lasting peace in
Europe, it is established that the main international actor is the State-nation, endowed with
absolute sovereignty. This element will allow common approaches both from the representatives
of jus-naturalism (especially Hugo Grotius) and of positivist doctrine in an attempt to clarify
important notions in defining the concept of sovereignty relative to the principle of sovereign

4
Osiander Andreas. Sovereignty, International Relations and the Westphalian myth. The MIT Press, (2001), Vol.55,
No2, pg 251
5
 (Alexe, 2009, p. 152)
6
Negulescu 1927, p. 95

5
equality, an equal right recognized to all these international actors, for the non-interference in the
internal policies of other states, for the territorial independence of states.”7

LEGAL SPHERE OF SOVEREIGNTY

“The doctrine of the social contract and sovereignty of the people has been the basis of the first
bourgeois constitutional acts. The end of the 18th century brought new developments in the
concepts related to sovereignty. State sovereignty turns into national sovereignty, the attributes
of sovereignty are transferred from the monarch to the nation and the people. The expression of
this trend is illustrated eloquently by the American States Declaration of Independence (1776)
and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, and the constitutions of France during the
revolution (1991-1793).”8
The 20th century will mark the evolution of the concept of sovereignty, the transition from
classical senses considered more lenient interpretations, more flexible, with emphasis given by
the interstate cooperation, of respecting the international obligations assumed by the States as
international actors.

“In the period after the World War it considerably develops negative conceptions of sovereignty,
the motivation being that sovereignty in the classical sense made possible the abuse of power and
the war. Some authors go so far as to challenge the legal personality of the state and therefore
also its ability to have rights and obligations9 (Leon Duguit, Gaston Jeze and others).”

“Depending on their political goals and the two major totalitarian systems of the 20th century,
nationalism, socialism and communism had specific approach on sovereignty.”
 The collaboration between states is achieved according to principles where respecting the
sovereignty occupies an important place.10 This principle is established among several
international documents with universal value:

7
World Encyclopedia (Oxford University Press, 2008) sovereignty.
8
Miga-Beșteliu, 1998, p. 85
9
Solana, Javier (November 12, 1998) Speech on” Securing Peace in Europe” to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO)
10
Bartelson, J. “The Concept of Sovereignty Revisited”. The European Journal of International Law, Vol.17, No.2
(2006), Pg.465

6
-       the UNO Declaration on the principles of international law concerning the friendly and
cooperation relations between the States, Session XXV, 1970;

-       the CSCE Final Act of Helsinki, 1975;

-       Charter of the United Nations:

“The United Nations Declaration of 1970, for example, stated that the main constitutive elements
of sovereignty are the following: all states are equal in legal terms; each State enjoys the inherent
rights in full sovereignty; every state has the right to freely choose and develop its political,
social, economic and cultural system; every state has an obligation to respect the personality of
other states; territorial integrity and political independence of the State are inviolable”11

“The principle of sovereign equality is present as the basis for cooperation of UN member states,
under article 2, paragraph 1 of the Charter. According to the Declaration of Helsinki, all states
have the same rights and international obligations. We note that by virtue of its sovereignty, the
state has not only rights but also duties under the international law, which limits the potential for
abuse of power, both internally and in international relations.”12

Under the sovereignty, any state benefits from: the right to international personality (the quality
of a subject of international law); the right of the State of being respected the territorial integrity
and the right to self-defense; to establish its system of economic, cultural and legislation; the
state's right to freely conduct its relations with other states; State's right to participate in
international conferences, to international organizations and international treaties; the state’s
active and passive right of legation.

BODIN AND HOBBS

The new reality of sovereignty of the State was given its philosophical justification by a
Frenchman, Jean Bodin, and an Englishman, Thomas Hobbes, each writing during the full agony
of the civil and religious wars of his country.

11
Jean Bodin. Lex six livres de Republique (1577) Book 1 chap.8 pg. 356
12
Spannaus, E. Grotius and the Sovereignty of Nations (1625) Grotius Society Publications pg. 39

7
The former at the beginning and the latter in the middle of the seventeenth century. Both Bodin
and Hobbes defended the need for one single unified authority, which should be accepted by all
and against which no group or individual could raise the objection of any earlier rights to
independence or resistance. Rights were what the State granted, compatible with the unity of the
State and keeping of peace and order within it. There could be only one power within the
community, they urged, which could not be limited, or divided and shared. Bodin’s sovereign
was, however, subject to four limitations. Firstly, as the king did not possess supermundane
sovereignty, God was above him. Secondly, the supreme power of the king over his subjects was
“subordinated” to “the law of God and nature,” that is, to the requirements of the moral order.
Thirdly, the French King could not modify the succession or any part of public domain, and,
finally, the king could not touch private property.

But these limitations, Bodin maintained, did not limit the power of the king over the body-
politic. His assertion that the Prince was the image of God meant that he was a sovereign living
person and his authority transcended the whole political community just as God transcended the
cosmos. He said either sovereignty meant nothing or it meant supreme power ruling over the
entire body-politic. He thus defined sovereignty as “a power supreme over citizens and subjects,
itself not bound by the laws.” It gave orders and received orders from none.

“In this way, the concept of sovereignty took a definite form at the moment when absolute
monarchy was beginning to make its appearance in Europe. With Thomas Hobbes it reached its
perfection when the sovereign power of the king was held to be natural and inalienable. His
whole idea was to establish that the king possessed a natural and inalienable Tight to rule over
his subjects. Once the people had agreed upon the fundamental law of the kingdom, and given
the king and his descendants power over them, they were deprived of any right to govern
themselves and the full natural right to rule the body-politic resided in the person of the king
whose authority was absolute and indivisible.”

ISSUE OF SOVEREIGNTY
“State sovereignty is the concept that states are in complete and exclusive control of all the
people and property within their territory. State sovereignty also includes the idea that all states
are equal as states. In other words, despite their different land masses, population sizes, or

8
financial capabilities, all states, ranging from tiny islands of Micronesia to vast expanse of
Russia, have an equal right to function as a state and make decisions about what occurs within
their own borders. Since all states are equal in this sense, one state does not have the right to
interfere with the internal affairs of another state.”13

“Globalization is changing this view of sovereignty, however. In the case of the Brazilian
rainforest, Brazil may consider a rainforest located wholly within its property an issue solely of
internal concern. Canada may claim that the world community has a valid claim on all limited
rainforest resources, regardless of where the rainforest is located, especially in consideration of
issues like endangered species and air pollution.”

Similarly, states no longer view the treatment of citizens of one state as only the exclusive
concern of that state. International human rights law is based on the idea that the entire global
community is responsible for the rights of every individual.

“Practically, sovereignty means that one state cannot demand that another state take any
particular internal action. As an analogy for instance, if Canada did not approve of a Brazilian
plan to turn a large section of Brazil’s rainforest into an amusement park, the Canadian reaction
is limited by Brazil’s sovereignty. Canada may meet with the Brazilian government to try to
convince them to halt the project. Canada may bring the issue before the UN to survey the
world’s opinion of the project. Canada may even make politically embarrassing public
complaints in the world media. However, Canada cannot simply tell Brazil to stop the rainforest
project and expect Brazil to obey.”

International treaties, therefore, bind states to give their own citizens rights that are agreed on at
a global level. In some cases, other countries can even monitor and enforce human rights treaties
against a state for the treatment of the offending state’s own citizens.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Sovereignty as a concept in International law has some main features, attributes and
characteristics attached to it. One of the most important features of sovereignty is its degree of

13
Krabbe Hugo. "The Juristic Theories of Krabbe". American political Science Review, Vol. 20, No 3, (Aug 1926), pg. 509

9
absoluteness. A sovereign power has absolute sovereignty when it is not restricted by a
constitution, by custom, and no areas of law or policy reserved as being outside its control. A key
element of sovereignty in a legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of jurisdiction, specifically the
inability to contradict the decisions made by a sovereign entity by another authority.14

“The sovereignty of the State is absolute and unlimited. It is subject to no legal limitations either
externally or internally. Without sovereignty there can be no state. It is the supreme characteristic
of Statehood. Sovereignty, therefore, implies absence of any restraint on its authority, either from
within or without. To hold otherwise is to create some higher power by which the sovereign
authority is limited. Absoluteness of sovereignty also implies its universality, permanence and
indivisibility.”

“The absoluteness of sovereignty will therefore mean that there are no limitations what so ever
on the sovereignty of the state. All associations and groups living and functioning within the
state are under the control of the state. There is no internal or external control over the state.
However this view has criticized on the grounds that in the modern world such an omnipotent
state cannot exit, because such a state would be very dangerous for international peace and order.
Thus, International law, competing branches of government and authorities reserved for
subordinate entities such as federated states or republics represent legal infringements on the
exclusive nature of sovereignty.”15

“Universality is another characteristic of sovereignty; it means that the sovereignty of the state
covers every individual, group and association within its boundary. Nobody can claim exemption
from sovereignty of the state. However, there is an exemption to this rule. It is said that the
ambassador of a country, his residence and his embassy are exempted from the sovereignty of
the state founded on the basis of the principle of Extraterritoriality.”16

“In addition to universality, the permanent, imprescriptible and inalienable nature of sovereignty
can also be viewed as important features. Since the state is a permanent institution, so too is its
sovereignty permanent since in very rare cases a state dies or becomes extinct for instance in
cases of defeat or conquest. In civil law, if ownership over a piece of property is not exercised

14
Duguit, Leone. Law in the Modern State. Cornell University Press (1921). Pg. 96
15
ibid
16
Supra 10

10
for a certain period (15 to 20 years) the ownership is lost. But there is no such prescribed period
for the exercise of sovereignty of a state over a particular area. The inalienable nature of
sovereignty on its part means that it cannot be disposed of once it has been attained.”

“The rationale behind state sovereignty is that states are in complete and exclusive control of all
the people and property within their territory. State sovereignty also includes also includes the
idea that all states are equal as states. In other words, despite their different land masses,
population sizes, or financial capabilities, all states ranging from tiny Islands of Micronesia to
vast expanse of Russia have an equal right to function as a state and make decisions about what
occurs within their own borders. Thus since all states are equal in this sense, one state does not
have the right to interfere with the internal affairs of another state based on the non- interference
principle.”17

“Globalization is changing this view of state sovereignty, however. In the case of the Brazil
rainforest, Brazil may consider a rainforest located wholly within its property an issue solely of
internal concern. Canada may claim that the world community has a valid claim on all limited
rainforest resources, regardless of where the rainforest is located, especially in consideration of
issues like endangered species and air pollution.”

17
Supra 8

11
CONCLUSION
“It is considered a fundamental element of the existence of the state or the legitimate source of
the authority within a state and even a modern myth which was often violated in the international
practice, the sovereign equality of states remains the binder that coordinates the other rules and
principles of contemporary international law and it directs and organizes peace structures as a
whole, in the sense of maintaining and developing peaceful relations in the world. The concept
of sovereignty has developed with states and evolution of international relations and it had to
adapt to frequent challenges arising from different levels: sub-national, transnational,
supranational and global.”

“In the United States no government may pass an ex post facto law. Even the State, as it operates
through the amending power, is subject to limitations. It may strive to enact law that runs so
counter to the convictions of large number of its people that it fails to be obeyed and to receive
the requisite acceptance. Such was the case with prohibition in US.”

“There are no dispute regarding the self-governing of self-proclaimed states such as Republic of
Abkhazia, Republic of South Ossetia and the Republic of Kosovo, since their government neither
answers to a bigger state, nor is their governance subjected to supervision. The sovereignty (legal
right to govern) however, is disputed in all three cases as the first two entities are claimed by
Georgia and the third by Serbia.”

“Practically, sovereignty means that one state cannot demand that another state take any
particular internal action. As an analogy for instance, if Canada did not approve of a Brazilian
plan to turn a large section of Brazil’s rainforest into an amusement park, the Canadian reaction
is limited by Brazil’s sovereignty. Canada may meet with the Brazilian government to try to
convince them to halt the project. Canada may bring the issue before the UN to survey the
world’s opinion of the project. Canada may even make politically embarrassing public
complaints in the world media. However, Canada cannot simply tell Brazil to stop the rainforest
project and expect Brazil to obey.”

12
“Under the concept of state sovereignty, no state has the authority to tell another state how to
control its internal affairs. Sovereignty both grants and limits power; it gives states complete
control over their own territory while restricting the influence that states have on one another. In
this example, sovereignty gives the power to Brazil to ultimately decide what to do with its
rainforest resources and limit the power of Canada to impact this decision.”

13