Module II

(State & Sovereignty-Theories of origin of State: Evolutionary Theory, Sovereignty-Attributes and Types
Monism and Pluralism)
Various attempts have been made to explain in a speculative manner the method by which the state
came into existence. These theories were concerned, not primarily with the actual historical process of state
origin, but rather with a rational explanation of the way in which the state may have been supposed to originate.
These theories were put forward for the purpose of explaining and justifying the existence and the authority of
the state. They were attempts to give rational answers to the questions of why men lived in political
organisation, or why they should submit to political authority, and of what limits should be placed to such
authority.

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Obviously no definite period in the history of civilization can be pointed out as the origin of the state.
The state was neither the gift of divine power not the deliberate work of man. Its beginnings are lost in the
shadowy past in which social institutions were unconsciously arising, and its development has followed the
general laws of evolutionary growth.

Forces in State-building
The exact origin of political life cannot be historically determined, since the first subjection of man to
some sort of authority must have existed in the earliest beginnings of social life. The human race is highly
gregarious, and its evolution was made possible by the formation of social units of various types. Like other
social institutions, the state arose from many sources and under various conditions, and it emerged almost
imperceptibly. No clear-cut division can be made between earlier forms of social organizations that were not
states and later forms that were states, the one shading off gradually into the other. However, in the light of
facts presented by the earliest archeological and literary records some conclusions concerning the origin of the
state may be reached.
The most important forces that have contributed to the origin of the state are (1) kinship, (2) religion,
(3) industry, (4) war. These factors are all fundamental and permanent in human life. They arose from the
nature of man and his needs. The existence of all those forces in early social groups explains, in part, both the
reasons for state origin and the form in which it first emerged.

Kinship
The early history of mankind indicates that social organization was closely connected with kinship. Not
individuals, but groups of individuals who considered themselves of the same blood, formed the units. The
primitive family took various forms in the beginning. Descent was traced through the mothers only. At later
stages of development, usually associated with the domestication of animals and the adoption of pastoral life,
the patriarchal family appears. In this form descent is traced through males, and authority is vested in the oldest
living male ancestor of the group. Many matters now regulated by law were in the hands of the head of the
family. Combined families, tracing their descent to a common ancestor, formed a clan, over which a chief
kinsman exercised authority. The main function of the group was to perpetuate the worship of deceased
ancestors.
The state developed more directly from the tribe, a large unit composed of many families, and governed
by a chief, whose right to command was based largely on personal prowess. Moreover, the tribe was based, not
on kinship, but on the need for the protection of common interests and the settlement of disputes that arose
concerning them, and especially on the need for concerted action for offense and defense in case of war.
Nevertheless, the earliest states retained many traces of the patriarchal family and incorporated some of its
principles and forms of organization into their political life. The tie of kinship strengthened the feeling of unity
and solidarity which is essential to political life. The principle of heredity, by which authority passed from
father to son, has played an important part in political life. Likewise, the principle that age, which gives
experience and wisdom, gives also the right to rule, is based on the patriarchal principle, and has frequently
SJ-CSICLS
appeared in political organization. Kinship, therefore, both strengthened the bond of unity and contributed to
the form of political organization early states.

Religion
Closely connected with kinship as a force in state-building stood religion. Early man, surrounded by
phenomena which his limited intelligence could not understand, interpreted them as manifestations of
supernatural beings, whose wrath must be averted by gifts or sacrifices and by acts of ceremony and worship.
The chief mysteries were the phenomena of nature and of man himself. The former led to the worship of
inanimate objects or of the unseen spirits that were supposed to manifest themselves in objects or natural
phenomena. This primitive form of religion, called animism, was accompanied by fetishism, a superstitious
belief in the effectiveness of material objects, and later took the form of nature worship, often developing into a
beautiful mythology.
Tribal solidarity and the inviolability of custom and discipline were enforced by a religion common to
all members of the group and by the authority of long line of divine ancestors. The authority of the patriarchal
over the property, conduct, and lives of his people was strengthened by his position as high priest of a family
religion in which outsiders were allowed no share. In course of time a class of medicine men or priests grew up,
charged with the special care of the sacred rites, and their authority was placed behind the observance of
customary rules of law.
Kinship and religion were therefore two aspects of the same thing, and the unity and obligations of the
group were given religious sanction. Early religion, however, was narrow and local. As tribes expanded by
incorporation or conquest, the bonds of kinship and of ancestor worship necessarily weakened.
The value of religion in the evolution of the state can scarcely be overestimated. In the earliest and most
difficult periods of political development, religion could subordinate barbaric anarchy and teach reverence and
obedience. Thousands of years were needed to create that discipline and submission to authority on which all
successful government must rest, and the chief means in the early part of the process were theocracies and
despotisms, based mainly on the supernatural sanctions of religion. The importance of religion as a force in
state evolution was not limited to the earliest state alone. The priestly class has been powerful in government
and politics throughout all history.

Industry
In addition to the bonds kinship and religion, the economic activities by which men secured food and
shelter, and later accumulated property and wealth, were important factors in state-building. Even the crudest
forms of economic life demanded a certain amount of co-operation under recognized rules. Organized hunts
were undertaken by hunting groups, with the proceeds shared according to generally understood arrangements.
Pastoral life made possible an increased accumulation of property, a greater division of labor, and a greater
differentiation of social classes based on wealth. Laws concerning theft and inheritance appeared, and the
predominance of males over females was given a marked impetus. Agriculture made possible an increased
population in a given area, bound men to soil in a fixed place of abode, made land the chief form of wealth, and
increased the economic value of a slave class. It increased social distinctions based on wealth, and necessitated
a growing body of law to settle disputes over property. The exchange of goods gave a stimulus to craftsmanship
and developed commerce. It further differentiated occupations and classes, necessitated standards of value,
created new forms of wealth, broke down the isolation of early groups, and substituted peaceful for warlike
intercourse. New forms of organization and an increasing body of regulation resulted from this process and
from the concentration of population in villages and cities.
The economic activities of early peoples, therefore, contributed to the origin of the state in several ways.
Differences in occupation and in wealth created social classes or castes, and the dominance of one class by
another for purposes of economic exploitation was an important factor in the rise of government. As wealth
increased and the idea of private property developed, laws were needed for the protection and regulation of
property rights and the settlement of property disputes.

SJ-CSICLS
 War
The development of political institutions, as distinguished from earlier family, religious, and economic
groups, was largely the result of migration and conquest; and the new form of organization was essentially
military in character. An association was created which united the population within a given area into an
aggregate which functioned as a unit, regardless of other social affiliations or subordinate types of social
groups. The tie of kinship was thereby weakened and the territorial bond of union was strengthened. Earlier
local and family relations were replaced by more general forms of worship in which larger and more diverse
groups could be united. A coercive force, exercised by a person or a group of persons, sometimes temporarily
in case of necessity, but gradually growing stronger and more permanent, developed into political sovereignty;
and the sentiment of loyalty to the rulers and to the group was established and sanctified.
The form or organization that resulted from this process was the tribe. The tribe existed for the purpose
of offense and defense against other tribes. Community of religion in the tribe was rather an outward symbol of
its unity than the basis upon which it was founded. The chief of the tribe was selected voluntarily by its
members, or at least derived his right to rule from the agreement and acquiescence of his subjects. His ruler
ship was based on personal qualifications, especially ability as a leader in war; and his duties were mainly
direction in time of war and judgment of disputes in time of peace.
In its beginnings political organizations was simple, and the extent to which it controlled the acts of
individual members was comparatively slight. But once established, by elaborating its governmental
organization and extending its control over a wider field of human interests and activities; its executive and
judicial functions were expanded; finally the exercise of direct legislative authority enabled it to develop into
the sovereign political unit which practically monopolizes the legal right to employ physical coercion.
Concerted action for defense or aggression strengthened the solidarity of the group and increased the
authority of its organization. The result of conflict demanded regulation concerning the relation of conqueror to
conquer and the division of spoils. Successful leadership in war created a ruling military class, and elevated the
military head to position of political supremacy.

Conclusion
The transition from ethnic to political organization did not take place uniformly or reach everywhere identical
results. The time required for the process varied in different times and places.

SOVEREIGNTY
Sovereignty is regarded as an essential element of the state. The term 'sovereignty' is derived from the
Latin word superanus meaning supreme. Thus sovereignty denotes supremacy or supreme power of the state.
In fact, sovereignty arms the state with supreme legal authority in both internal and external spheres. Internally,
it establishes supremacy of the state over all individuals and associations; externally it upholds independence of
the state from the control or interference of any other state in the conduct of its international relations.
Theoretically, each sovereign state is equal to every other in international law, regardless of its population, area
or economic wealth. The United Nations Charter states that the United Nations 'is based on the principle of the
sovereign equality of all its Members' and recognizes a sphere of 'domestic jurisdiction' which is to be reserved
to each member state.
Nature of Sovereignty
The concept of sovereignty is associated with the state system. It may be briefly outlined as follows.
The state comes into being when an independent group of people are organized by means of a government
which creates and enforces laws. Within this group there must be supremacy of will and power. It must contain
some person or body of persons whose commands receive obedience and who can, if necessary, execute those
commands by means of force. Such person or body of persons exercises sovereignty, and such commands are
called laws. Evidently there can be no legal limit to sovereignty. The state is legally sovereign. There can be no
legal limit to the lawmaking power of the supreme lawmaking association.

SJ-CSICLS
 Since sovereignty is a legal concept, the facts set forth above result inevitably from the definition of the
state. Other associations may formulate opinions and lay down rules, but it is the peculiar characteristic of the
state that it will overrides, in case of conflict, all other wills, either of persons or of associations within it. Its
law is the final word on such matters as it chooses to bring under its control. While possessing unlimited legal
power, the state usually exercises but a small part of its authority. Its grants certain rights and privileges to
individuals, and it voluntarily set bound to its own activities. All these have, however, no legal force against the
state, since it may change or destroy them at its will. There have always been certain activities which the state
has permitted freely to individuals, not because the state could not interfere, but because it did not deem it
expedient to.
Sovereignty rests upon either force or consent, or a combination of force and consent. Men obey
because they must or because they agree that it is desirable to do so. In despotic states authority rests upon
force or the threat of force. Men obey through fear, either of bodily punishment or of divine wrath of the gods,
whose authority is believed to support the power of the rulers. In democratic states the majority of men obey
through consent, since they believe that the government is created by themselves and that the laws represent the
general will of the people. Force is necessary only for the few who refuse to obey. For this purpose the state
maintains a police force to coerce the criminal, and a military force to put down riots or rebellions if a
considerable number refuses to give voluntary obedience.

Characteristics of sovereignty
The characteristics of sovereignty may be summarized as follows:
1. Absoluteness - There can be no legal power within the state superior to it, and there can be no legal
limit to the supreme law-making power to the state.
2. Universality-The sovereignty of the state extends over every person and every association of persons in
the state. The apparent exception in the case of diplomatic representatives is an international courtesy
which the state may at any time remove.
3. Permanence- The sovereignty of the state continues as long as the state itself exists. Those who
exercise it may change, and the whole state may be reorganized; but sovereignty, wherever located,
persists. Only by the destruction of the state itself can sovereignty be destroyed.
4. Indivisibility- There can be but one sovereignty in a state. To divide sovereignty is to destroy it. The
exercise of its powers may be distributed among various governmental organs, but sovereignty is a unit,
just as the state is unit. A divided sovereignty is a contradiction in terms.
Development of the idea of Sovereignty
While the term “sovereignty” was not used until the fifteenth century, the idea can be traced back to
Aristotle, who wrote as the “supreme power” of the state. Ancient and medieval writers, however, had a
somewhat vague and confused idea of the nature of sovereignty. In the middle Ages the state in the modern
sense did not exist.
It was the struggle between the rising national state and its various internal and external rivals- the
feudal lords, the Pepacy, and the Holy Roman Empire- that gave rise to the modern doctrine of sovereignty.
This struggle assumed fiercest proportions in France, and the French jurists came to the aid of their king with a
legal theory to justify the unity of the state and the royal claim to supremacy. Jean Bodin, in the sixteenth
century, was the first writer to discuss at length the nature and characteristics of sovereignty. The state was
recognized as supreme over all it citizens and free from external compulsion. Sovereignty was defined as the
absolute and perpetual power of the state. Its chief function was the making of law, but the sovereign was not
bound by the laws thus made. The idea of sovereignty was further developed by Hobbes, who justified its
absolute power on the basis of an original and irrevocable agreement of the people to surrender their natural
rights to its authority. Rousseau agreed that sovereignty was absolute and unlimited, although he located it in
the general will of all the people, rather than in the ruler. Finally, in the writings of John Austin, the legal
theory of sovereign power, that its authority is indivisible and legally unlimited, and that its commands alone

SJ-CSICLS
create law. The fundamental principles of the theory, though attacked by many writers, still serve as the basis
for modern jurisprudence.
5 Different Kinds of Sovereignty-The five different kinds of sovereignty are as follows: (1) Nominal arid Real
Sovereignty (2) Legal Sovereignty (3) Political Sovereignty (4) Popular Sovereignty (5) Deo Facto and De Jure
Sovereignty (6) Titular Sovereignty.

(1) Nominal arid Real Sovereignty:

In ancient times many states had monarchies and their rulers were monarchs. They wielded absolute
power and their senates and parliaments were quite powerless. At that time they exercised real sovereignty.
Therefore, they are regarded as real sovereigns. For example, Kings were sovereigns and hence they were all
powerful in England before fifteenth century, in U.S.S.R. before eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and in
France before 1789. The state of affairs changed in England after the Glorious Revolution in 1688. Now the
King is like a rubber- stamp. The British king has a right to encourage, warn and advise his Ministers or seek
any information about the administration. Except these ordinary powers, all other powers of the British king are
wielded by his Ministers.

Lowell has summed up the position of the British Sovereign in these words: “According to the early
history of the constitution, the ministers were the counselors of the king. It was for them to advice and for him
to decide. Now the parts are almost reversed. The king is consulted but the ministers decide”.

(2) Legal Sovereignty:

Legal sovereignty is that authority of the state which has the legal power to issue final commands. It is
the authority of the state to whose directions the law of the State attributes final legal force. In every
independent and ordered state there are some laws which must be obeyed by the people and there must be a
power to issue and enforce these laws. The power which has the legal authority to issue and enforce these laws‟
is legal sovereignty. In England, the King-in-Parliament is sovereign. According to Dicey, “The British
Parliament is so omnipotent legally speaking…. that it can adjudge an infant of full age, it may attain a man of
treason after death; it may legitimize an illegitimate child or if it sees fit, make a man a judge in his own case”.

The authority of the legal sovereign is absolute and law is simply the will of the sovereign. Since the
authority of the sovereign is unrestrained, reserves the legal right to do whatever he desires. It is the legal
sovereign who grants and enforces all the rights enjoyed by the citizens and, therefore, there cannot be any
right against him. The legal sovereign is, thus, always definite and determinate. Only the legal sovereign has
the power to declare in legal terms the will of the stale. The authority of the sovereign is absolute and supreme.
This authority may reside either in the monarch or in an absolute monarchy or it may reside in the body of
persons.

(3) Political Sovereignty:

Dicey believes that “behind the sovereign whom the lawyer recognises, there is another sovereign to
whom the legal sovereign must bow. Such sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow is called political
sovereign. In every Ordered state the legal sovereign has to pay due attention to the political sovereign.
According to Professor Gilchrist, “The political sovereign means the sum-total of influences in a State which
lie behind the law. In modern representative government we might define it roughly as the power of the
people”. In other words by political sovereign in the representative democracies, we mean the whole mass of
the people or the electorate or the public opinion. But at the same time, it cannot be emphatically asserted that
political sovereignty can definitely be identified with the whole mass of the people, the electorate or the public
opinion. Political sovereignty is a vague and indeterminate term.

Political sovereignty rests in that class of people under whose influence the mass of the people is or the
people are. Political sovereignty rests in the electorate, in the public opinion and in all other influences in the
state which mould and shape the public opinion. In the words of Professor R.N. Gilchrist, “Political sovereign
manifests itself by voting, by the press, by speeches, and in many other ways not easy to describe or define. It
SJ-CSICLS
is, however, not organised and it can becom6 effective only when organised. But the organisations of political
sovereignty lead to legal sovereignty. The two are aspects of the one sovereignty of the state”. As a matter of
fact, legal and political sovereignty are the two aspects of the one sovereignty of the state. But at the same time
both the aspects stands poles apart.

Legal sovereign is a law-making authority in legal terms, whereas political sovereignty is behind the
legal sovereign. The legal sovereign can express his will in legal terms. But the political sovereign cannot do
so. Legal sovereign is determinate, definite and visible whereas political sovereign is not determinate and clear.
It is recognised. Legal sovereignty is vested in the electorate, public opinion and other influences of the state
which mould or shape the public opinion. Legal sovereign is recognised by lawyers while political sovereign is
not. Legal sovereign cannot go against the will of the political sovereign whereas political sovereign, though
not legally powerful, controls over the legal sovereign. The concept of legal sovereign is clear whereas the
concept of political sovereign is vague. Legal sovereign is elected by the political sovereign whereas political
sovereign is the electorate or the people. These are the points of difference between the legal sovereign and the
political sovereign.

(4) Popular Sovereignty:

Popular sovereignty roughly means the power of the masses as contrasted with the Power of the
individual ruler of the class. It implies manhood, suffrage, with each individual having only one vote and the
control of the legislature by the representatives of the people. In popular sovereignty public is regarded as
supreme. In the ancient times many writers on Political Science used popular sovereignty as a weapon to refute
absolutism of the monarchs.

According to Dr. Garner, “Sovereignty of the people, therefore, can mean nothing more than the power
of the majority of the electorate, in a country where a system of approximate universal suffrage prevails, acting
through legally established channels to express their will and make it prevail”.

(5) Deo Facto and De Jure Sovereignty:

Sometimes a distinction is made between the De Facto (actual) sovereignty and De Jure (legal)
sovereignty. A de jure sovereign is the legal sovereign whereas a de factor sovereign is a sovereign which is
actually obeyed. In the words of Lord Bryce, de facto sovereign “is the person or a body of persons who can
make his or their will prevail whether with the law or against the law; he or they, is the de facto ruler, the
person to whom obedience is actually paid”. Thus, it is quite clear, that de jure is the legal sovereignty founded
on law whereas dc facto is the actual sovereignty.

The person or the body of persons who actually exercise power is called the de facto sovereign. The de
facto sovereign may not be a legal sovereign or he may be a usurping king, a dictator, a priest or a prophet, in
either case sovereignty rests upon physical power or spiritual influence rather than legal right. History abounds
in examples of de facto sovereignties. For example, Oliver Cromwell became de facto sovereign after he had
dismissed the Long Parliament. Napoleon became the de facto sovereign after he had overthrown the Directory.
Likewise, Franco became the de facto sovereign after he had dislodged the legal sovereign in Spain. On
October 28, 1922 Mussolini‟s Black Shirts marched on Rome. At that time, Parliament was the legal sovereign.
Mussolini became the Prime Minister in the legal manner. He ruled parliament and ruled the country through
parliament.

Parliament remained the legal sovereign but he was the actual or de facto sovereign. Hitler also did the
same in Germany. He too became the de factor sovereign. He controlled the legal sovereign and became the de
facto sovereign. Similarly, Stalin remained the actual sovereign in U.S.S.R. for about three decades. After the
Second World War and before the Egyptian Revolution King Farouk was the legal sovereign. General Naguib‟s
„coup de‟etat‟ in Egypt and the abdication of King Farouk is another example of de facto sovereignty. Nazib
was expelled and Nasser succeeded him in de facto sovereign.

SJ-CSICLS
 After the death of Nasser, Mr. Sadat succeeded him. After the assassination, Hosni Mubarak became the
President of Egypt. Similarly, Ayub became the de facto sovereign after he had staged the military coup in
Pakistan. When Ayub was overthrown Yahya Khan Rose to power with the help of the army and became the fe
facto sovereign.

After his defeat in 1971 at the hands of Indian army he handed power to Bhutto, who was thrown in
July, 1977 by Zia-ul-Haq, who first of all became de facto and later on de jure sovereign. Thus, it is quite clear
that the actual or de facto sovereign is the strongest active force in the State and it is capable of making his will
prevail. But sometimes, it happens that de facto and de jure sovereignty ultimately coincides.

China and Pakistan are the glaring examples. In Soviet Union, the Communist Government became the
de facto government of the successful Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. But in course of time, it became the de
jure government also.

Titular Sovereignty:
When sovereign powers are vested theoretically, apparently, or in black and white in an individual or
state institution, it is titular or nominal sovereignty. In such conditions, real state powers belong to some one
other person or institution. This type of sovereignty appeared because of the parliamentary form of government.
The best example of this is England where the king or Queen is the Titular sovereign and parliament is the
actual sovereign.

Austin’s Monistic Theory of Sovereignty

The monistic or legal theory of sovereignty found its finest exposition in John Austin, the renowned
English jurist of the 19th century. His theory is well explained in his famous book Lectures on Jurisprudence.
His views are influenced by Hobbes and Bentham. Yet, his theory is distinct. Austin‟s theory of sovereignty is
conditioned by his notion of law. He drew a clear distinction between law and morality. He defined law as a
“command given by a superior to an inferior.” Austin defined sovereignty thus: “If a determinate human
superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given
society, and that society (including the superior) is a society political and independent.”
In every state there is certain person or persons who can compel obedience. The test of sovereignty is
habitual obedience to a superior who obeys not a like superior. The human superior is determinate. The subjects
obey the sovereign not because he is just but because he possesses power. The following propositions can be
picked up from his theory. (1) Sovereignty is the essential attribute of every state. (2) Sovereignty is
determinate; it cannot be an indefinite body or vague concept. (3) Sovereignty is legally unlimited. (4)
Obedience to the sovereign is habitual, viz, continuous, regular and usual. Obedience from the bulk of society
is enough. (5) Sovereignty is indivisible. (6) Command alone is law.

Pluralist Theory of Sovereignty

The pluralist theory of sovereignty was a reaction against the absolute theory of state sovereignty. The
theory of pluralism in its present form was originated in the writings of Qtto Von Gierke in Germany and Prof.
FW Maitland in England in the last quarters of the 19th century. The theory of pluralism was strengthened by
writers like J.N. Figgis, Leon Duguit, G.D.H. Cole, Mac Iver, Ernst Barker, M Paul Boneour, Durkheim, Miss
Follett, Prof. H.J. Laski and Robert Dahl.

Basic principles of Pluralism

The state is but one the numerous, social, economic political and other groupings through which men
and society must seek to satisfy their interests and promote their welfare.
These different groupings are not mere creatures of the state but arise independently and acquire power
and authority independent of the state.

SJ-CSICLS
 The functions of such voluntary associations – churches, labour unions, trade organizations,
professional societies etc. are as necessary and important as those of the state.
The monistic state is not only incapable of wielding absolute authority over such bodies but is incapable
of regulating their affairs intelligently or administering them efficiently.
The monistic concept of sovereignty is a mere legal fiction which not only misses the truth but does
incalculable harm in obstructing the evolution of society along more beneficial lines.
The pluralists condemn and criticize the sovereignty of the state on three grounds. (1) in relation to the
groups, (2) in relation to law, and (3) in relation to other states.
State versus groups: Gierke and Maitland approached pluralism from the
point of view of groups. These thinkers consider the groups as very important instrument of social life. They
are, perhaps,as important as the state its self. These groups and associations, according to them, have a will and
a personality of their own apart from the will and personality of their members. They should have their own
rights and powers and the state has no business to ride roughshod over these groups. The groups should have
power in the making of laws. Sovereignty of the state should be shared amongst them. Their importance and
independent existence should be recognized by the state. Sovereignty, thus according to these thinkers, is
limited internally by the rights of these groups and associations.
State versus Law: According to Duguit, a leading writer of pluralism, attacked the old and obsolete view of
law. According to Duguit, law is neither a command of a sovereign nor will of the state. It is in fact, an
outcome of social solidarity. Infact people realise the utility and necessity of laws, while they live in society.
Laws are created by the people themselves and they are expressions of that sort of life which people wish to
live a life of universal substance in which everyone realise their individual aspirations
State versus other states: The pluralists attacked the absolute sovereignty of the state in the external sphere
also. Prof. H.J.Laski was a great critic of the absolute sovereignty of the state in the external sphere. According
him, the doctrine of absolute, unlimited and irresponsible sovereign state is incompatible with the interests of
humanity. It is a barren and futile doctrine which is bound to disappear from the field of communication caused
by the inventions of science, has brought the political theory like the divine right of kings. A revolution in the
different countries of the world closer to each other. The world has shirked to a single family. The international
public opinion itself is a great check to prevent a reckless state from doing whatever it likes. Hence, the state
cannot claim absolute and unlimited power in the external sphere. Its power shall always be limited by the
rights of other state. Laski held the view that it is impossible to make the legal theory of sovereignty valid for
Political Science if the whole concept of sovereignty where surrendered.

SJ-CSICLS