Sovereignty and legitimacy appear to be the same thing, but through careful inspection, it is shown that they are positively correlated. By definition, the sovereignty of a state is a state that has the right and freedom to rule independently. Sovereignty is shown to be positively correlated to its legitimacy. By definition, the legitimacy of a government is the acceptance of the government by the people. When sovereignty is achieved, the people in a state accept the authority of their government; therefore, by being sovereign, a country should naturally achieve legitimacy.
According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, a sovereign state is one that “ governs itself independently of any foreign power.” A government achieves sovereignty when it has the legal and independent right to rule, therefore proving the authority of a government. This right of a state to rule can be achieved in several different ways, depending on its regime. Some ways to achieve sovereignty are through conquest, through an election, and through obtaining of the crown in a monarchy. For example, an authoritarian or fascist government may force its sovereignty through conquest,
…show more content…
According to one source, two things should be expected from a state with political legitimacy. Firstly, a legitimate state should be more flexible and secure when dealing with any type of political, social, or economic crisis. Secondly, any rulers will be compelled to execute practical and effectual political and/or social policies to keep the state running smoothly. Because of these characteristics, having a legitimate state will provide the essential factors to create a basis of a sovereign state. For example, Declaration of Independence of 1776 provides an example of how, in a sovereign state, citizens have the power to affect political
If those in power do not obey the social contract, the commonwealth has the right to create a new social contract so the state of nature does not prevail. The sovereign is entrusted with unlimited power, but must always act in a way that protects the people. Laws from the sovereign allow the commonwealth to not constantly fear death. Like principalities, sovereignty is allowed ultimate rule. It is similar to a republic in which the ruler has to abide by the will of the people.
Over the course of the semester, the class has discussed a variety of theories about legitimacy and government. In Hobbes, authority hinges on the Leviathan, with Locke, authority rests on the people and with Rousseau, an extreme version of Locke. Yet in each case, there appears to be a focus on one individual or one group of people. What institutions can enforce that the group who possesses legitimate power do not overstep their authority? Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu advocates for a solution that results in a system of government that has the sovereign not abuse his or their power. Thus, a system of checks and balances.
When asked about the definition of a sovereign nation, Selma Buckwheat (September 25, 2013), elder member of the Anishinabeg tribe, explains by stating, “We govern ourselves and have our own laws” (personal communication). They have a lot of meetings that help understand most of the sovereign nations. In other words, a sovereign nation is power or a territory existing as an independent s...
Thomassen, J. & Schmitt, H. 2004. Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union. Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning, 45 (2), pp. 377-410.
Sovereignty means that the state has control over it is itself (“Sovereign”). America became sovereign whenever it broke free from British control during the late 18th century. This is because their laws were no longer determined by the British empire but instead themselves. The purpose of government depends on those implementing the system. In dictatorial regimes, the purpose of government is vastly different than that of a republic. In the United States, according to the Constitution, the purpose of government is defined to be “Establish Justice, Insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty” (U.S. Const. preamble). All the powers outlined in the Constitution are
government’s ability to hold true to its true purpose, which is to establish a government
The founding of a new government, by definition, does not merely mean the establishment of a governing structure; it denotes the building of nationhood. This sense of nationhood, with time, will invariably deepen into the passion citizens have for their nations. While extreme nationalism is destructive to both self and others, a moderate amount of nationalism is the foundation of our modern democracy. It unites citizen into political units, promotes participation in democratic processes, and stabilizes democracy by building trust. Governments are, thus, important because, to some extent, they help to promote democracy.
In this paper, it is my intention to discuss the issue of legitimacy as it relates to government. I will explore what a legitimate government necessarily consists of; that is, I will attempt to formulate a number of conditions a government must meet in order to be considered legitimate.
...ty exclusive of external authorities. Second, in terms of domestic sovereignty, for fairly long time the political structures of states have been following the global trends, from monarchy, to republics, to democratic states most recently. From above we can see that both domestic sovereignty and Westphalian sovereignty are facing challenges all the time, which are not new, but characteristic from time to time. Since sovereignty is the core value of a state, it is reasonable to conclude that nation-state is challenged by globalization but its power is not undermined.
Where this structure is present we may legitimately speak of human society, together with its sovereign, as a single independent state, and we may also speak of its law. Where this structure is absent we cannot legitimately apply those expressions, because the relation of the sovereign to the subjects constitutes, according to this theory, part of the very meaning of those expressions [2].
The belief of a nation running their own state is a right for most of us. However, this is only a new conviction. The right for one to sovereign their own nation has come due with hard work. Illicit imperialism has stricken humanity for numerous years. Due to the aspiration of power certain nations today do not self-govern their own state. But why would there be a desire for this power? Some of the main items include natural resources, increased assets, and military expansion. Ideally this is great if this is voluntary external rule, but when it’s no longer voluntary this is when the boundary has been crossed. This is why every nation should have control over their own state if they desire.
...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
Austin asserts in his Command Theory of Law that that the law is the command of the sovereign, which is also backed by a threat of sanction in the event of non-compliance. As a noun, the sovereign is usually defined as a person who holds supreme ruler, like an absolute monarch. The use of ‘sovereign’ as an adjective also refers to a group of
Firstly, the state is an important component in the concept of realism. An independent state can be defined as a clear cut territory, under the jurisdiction of supreme government with sovereignty and a permanent population (Jackson, Sorensen 2013: 4). Hobbes claims that, states are the major actors in global, it seeks self-interest and survival; it operates in anarchy, so they emphasize self-help (Heywood 2011: 14).
Conversely, this might limit their moral authority. Wolff asserts that only possession of a moral right to rule genuinely gives rise to moral obligations that must be obeyed. Furthering this, Shapiro suggests that a lack of moral right to rule results in a lack of legitimate authority, despite being widely accepted. This was termed de facto authority. Under this criterion, Shapiro argued that single-party states such as the Soviet Union lacked political legitimacy, as they did not receive their power through democratic means. It can be argued that political legitimacy is a means of justifying authority.