Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Sovereignty and jurisdiction are related but quite distinct concepts. Sovereignty refers to the possession of ultimate legal authority within a defined territory. Jurisdiction refers to the authority to exercise legal power. Sovereignty is a normative concept, a product of moral philosophy and legal theory that is used to make claims about how political and legal systems ought to be organized, while jurisdiction is an empirical concept used to describe how such systems actually are organized.

Sovereignty consists of two aspects. De jure sovereignty is the moral or normative claim to the right to govern a state, while de facto sovereignty involves having effective power to act as the sovereign. In international law, sovereignty and jurisdiction are equivalent; a sovereign has jurisdiction within its territory to the exclusion of all other powers. This is why early theorists of modern sovereignty claimed that sovereignty is indivisible. Each territorial state has one and only one sovereign. Within the state, however, the sovereign delegates the authority to make law and to judge cases to a variety of other authorities. A court has jurisdiction in some cases if and only if it possesses three capacities: first, authority over the particular person or class of persons involved, known as jurisdiction in personam; second, authority over the subject matter, known as jurisdiction in rem (in some property cases); and third, the power to render the particular kind of remedy or judgment being sought.

History of Sovereignty

The modern idea of sovereignty has its origins in Europe during the decline of feudalism. Writers such Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) in the Netherlands, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) in England, and especially Jean Bodin (1520–1596) in France developed a theory of the unitary, independent, and territorial state with a strong central government, founded in natural law. This theory was created amid the turmoil of civil and international wars unleashed by the Reformation. By making every subject equal under a central authority, these authors sought to end civil wars and establish the rule of law. By making every state (and nation) equal and independent, they hoped to avoid the struggles between overlapping imperial and papal authorities and also to stop kings and feudal barons from fighting over control of lands where title was often obscure.

In more recent times, the rise of representative democracy, the separation of powers in civil government, and the overlapping jurisdictions of governments in federal systems have all served to complicate the idea of sovereignty. Globalization and the development of supranational institutions such as the United Nations have led some to claim that sovereignty is no longer a useful way to describe how political power and legal authority are distributed and exercised. The language of sovereignty nevertheless endures, largely because it remains useful in analyzing international or interstate relations. Sovereignty underpins the international system because despite the power of transnational corporations and supranational institutions, laws regulating commerce are still the responsibility of states (even if the negotiating power of states is often demonstrably unequal). International law and agreements such as that creating the World Trade Organization still require the agreement of the states that will be bound by them.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading