Every law has a sovereign authority and no law can be made without sovereign authority

Every law has a sovereign authority and no law can be made without sovereign authority. The authority cannot use the arbitrary power for their interest. Discuss


Law is a set of rules and regulations which are derived by a supreme authority through different social, political or religious institutions to control the behavior of people. A law can be made for different purposes. The use or enforcement of law varies from a very narrow point of view like a small organization to a very broad perspective like treaties or agreements of different countries. Normally laws are made by a government. It is the most important task for the legislative branch of a government. Laws are made to have power over an authorized portion of people to ensure the equality and justice in every sphere of the organizational, social, national and global issues. Another significant thing for making a law is the sovereignty of the allowed authority. Sovereignty refers to the freedom or independence of an approved authority over an organizational, social, national or global territory. The word “Sovereignty” has had a different history since Aristotle, for the circumstance and purpose of using the word. Bodin and Hobbes used the term to establish their perception of a vital need for internal order. Their conception became a suitable materialistic slogan for different absolute monarchies of the time and controlled several centuries of international politics and law. Sovereignty often is a characteristic of a powerful individual, whose authenticity over a region is a purportedly direct or assigned divine or historic authority, but Hobbes’s convention of multitude was with the consent of the people.


If we go though the history of law enforcement we can find a bond between law and sovereign authority. By studying the Greek history of law we can find that Greeks civilization has similarities with our civilization. Knowledge, art, and literature are the foundation of our art, science and literature. We are on an identical balance with the relevant laws and the political economy, the Greeks also had traveled here during the same time and we are traveling, and had a parallel knowledge in jurisprudence. They had to fight this battle the same fight – a never-ending competition between sovereignty and excellence. From the ancient period to the recent period, they are affectionate to law and legislation, and statesmen and philosophers were actively involved in the purpose to the crisis of human happiness in a structured civilization. They can propose us many useful lessons in jurisprudence and superiority. Date legendary makes it understandable that the first of the human existence controlled sovereign authority of law. In contrast, we can see the previous history of law in different countries of the world it is confirm that after being a sovereign state, they had created law in accordance with their philosophy.

If we have a look at American history of law, we can observe that it is believed that a jury trial is a product of the common law. This was required to show that it was native in England and can be traced back to Alfred the Great and the Anglo-Saxon times. Was supposed Anglo-Saxon origin jury system refuted completely by Messrs. Pollock and Maitland in their history of law Premier in early, has been traced who clearly Franks, from whom he borrowed by William the Conqueror or instant his successors Norman for their purposes selfishness, and not with any in order to improve the law of England. There are those who find the real source in judies system chooses praetor in Roman law to determine the facts in legal disputes when the same has been settled law applicable. But, however it arose, the system of trial by jury, which was not of great importance days before Stewart, or indeed before the latter part of the eighteenth century, when he took over for the first time an important role in the administration of justice, which it holds until now, has become one of the most cherished features of our American jurisprudence. In fact, although the institution existed in England least far back as the reign of Richard I, it seems as if he had been only her current job in the Law Department first fully developed in our times in colonial America.

In the days of Plantagenet’s and Tudors, and to a lesser extent at the time of Stuart and Hanover in early, and it was the jury, not an independent body that would normally be, and it cannot therefore been a bulwark of freedom, or in any way an active role in promoting human freedom. Summoned by the jury-Sharif, according to the will and pleasure of the freeholders or landowners Norman each province and Sharif was appointed from one year to another sovereign. It is not quite clear, therefore, how he could have juror’s creatures of the royal pleasure, whenever a sovereign, or his ministers, or those close to him, and believed appropriate for their own purposes to interfere in their choice. And, in fact, in the history of England, for over 700 years, from the Norman Conquest down to the reign of King George III, and seeks intelligent Inquirer in vain for any evidence of the evolution of human freedom through the instrumentality of the jury system. It is absurd extreme, talk about the system of trial by jury as a bastion of freedom. During the ending of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century, service of the system for the purpose had been recognized. In fact, one of the best evidence of effectiveness in this regard is the fact that among the states governed by the Code Napoleon, wherever they put the constitutional institutions, has also been a jury trial to greater or lesser extent feet.


Due to intense religious and civil struggles during sixteenth century, Bodin argued for the establishment of an unlimited ruling power able to rule against all religious and traditional authorities. According to his view, an ‘ordered commonwealth’ based on the formation of a central authority enjoyed the supreme power. Though Bodin was not the first to study with this issue, he developed which is commonly used as the first statement of the modern theory of sovereignty is that “There must be within every political community or state a determinate sovereign authority whose powers are decisive and whose powers are recognized as the rightful or legitimate basis of authority (1967).According to this statement, sovereignty is the entire and untrammeled power to formulate and implement the law. So it is the identifying feature of the state.

The principle of sovereignty can be developed in two ways. The first one is concerned with the internal sovereignty and the other one is concerned with the external sovereignty. The internal sovereignty refers to a person or a political body authorized with sovereignty enjoys the supreme power over a specified society. Whether a government is monarchial or democratic must exercise the ultimate and absolute power within a particular territory. On the other hand, external sovereignty means that there is no final and supreme authority above and beyond the sovereign state. States are independent in terms of their internal politics and the other issues like how the state will be run within their sovereign territory. External sovereignty determines the power to hold independence by ignoring external dominating power of other states. It also helps to maintain relationships with other countries and to keep its internal political stability without any interference from other countries.


By the successive waves of democratization, the hold of the classical sovereignty was removed within different states[3]. During the time of reforming the political systems, they had overflow effects for the interstate system[4]. Though a new model of international regulation fully took a shape during the Second World War, but the era of liberal international sovereignty had started before the Second World War. Its foundation is noticeable by the steps to expand the procedures of defining public authority to international level. The purpose of these efforts was also to convert the sense of valid political authority from effective control to the maintenance of basic standards.


The sovereign authority ensures the rights of the people and any law cannot go against the human rights of the country’s citizens as sovereignty rests with the people and according to the constitution. It means the government is the representative of the people of the country to give people the right way of incorporation. So at the same time government can regulate the law and also responsible for shaping the behavior of people.


The sovereign authority has no power except the governmental power, acts only by means of laws, and laws are valid only then when it fulfills the common interest. It can work only when the people are gathered. The unity of people has become an enormous power nowadays which was not possible in two thousand years back. At present, the nature of people has changed.

In reality, the limits of possibility are broader than we imagine. We restrict ourselves due to our weaknesses, our vices and our prejudices. People with weak souls do not believe in great men; vile slaves smile of mockery in the name of freedom.

We will judge what to do so have been made. We will say nothing of the republics of ancient Greece, but the Roman republic was, in my view, a great state, and the city of Rome a great city. The last census showed that there were 400,000 Roma citizens capable of bearing arms, and the latest estimate of the population of the Empire showed over four million citizens, excluding subjects, foreigners, women, and slaves.

What difficulties might not assumed to be in the form of frequent set the large population of this city and its vicinity? Yet few weeks passed without the Roman people in the assembly, and even being so several times. It holds not only the rights of sovereignty, but also a part of the government. He took care of some business, and judged some cases, and all these people is in the public magistrates meeting place often as not less than citizens.

If we go back to the earliest history of nations, governments should find that older, even those of the monarchic form, as the Macedonian and the Franks, had similar advice. In any case, the one incontestable fact I have given is an answer to all problems, but it’s a good logic to reason from the actual to the possible.


According to the constitution of Bangladesh, the government is responsible for law enforcement. Sovereignty is the highest authority of the state. So it is a burning question of the common people that can the government abuses power? Like U.S. “the people” are the highest authority of the country in accordance to the Constitution of Bangladesh. The queen is the monarchial chief of the British parliament. The people of Bangladesh can make any changes as needed for the people by electing the government by their voting rights. The authority or the government should not abuse the power of their own volition. The real sovereign power or authority is the people of the country through which law refrain the government from using arbitrary power.


Sovereign authority is the supreme authority of the state to exercise the power of constructing the law. This authority is the ultimate power holder who is responsible for making laws for the betterment of the major portion of the society. The sovereign authority also determines how the rules can be made to control the behavior of people. If there is a law that cannot compel the authority to remain sovereign then that law would be meaningless. This type of law cannot influence the public behavior. So it is clear that law is created with the sovereign power and authority of leadership. Finally, we can say that, there cannot be any law without sovereign authority.



Bodin, J. (1967) Six Books of a Commonwealth, (trans. and ed.) M. J. Tooley, Oxford: Blackwell.

Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society, London: Macmillan.

Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hinsley, F. H. (1986) Sovereignty, 2nd edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hobbes, T. (1968) Leviathan (ed.) C. B. Macpherson, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Krasner, S. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Mann, M. (1986) The Sources of Social Power, vol 1, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Miller, D. (1988) ‘The ethical significance of nationality’, Ethics, 98.

Potter, D., Goldblatt, D., Kiloh, M. and Lewis, P. (eds) (1997) Democratization, Cambridge: Polity Press

Internet resources







[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/law

[2] See David Held, ‘Law of States, Law of Peoples: Three Models of Sovereignty’ Published in Legal Theory, 8,2, 2002 [Access on ]

[3] Potter, D., Goldblatt, D., Kiloh, M. and Lewis, P. (eds) (1997) Democratization, Cambridge: Polity Press.

[4] Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society, London: Macmillan.