Law has a sovereign authority and there cannot be a law without sovereign authority.-illustrate &explain
Introduction:
Sovereignty is often defined as supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state of community in a defined territory. There must be within every political community of state a determined sovereign authority whose powers are decisive and whose powers are recognized as the rightful or legitimate basis of authority. (Held, 2002)While there are many claims about the relationship between sovereignty and international institutions, observers commonly argue that sovereignty is threatened by the ongoing expansion of global governance. Given the tremendous rise in the number of international institutions in the recent period, this is an important change and one that is taken seriously by many commentators.
This article explores the changing character of sovereignty in international law and international relations. International lawyers may wonder whether this conservative, apparently vastly overwritten subject might still provoke intellectual curiosity. It seems counterintuitive to presume that we might shed new light on such a venerable concept. Yet, the challenge of discovering something novel about the idea of sovereignty, which might enhance and deepen collective understanding of this vital concept, is our objective. [1] (Steven, 1987)
There cannot be a law without the supreme power, the definition of law describes that law must have to have a sovereign authority. The law has to be forced by the maximum ability of a realm to regulate the individual and social rights for the betterment of living. The past of law also indicates that there is a tremendous influence or the state is the clout to impose the law on individual actions. If there is no sovereign authority law cannot be imposed. The concept of sovereignty and jurisdiction are not always clear cut. Sovereignty is a concept of a more general nature, the normal complement of state rights typically represented by legal competence. (Calster, 2002)
Brief History of Law, Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Territory:
The beginnings of the theory of sovereignty are found in Aristotle’s Politics, and the classic body of the Roman law. In the Politics there is recognition of the fact that there must be a supreme power existing in the state, and that this power may be in the hands of one, or a few, or of many. A justification of the rule of the many, fairly expressed in the statement that “the principle that the multitude ought to be supreme rather than the few best is capable of a satisfactory explanation, and though not free from difficulty, yet seems to contain an element of truth.” (C. E. Merriam, 2001)
In The Metaphysics of Morals, Kant identifies sovereignty with the power of legislating, which – as he emphatically claims – belongs solely to the people. It is an expression of the general will and constitutes the higher power in the state, since the other two powers, namely the executive and the judiciary, derive from it. With regards to this point, Kant writes that “every state contains three authorities within it, that is the general will consists of three persons, the sovereign authority in the person of the legislator; the executive authority in the person of the; and the judicial authority (to award to each what is in accordance with the law) in the person of the judge” The executive and judicial powers are therefore mere personifications of the sovereign power itself, since they derive their authority from it (both the ruler and the judge apply the law created by the sovereign, even if in different contexts and ways). (Pinzani)
Dominion can tender us many a beneficial example in jurisprudence and statesmanship. The legendary narration is production it clear that from the very first individual subsistence the monarch authority is scheming law. On the other hand as we can take a look at surroundings of law in dissimilar nation of the planet it is clear that after being an autonomous nation they could generate the law as per their attitude.
What is Sovereignty?
Sovereignty is characteristically distinct as ultimate permissible clout. The notion was formulated by sixteenth century a legal truth-seeker MR. Jean Bodin and elaborated by many theorists since then. One basic argument has been whether to trace highest clout to the people or to a “divine right” of system. Another has been about the family member between legal right and following fiscal control. The power may sway or lead law. The description of dominion in central Indian law partakes of both earliest controversies. An unclear perception from the start, bordered by discrepancy, sovereignty is conceivably most puzzling in national Indian law. (Mckn)
Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A state that has internal sovereignty is one with a government that has been elected by the people and has the popular legitimacy. Internal sovereignty examines the internal affairs of a state and how it operates. It is important to have strong internal sovereignty in relation to keeping order and peace. (Amherst, 2011)
External sovereignty concerns the relationship between a sovereign power and other states. For example, the United Kingdom uses the following criterion when deciding under what conditions other states recognize a political entity as having sovereignty over some territory. External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law, such as: when, if ever, is intervention by one country onto another’s territory permissible?
The basic principles of sovereignty are Territorial Integrity, Border inviolability, supremacy of the state and a sovereign is the supreme law making authority within the jurisdiction.
Dominion and the constitution of a Nation:
Government is the representative of people of the state and runs the country according to the constitution. Whereas constitution is a set of essential rules according which the state is governed. Sovereignty lies in the constitution of a nation and the political power of the state becomes the authority, may generally legislate on all matters within their territorial jurisdiction. The power of law enforcing agencies does not arise from the constitution. But it is an inherent attribute of the states territorial sovereignty. The constitution does however; provide certain specific limitations on the power. For instance, a state is relatively limited in its authority regarding the regulation of foreign imports and exports or the conduct of foreign affairs. Further, states must respect the decisions of courts other states, and are limited in their ability to vary their territory without congressional permission. In addition, the Supreme Court has found that states are limited in their ability to burden interstate commerce. (The lawyers and Jurists, 2012)
The political trinity of legislative, executive and judicial power also corresponds to a practical syllogism in the sense in which the three abovementioned concepts of justice express the possibility, actuality or necessity of property. A law expresses a mere possibility, since it does not deal with particular cases, but has a general content, according to the concept of law typical of modern political theory (a concept by which most laws in our contemporary state would be nothing but governmental decrees). A law would, for instance, foresee that the sovereign may collect a specific tax to sustain an army in wartimes, but would not specify the amount of money that every subject is expected to pay; at most, it could specify the ratio according to which different classes of citizens should be financially burdened. This general provision would encounter its actual application only through a governmental decree, i.e., through the action of the executive power. (Pinzani)
A state has to fulfill three major criteria’s, It has to be a piece of land, It have to have certain number of people in it, and mostly there has to be a government.[2] (One Heaven Court)
The relationship of act, populace and dominion:
The autonomous power is to defend the constitutional rights of the populace, as any rule cannot infringe human rights of the people of the kingdom. The administration is the countenance of the populace, the sit on the top place to speak for the people in right way of creation. Dominion lies with about people and the establishment declares it.
If the idea of sovereignty has an intellectual, scholastic staleness to it, it is also the case that, practically, its value for national independence and security is alive and well.7 The changing character of sovereignty assumes an uneasy point of analytical departure; such an explorative effort traditionally requires the authors to offer some definition of the subject matter sovereignty. in the context of international law and international relations. It further assumes that we can, in some degree, understand and measure its changing character, these are large and controverter assumptions[3]. (Winston P. Nagan)
The use of sovereign power:
It is the government’s liability to impose the law and maintain according to the constitution of Bangladesh. Sovereignty lies with the top administrative of the state. It is possible that, the authority can violate the power as per own interest. The constitution says that, the people are the highest authority of the country in Bangladesh. But the scenario is different in Great Britain, where the British authority lies upon the queen of parliament. As we the people are the highest authority, it is completely our wish to vote and elected the government. Then the government will make the necessary changes as the need arises among the people. Although they have the power to manipulate and restructure the law, they should not do so. Commandment refrains them from using the uninformed control, since the independent control or ability is for the populace of the realm.
Conclusion:
The ultimate power which regulates the law is the sovereign authority. If there is no monarch influence regulation cannot be forced. The edict is sourced by the supreme influence and it is the domination of power. The sovereign authority is simple and undivided, and no can divide it without destroying it. We the people make territory, extend the same rights everywhere and we are abiding by the same law. So, it is clear that there cannot be any law without sovereign authority.
Bibliography
Amherst, U. o. (2011, February). http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/soverignty. Retrieved February 21, 2013, from University of massachusetts Amherst: http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/soverignty
C. E. Merriam, J. (2001). History of the theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau. Kitchener: Batoche Books.
Calster, G. V. (2002). Tnternational law and sovereignty in the age of globalization. International law and institutions , 4-16.
Held, D. (2002). Law of Saates, Law of People: Three models of Soverignty. Legal Theory .
Mckn, E. The new Oxford American Dictionary. Second Edition.
Pinzani, A. (n.d.). Kant on Sovereignty. Universidade Federal de Catarina .
Sassen, S. (1998). Soverignty Matters. 32-64.
Steven, P. (1987). Restatement of the Law: The foreign relations Law of the United Satates. American Law Institute .
Winston P. Nagan, F. C. (n.d.). THE CHANGING CHARACTER OF SOVEREIGNTY IN INTERNATIONAL. Journal of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law , 1-2.
(n.d.). Retrieved February 21, 2013, from One Heaven Court: http://one-heaven-court.org/content_law_Philodophy/soverignty.asp
(2012, October 1). Retrieved February 21, 2013, from The lawyers and Jurists: http://www.lawyersnjurists.com/articles-reports-journals/law-and-ethics/law-sovereign-authority-law-sovereign-authority/
[1] Steven, P. (1987). Restatement of the Law: The foreign relations Law of the United Satates. American Law Institute.
[2] Retrieved from: http://one-heaven-court.org/content_law_Philodophy/soverignty.asp
[3] Winston P. Nagan, F. C. (n.d.). THE CHANGING CHARACTER OF SOVEREIGNTY IN INTERNATIONAL. Journal of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law , 1-2.