The law definition in terms of sovereign authority which is the supreme power of any county who follows government constitution- lustrates & explains
Law has sovereign authority and there can be no law without a sovereign power. It is a clear sign that the law is bound by the highest authority of any country to monitor human rights and to improve social life. Rules, a union of primary and secondary rules as a system is.The history of the law also indicates a higher power or the State’s authority to impose the law on human behavior. “A rule is a smart guide an intelligent being having foreseen by force.” “The body has been corrected by a political authority has been reinforced sovereign”. If there is no sovereign authority, the law cannot be mandatory or no law.
History of law and the sovereign authority:
Looking at the history of law enforcement, law can attach sovereign authority. If we see the Greek history of the law of the Greek Civilization is our civilization. His science, art and literature are the basis of our science, art and literature. Also look forward to its laws and its political economy, hence also the Greeks have to go through the same path on which we are taking, and have had a similar experience in the case? They had to fight the same conflict we are fighting – the never-ending contest between freedom and privilege. Law and legislation was his favorite subject, and from his first day in his latest statesmen and philosophers of the heroic race were never busily engaged in the implementation of the problem of human happiness in organized society.We can offer a productive lesson in jurisprudence and statesman. The mythological story is making it clear that from the beginning of human survival is the sovereign authority of the law control. On the contrary, as we thoroughly consider the law in different nations of the world, it is clear that after being a sovereign nation that could create the law according to their values.
Classically defined sovereignty as the supreme legal authority, the concept was devised by the sixteenth-century legal philosopher Jean Bodin and developed by many theorists since. A basic controversy has been the ability to sketch the people supreme authority or a “divine right” of the rulers. Another has been on the relationship between the judicial and political-economic power that can influence or dominate the law. The definition of sovereignty in federal Indian law partakes of both old controversies. An ambiguous concept from the beginning, surrounded by disagreement, sovereignty is perhaps the most cryptic in federal Indian law. When the sovereign happened to be a man of vigorous and warlike temper and of superior abilities, he would acquire a personal weight and influence, which answered, for the time, the purpose of a more regular authority. There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must be not attacked, towns which must be besieged, positions which must not be contested, and commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed. The history of sovereignty can be involved through two large movements, manifested in both practical institutions and political thought. Not withstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rival ship for encroachments.
The first is the development of a system of sovereign states, culminating in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Contemporaneously, sovereignty became prominent in political thought through the writings of Machiavelli, Luther, Bodin and Hobbes. The second movement is the circumscription of the sovereign state, which began in practice after World War II and has since continued through European integration and the growth and strengthening of laws and practices to protect human rights. The most prominent corresponding political thought occurs in the writings of critics of sovereignty like Bertrand deJouvenel and Jacques Maritain.
The concept of sovereignty has been discussed and debated throughout history. The definition has been changed many times, but the basic principles are-
• Territorial Integrity
• Border inviolability
• State Supremacy
• A sovereign is the supreme law making authority of competition.
Sovereignty is of two types: internal or external:
Internal sovereignty is the association between a sovereign and his subjects. A state that has internal sovereignty is one with a government that has been elected by the people and has the popular authority. Internal sovereignty observes the internal affairs of a state and the way it operates. It is important to have a strong internal control in relation to maintain order and peace.
External sovereignty concerns the association between a sovereign power and other states. For example, the UK uses the following measure for deciding under what conditions other states distinguish a political entity that has sovereignty over a territory. External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law, such as: when, if ever, is intervention by one country in the territory of another allowed?
State sovereignty and the Constitution:
To become a state must be three criteria to be met-
• Must have piece of land
• A number of people
• There should be a government
The government is the representative of the people of the state and run the country according to the Constitution. If the constitution is a set of essential standards according to which the State is governed. Sovereignty resides in the constitution of a nation and the political power of the state becomes the authority, generally can legislate on all matters within its territorial jurisdiction.
This “police power” does not arise from the Constitution, but is an inherent attribute of sovereignty of territorial states. The constitution is nevertheless providing specific limitations in power. For example, a state is relatively limited in its authority over the regulation of foreign imports and exports or the conduct of foreign relations. In addition, States must respect the decisions of the courts of other states, and are limited in their ability to vary their territory without permission from Congress. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that states are limited in their capacity of interstate commerce.
Not enough for the assembled people should have set once the state constitution to give his sanction to a body of laws is not enough that there should be established a perpetual government or should have once and for all offered the choice of judges. Besides the extraordinary assemblies unforeseen events may require, there needs to be the regular fix and nothing can remove, so that, on the selected day, the people are legitimately convened by law to do so without any official summons.
But, apart from these assemblies that are legal only by date, all the assemblies of the people that has not been called by the judges appointed for this service and in the manner prescribed, should be illegal and all that is in it as invalid, since even to ride must come from the law.
As for the more or less frequent meetings of legitimate assemblies that depend on many considerations that no precise rules can be given on them. Only you can say in general that a government has more strength as often if the screen itself sovereign.
This may be good for a single city, but what to do when the State comprises several cities? Will separate sovereign authority? Or should you focus on a single city and make all other subjects.
First, the sovereign authority is simple and continuous, and we can’t divide without destroying it. Second, a city, not more than one nation, may be legally bound to another, because the essence of the body politic is the union of obedience and freedom, and these words, subject and sovereign, are correlative, the notion underlying them is expressed in a word citizen.
is always bad to join several towns in one state, and in the desire to effect a union, we must hope that we will avoid the natural disadvantages of it. The abuses of the large states can not be taken as an objection against a man who only wants small. But how small states can acquire sufficient strength to withstand the great? Just as when the Greek cities of antiquity resisted the Great King, and more recently Holland and Switzerland have resisted the House of Austria.
While the state can not be reduced to the proper limits, it is still a resource, not to allow any capital, but to make the government sit alternately in each city, and also to gather into them at times the estates of the country.
People around the territory evenly, extend the same rights everywhere, spread all over the abundance and life, so the state will become both the stronger and better governed than may be possible. Remember that the walls of the cities are formed only by the remains of the houses in the country. For every palace I see increasing in the capital, all I seem to see a rural neighborhood in ruins.
Sovereignty and the Modern State:
There are a number of generic features common to all modern states.
• An internationally recognized territory defined geographical
• The mandatory universal jurisdiction within the territorial limits specifically recognized
• A legitimate monopoly of force / violence
These features abstract historical processes in which all
The constellations of political power gradually co-opted, disarmed and subjected those whose interests could pose challenges to their ability to govern. These historical processes were often bloody and violent, but the net result was a modern form of sovereignty that ‘connected to political authority territory. “The result is that the modern state claims monitoring their own specific
Geographical area and by which it is identified, and in which his authority is accepted as legitimate and indisputable. Of interest to this study is the third feature.
Therefore the “state is considered the sole source of the” right “to use violence”. Weber Given this “right” is that the state not only generates the “legal” and “is regarded as its sole creator,” also has the means, whether “under mandate or permit” is i.e. a monopoly on the use of physical force, “… to compel respect those rules” (Weber, 1968, p. 904). To ensure that all powers within its boundaries are subordinate to his authority. So the legal, political and social (regardless of the specific historical and individuals) and legitimacy ultimately rests on the systematic use of violence and terror, iceberg-like presence in daily life. It is this ability that allows the State to establish and enforce both its authority and legitimacy. And beyond the state no more legitimate political authority. In modern states, this is the essential meaning of sovereignty. This contrasts with the idea of ??sovereignty and territorial space organization and political authority in pre-modern social formations.
Conclusion: The sovereign authority is the supreme power of the State to regulate the law. If there is a law sovereign authority cannot be imposed. The law stems from the sovereign authority and command authority. So there can be no law, no sovereign authority.
1.”legal definition of law”, retrieved from www.lectlaw.com,2010
2. Amos, “Science of Law”, 1885.
3. Chari,Murali;”The importance of law and order”,pp-154-156
4. The new Oxford American Dictionary. Second ed. Erin Mckn.
5.”sovereignty”,Britannica online encyclopedia
7. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/
8. Retrieved from http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/sovereignty.html
9.Wilson.J.retrieved from www.rightsandwrong.com.au
10. Zahir.m”Eroding democratic values and constitution” retrieved from www.lawinbd.com
11. Retrieved from http://one-heaven-court.org/content_law_philosophy/sovereignty.asp
12. Retrieved from http://sovereignthink.wordpress.com/
13. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supranational_law