WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOVEREIGNTY AND SOVEREIGN

RIGHTS?

To understand the difference between sovereignty and sovereign rights,

it is first important to define “sovereignty” as a concept. One generic and
well-cited definition is that sovereignty is a full right and power of a
governing body or political actor, such as a state, over itself, without any
interference and restriction from outside bodies or sources.

When specifically applied to states, sovereignty contains four aspects.

These are rights and power over a territory, responsibly and
accountability over a population, general and specific authorities, and
recognition by other sovereign states.

The law of the sea based on UNCLOS implies that sovereignty pertains to
the exclusive legal authority of a state over its waters, particularly its
internal waters and territorial seas. The state essentially has territorial
sovereignty over these waters.

In consideration of the aforementioned definition, stating that a state has

sovereignty over a territory essentially means that there are no other
existing superior rights and power. Ownership of that territory is absolute
and thus, no authority can be higher than the state.

On the other hand, “sovereign rights” is a term used in UNCLOS to

pertain to the entitlements or privileges of a state to a defined area of a
sea called the exclusive economic zone. In other words, UNCLOS merely
used this term to collectively represent the limited rights of a state over
its exclusive economic zone.

Article 56 of UNCLOS mentioned that in this exclusive economic zone, a

state has sovereign rights for the purpose of “exploring and exploiting,
conserving and managing the natural resources…of the waters
superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with
regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of
the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and
winds.”

Having a sovereign rights over a particular area, such as an exclusive

economic zone, does not confer sovereignty. This also means that based
on UNCLOS, an exclusive economic zone is not a sovereign territory.

IN A NUTSHELL: SOVEREIGNTY VS. SOVEREIGN RIGHTS

Based from the discussion above, sovereign rights should not be

confused with sovereignty or more appropriately, territorial sovereignty.
Having sovereign rights over a particular body of water does not
correspond to having sovereignty over that same area. Sovereignty
simply means supreme authority while sovereign rights is a term used for
a collective but limited set of rights and power.

It is easy to confuse sovereign rights with sovereignty simply because of

lexical, phonemic, and typographical similarities. The confusion simply
stems from the seeming “resemblance” of these two words. However, it
is important to maintain the difference between sovereignty and
sovereign rights to promote conciseness, especially in interpreting critical
documents such as the UNCLOS, or in disseminating official state
pronouncements and legal or scholarly publications.

What is the difference between sovereignty and sovereign rights?

Batongbacal explained that sovereignty "is like full ownership of property, with all the rights
it implies, including the right to destroy it." Sovereignty applies to the Philippines' landmass
and its 12-nautical mile territorial sea. 

Exclusive sovereign rights function "like usufruct, a right to use and enjoy property,"
Sovereign rights allow the Philippines to exclusively fish and enjoy marine resources, such
as oil and natural gas, in its 200-nautical mile EEZ in the West Philippine Sea. 

Under international law, the Philippines has sovereign rights – not

sovereignty – over the West Philippine Sea

MANILA, Philippines – Filipinos fumed when President Rodrigo Duterte stressed that the
Philippines has "no sovereignty" over its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the West
Philippine Sea.
"No country in the world has sovereignty over its exclusive economic zone," Duterte said in
a speech on June 26. 
Duterte had also said on June 21 that the sinking of a Filipino fishing boat by a Chinese
ship in Recto Bank (Reed Bank) in the West Philippine Sea "was not an attack on our
sovereignty." 

Is Duterte correct? 
Or as Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo, a lawyer, asked a reporter in a press
conference on June 27, "Ano ba ang difference ng sovereign rights at saka sovereignty.
Meron ba (What's the difference between sovereign rights and sovereignty. Is there a
difference)?"
Rappler consulted two of the Philippines' leading experts on the West Philippine Sea –
Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Jay Batongbacal, director of the
University of the Philippines Institute for Maritime Affairs and the Law of the Sea.

The short answer is: Yes, under international law, the Philippines has no sovereignty – and
only has sovereign rights – over its EEZ in the West Philippine Sea. 
The Philippine government is duty-bound to defend its sovereign rights over the West
Philippine Sea, experts said.

SOVEREIGNTY VS. JURISDICTION

The simplest way to explain is this:—

Sovereignty is the supreme political and constitutional authority of a State to govern

itself (or another territorial entity).

Jurisdiction is the official power (and the extent of it) to make legal decisions and
judgments. It also means the sphere of activity or the territory that the courts and law
enforcement bodies have over.

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.

The Origin and Development of the Concept of

State
International law as we know it today is originally a product of reflection and developments in
Europe starting in mediaeval society and continuing from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries.
Under the influence of the Reformation and the Renaissance the idea that the State was
subordinate to a higher worldly and ecclesiastic authority, represented by the Emperor and the
Pope, was progressively abandoned.  The idea emerged that the State should not depend on a
4

higher order, but instead, should constitute the highest sovereign authority administering its
territory. The State should be able to exercise this authority free from any external influence and in
a position of equality vis-à-vis other States. This sovereign equality is captured in the maxim ‘ par in
parem non habet imperium’ (an equal has no power over his equal).  These reflections were
5

embedded in the previously mentioned Westphalia Peace Treaties of 1648,  often considered the
6

formal ending of the mediaeval feudal political order and the beginning of the modern State
system.7

The sovereign State exercises exclusive authority over its own territory and population, which,
however, does not imply that it does not affect the interests of other States. The use of the high
seas, the establishment of diplomatic relations, or the conclusion of international treaties are
examples of activities which involve other States. For this reason States agreed to certain rules, or
accepted the existence of such rules, that primarily aimed to curtail sovereign power and to
regulate their mutual relations.

These international legal rules were primarily the result of mutual agreements between States,
either in the form of treaties or as usage and customs accepted as law. Although the national law
element, such as justice and equality, played a role in the formulation of international law, these
have become integrated into positive sources of legal obligations. Hence, international law is largely
the product of the free will of States.
8

6.3 The Sovereign State

When considering the concept of State, the definition often referred to is formulated in Article 1 of
the Montevideo Convention  : 9
The State as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a
permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into
relations.

An entity will have to fulfil the first three factual criteria to be considered a State. Fulfilment of
these criteria entails the fulfilment of the fourth criterion: the State can establish relations with
other States.10

With regard to the criteria of a permanent population, the Convention only requires that the
population consists of people having the State’s nationality. It does not impose any condition on its
size or composition. Likewise, the territory has to be defined, but borders may still be subject to
discussion or dispute.  Furthermore, the mere existence of a government does not suffice; it must
11

be capable of effectively and independently exercising its authority.

The requirements set out in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention lack the element of sovereignty
that is inherent to the existence of a State.  Sovereignty literally means the ‘highest power’
12

(suprema potestas) of a State. Originally it indicated either the absence of a worldly or an

ecclesiastical authority over States. This independent position was formulated by the Permanent
Court of Arbitration in the Island of Palmas case:

Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence. Independence in regard to a

portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the
functions of a State. 13

Sovereignty, however, does not imply that a State is above the law. International law arises from
the States’ will and consent, which restricts the exercise of their sovereign powers. In its
advice Customs régime between Germany and Austria  (Protocol of March 19th,  1931) the
Permanent Court of Arbitration considered:

Independence as thus understood is really no more than the normal conditions of States according
to international law; it may also be described as sovereignty (suprema potestas), or external
sovereignty, by which is meant that the State has over it no other authority than that of
international law.14

From a legal point of view sovereignty implies equality of States; there is no hierarchical order in the
relations between States.  This means that a State does not have authority over any other State,
15

because the latter is considered as its equal. This vision is included in the above-mentioned
maxim par in parem non habet imperium. Viewed from other perspectives, States can differ widely
in such areas as their political, economic and military capacity. These factual power relations
influence their legal relations and can be reflected in, for instance, the provisions of a treaty.

6.4 Jurisdiction of a State
6.4.1 Jurisdiction
Sovereignty of a State is one of the basic principles of international law and is reflected in the
concept of jurisdiction.  The latter concept is a collective term generally referring to the legislative,
16

enforcement and adjudicative powers of a State.  A State has full jurisdiction within the borders of
17

its territory  only if it is not restricted by international law. Outside its territory a State can use its
18

legislative power in accordance with recognised principles of jurisdiction, (to be discussed in the
following sections), if a sufficiently strong nexus exists between the State and the specific fact.  In 19

principle a State cannot subject another State to its adjudicative or enforcement jurisdiction (par in
parem non habet judicium).  Therefore, the extraterritorial exercise of these forms of jurisdiction
20

depends on either the consent of the State involved or an explicit international legal basis. 21

Jurisdiction is relevant in the areas of both private and public law. The former is largely regulated by
rules of private international law, while the exercise of public law jurisdiction is primarily focused
upon criminal jurisdiction. This is the area most regulated by public international law, since the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction is a sovereign attribute of any State and it will be the area of
jurisdiction dealt with here.

6.4.2 Principles of Jurisdiction
An unrestricted exercise of a State’s jurisdiction may conflict with the sovereign rights of other
States.  Therefore, extraterritorial application of national legislation must be based on one of the
22

principles of jurisdiction. These principles are mainly defined in relation to criminal law and lay
down the nexus between a State and a fact  based on territory, nationality, universality, and the
23

protection of the State’s interests. 24

6.4.2.1 The Territorial Principle

In principle the legislative jurisdiction is territorial. 25 Each State can decide which acts are punishable
within its own territory. The territory of a State includes its land territory, internal waters, the territorial
sea and the airspace over these areas. 26 For instance, the Netherlands’ borders with its neighbouring
States are treaty-based27