Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Sovereignty:
An Introduction and Brief History1
Daniel Philpott
1
I would like to acknowledge the support of the Olin Institute at the Center for International
Affairs at Harvard University for the completion of this article.
On the emerging right to democratic governance, see Thomas Franck, "The Emerging Right to
Democratic Governance," The American Journal of International Law, 86, no. 1 (January 1992)
pp. 46-91. On the concept of "pooling sovereignty," see Robert O. Keohane and Stanley
Journal of International Affairs, Winter 1995, 48, no. 2. © The Trustees of Columbia University in
the City of New York.
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of International Affairs
trends are still partial; whether they will become durable norms in the new
world order is not yet certain. But if they do, together they will amount to
one of the rare international revolutions in sovereignty since medieval
times.
If the current relevance of the state is our question, then these emerging
norms of sovereignty are noteworthy. They are not, however, all that is
important to the state. Increased flows of trade, money, information and
armaments, and changes in laws governing ownership and citizenship
dramatically alter the state's functions and efficacy, but have little to do
with sovereignty, which itself is purely a matter of legitimate authority.
Although revolutions in norms of sovereignty are only part of important
political change, they are an inestimably important part, and we ought to
know something about their nature and history. I seek, then, to introduce
sovereignty in two stages. First, I offer a sorely needed definition and
explore some of its variations. I then offer a brief history of its crucial
historical junctures and founding moments.
♦♦♦♦♦
Hoffmann, "Institutional Change in Europe in the 1980s," in The New European Communi
Decision making and Insitutional Change, ed. Robert O. Keohane and Stanley Hoffma
(Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991) pp. 7-8.
3
Lassa Oppenheim wrote in 1905 that it is "doubtful whether any single word has caused so much
intellectual confusion," and Richard Falk has more recently suggested jettisoning the concept
altogether. See L. Oppenheim, International Law, vol. 1 (London: Longman, 1905) p. 103, also
quoted in Alan James, Sovereign Statehood (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986) p. 3; and Richard
Falk, "Sovereignty," in Oxford Companion to Politics of the World (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1993) p. 854.
354
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Daniel Philpott
the 13th century is a pipe dream.4 However, there is a broad concept — not
a definition, but a wide philosophical category — which unites most of
sovereignty's past, and with which we can begin: authority. Authority is
"the right to command and correlatively, the right to be obeyed."5 It is
legitimate when it is rooted in law, tradition, consent or divine command,
and when those living under it generally endorse this notion. Legitimate
authority is crucially different from power, which is raw, pure, physical and
direct. Power, according to Steven Lukes, is exercised "when A affects B
in a manner contrary to B's real interests."6 Even at its most monarchical
and dictatorial, even in the case of the absolute law-giving monarch of Jean
Bodin or Thomas Hobbes, sovereignty is conferred by some notion of right
which provides a basis for assent other than coercion.7
This is not to deny that sovereignty and power are related. If
sovereignty is not mere power, neither is it mere legitimacy; it must not
only have a basis in right, but also be practiced. A king or president must
be able to carry out the essential duties of his office. A sovereign state must
have uncontested control of its religion and its army, its economy and
justice. When Shakespeare's Bolingbroke forced Richard II to abdicate,
Richard had to admit the loss of sovereignty, the erosion of his divine royal
mandate: "I find myself a traitor with the rest/For I have given here my
soul's consent/Tundeck the pompous body of a king;/Made glory base; and
The oldest citation of "sovereignty" in the Oxford English Dictionary is dated 1290. Se? the
second edition, prepared by J.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner, volume XVI (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1989) pp. 77-79.
5
R.P. Wolff, "The Conflict between Authority and Autonomy," in Authority, ed. Joseph Raz
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990) p. 20. Here, I use legitimate in its descriptive sense not to mean
justified or morally defensible, but as Max Weber meant it: Something is legitimate if it is
assented to, or at least regarded as part of the normal, proper state of affairs. For Weber, authority
attains its legitimacy either because it has tradition behind it, it has emotional power, it is rational
or it is legal. See Max Weber, "The Theory of Social and Economic Organization," in Max
Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, ed. Talcott Parsons (New York: The
Free Press, 1947) pp. 124-32.
See Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View (London: Macmillan, 1974) p. 34.
For Bodin, see Jean Bodin, On Sovereignty, ed. Julian Franklin (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1992); for Hobbes, see Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. and intro. C.B.
Macpherson (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1968) pp. 223-409.
355
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of International Affairs
sovereignty, a slave."8 And although the Holy Roman Empire still existed
and claimed prerogatives over states' internal policies after 1648, its
authority was little more than parchment. Sovereign authority requires
power to back up its legitimate claims. The obverse, it should be noted, is
also true: Legitimacy, evoking allegiance and respect, can itself lend force
to sovereign claims.
A sizable portion of a ruler's power, however, derives not from
sovereignty's legitimacy, but from coarser factors. Due to both fate and
ability, different U.S. presidents with precisely the same constitutional
prerogatives have varied greatly in their power to pass laws through
Congress, assert their will against the various U.S. states and make war on
foreign countries. Internationally, one can imagine two small, equally
sovereign states: one a "holder of the balance" arbitrating great powers'
contests; the other uninfluential and buffeted in the world economy. While
sovereignty is inestimably significant, the scope of power is much wider.
If sovereignty is not the same as power, neither is it synomymous with
law. To Bodin and Hobbes, modern sovereignty's first systematic
articulators, the legitimate sovereign was not only above human law, but
the source of it. However, since the 18th century, this has changed. At first
in the constitutionally advanced Western states, now virtually everywhere,
human lawgivers are no longer legitimately sovereign. Instead,
constitutions and international legal agreements define the scope of all
rulers' and citizens' legitimate authority.
At this point, the definition is still too broad. A police chief, priest and
corporate executive all have legitimate authority; rarely are they called
sovereign. Sovereignty has always involved another ingredient: supremacy.
In the chain of authority by which I look to a higher authority, who in turn
looks to a higher one, the holder of sovereignty is highest. No one may
question it or legitimately oppose it. Supremacy is certainly what Bodin
and Hobbes had in mind, and it is at the heart of most subsequent
definitions. A final necessary ingredient is territoriality. Sovereignty is
authority within a discrete land, bounded by borders. Territoriality
accompanies supremacy; and authority would not be supreme if there were
challengers within its realm. As I discuss below, during the Middle Ages,
when there was no sovereignty, every ruler both endured limits within his
own territory and enjoyed some claims over the internal prerogatives of
356
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Daniel Philpott
A good account of the role of territoriality can be found in John G. Ruggie, "Territoriality and
Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations," International Organization, 47,
no. 1 (Winter 1993) pp. 139-74.
Probably the most helpful discussion of the meaning of sovereignty, one on which I have drawn,
is in Alan James, Sovereign Statehood (London: Allen & Unwin, 1986). Our two approaches are
not identical.
357
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of International Affairs
11
In fact, this must be somewhat qualified even in the case of Bodin, for whom the sovereign is
bound by the natural law, has a duty to respect the liberty and property of subjects who are
entitled to these and is obligated to abide by his contracts with private citizens. None of these
duties, however, gives rise to a right to resistance. See Bodin, On Sovereignty, and J.H. Franklin,
Jean Bodin and the Rise of Absolutist Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973).
Norms of sovereignty, then, are both "constitutive," defining the basic players without which the
game would not exist, and "regulative," specifying the rules that the players must follow. This
oft-cited distinction between "constitutive" and "regulative" rules was first formulated by John
Rawls in "Two Concepts of Rules," Philosophical Review, 64 (1955) pp. 3-32.
355
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Daniel Philpott
359
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of International Affairs
♦♦♦♦♦
My account is admittedly modem and focused on Europe. I limit it thus for the reason that I s
to show the origins of our modem system, which properly began in the Middle Ages. For
excellent study of state systems at various times and places, see Martin Wight, Systems of Sta
(Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1977).
Good descriptions of authority in the Middle Ages can be found in Emst H. Kantorowicz, Th
King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton, NJ: Princet
University Press, 1957); Michael Wilks, The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Age
The Papal Monarchy With Augustinus Triumphus and the Publicists (Cambridge: Cambri
University Press, 1964); W. Ullmann, Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle A
(London: Methuen, 1961); W. Ullmann, "Reflections on the Medieval Empire," in Transacti
of the Royal Historical Society, Fifth Series, Volume 14 (London: Offices of the Royal Histori
Society, 1964); John Neville Figgis, The Divine Right of Kings, intro. G.R. Elton (New Yo
360
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Daniel Philpott
Harper Torchbooks, 1970); and Otto Gierke, Political Theories of The Middle Age, trans, and
intro. Frederic William Maitland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958).
In a recent article, Markus Fischer claims that in several important respects, politics in the Middle
Ages were not different than in a sovereign state system. See Markus Fischer, "Feudal Europe,
800-1300: Communal Discourse and Conflictual Practices," International Organization, 46, no.
2 (Spring 1992) pp. 427-67. It is true that Europe during pockets of the Middle Ages resembled
a system of sovereign states. Medievalist George Duby's study of the twelfth century Méconnais
region of southern France reveals a constant struggle between castellanies who were equivalent
in their function and authority, and seemed to heed no higher authority. Yet during most of the
Middle Ages, vassals and lord did honor reciprocal obligations, and beyond the manor, the pope
and the emperor were able to press strong claims. See Georges Duby, La société aux Xle et Xlle
siècles dans la région mâconnaise (Paris: Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, 1982).
See John G. Ruggie, "Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist
Synthesis," in Neorealism and its Critics, ed. Robert O. Keohane (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1986) pp. 131-58. Ruggie writes, "The modem system is distinguished from
the medieval not by the 'sameness' or 'difference' of units, but by the principles on the basis of
which the constituent units are separated from one another" (p. 142, italics Ruggie's). Ruggie
demonstrates that medieval notions of property and authority were wholly different from modem
ones.
361
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of International Affairs
17
On the nature and dates of the Italian system, see Martin Wight, Systems of States.
362
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Daniel Philpott
18
Hedley Bull, "The Importance of Grotius in the Study of International Relations," in Hugo
Grolius and International Relations, ed. Hedley Bull, Benedict Kingsbury and Adam Roberts
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) p. 75.
363
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of International Affairs
The quote is from David Maland, Europe in the Seventeenth Century (London: Macmillan, 1966)
p. 161. On the pope and the banning of Grotius, see Bull, Kingsbury and Roberts, eds., Hugo
Grotius and International Relations, pp. 65-94.
A contrasting argument, claiming that Westphalia was not a decisive break between the medieval
and modem worlds, can be found in Stephen Krasner, "Westphalia and All That," in Ideas and
Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change, ed. Judith Goldstein and Robert O.
Keohane (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993) pp. 235-64. The view that Westphalia was
a consolidation of the evolution toward a system of sovereign states may be found in Martin
Wight, Systems of States and Charles Tilly, Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990
1992 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990) p. 167.
364
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Daniel Philpott
norm — to all three of its faces — before the 20th century was Napoleon's
ultimately failed attempt to eradicate Europe's anciens régimes and replace
them with some sort of empire. Yet important changes did occur with
respect to sovereignty's second and third faces: criteria for membership and
the prerogatives of states. In the 19th century, two different kinds of norms
of sovereignty came to be demanded: minority rights guarantees and
national self-determination, which is simply any legal arrangement that
accords a nation within a state greater autonomy. That every nation should
have its own state is only the most extreme form of self-determination;
other types include limited autonomy within a federal arrangement or
merely certain rights or protections for a group within a state. Both norms
aspired to be conditions for becoming states. Minority rights treaties would
impose conditions on new entrants to the European system and national
self-determination would give captive nations the right to become states.
When, if ever, were these norms achieved? National self-determination
was first advocated during the French Revolution. After the bedlam died
down, however, conservative monarchs rejected this idea, and they hardly
considered a general guarantee of minority rights.22 Later in the century,
Europe's great powers began to change their view. Britain, France and
Russia granted independence to Greece in an 1830 protocol on the
condition that it protect the religious rights of Turks, while in the 1856
Treaty of Paris, the Powers mandated similar conditions on behalf of
Moldavia and Wallachia. But it was not until the 1878 Treaty of Berlin that
minority protection came to be a normal condition placed on new states.23
It is commonly thought that national self-determination finally
triumphed in the settlement of the First World War under the avuncular
sponsorship of Woodrow Wilson and at the eager behest of freshly
An exception to this was Poland, which was given limited rights of self-government despite
remaining within the territories of larger powers. Inis Claude calls this "[t]he first explicit
recognition and international guarantee of the rights of national minorities," in National
Minorities: An International Problem (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955) p. 7.
The 1878 treaty attached such conditions to the statehood applications of Rumania, Serbia and
Montenegro, along with similar clauses on Turkey, which had already attained sovereignty.
Although minorities were still persecuted, most blaringly the Armenians, whom the Turks
massacred in 1896, the great powers nevertheless continued to regard as legitimate the formula
of Berlin; it was a norm of sovereignty. Through the beginning of the First World War, they
intervened on several occasions to enforce these provisions, and signed several bilateral treaties
patterned on 1878. On these issues, see Inis Claude, National Minorities', Raymond Pearson,
National Minorities in Eastern Europe 1848-1945 (London: Macmillan Press, 1983) and C.A.
Macartney, National States and National Minorities (New York: Russell and Russell, 1968).
365
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of International Affairs
24
See Inis Claude, National Minorities, pp. 16-28.
366
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Daniel Philpott
26
Under the general principle of self-determination, Article 22 of the League Covenant prescribed
a mandate system in which colonies were to be held under "a sacred trust of civilization," and
divided them into categories A, B and C according to their level of development and prospect
of becoming viable independent states. On the history of the mandate system, see Quincy
Wright, Mandates Under the League of Nations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930).
367
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of International Affairs
&
368
This content downloaded from 129.74.45.208 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:07:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms