MONISTIC THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY

In the monistic theory of sovereignty, supreme power is vested in a single authority which has
the legitimate law-making power. All other associations in the state are considered to be
subordinate to it.
Austin was the most important contributor to legal theory or monistic theory of sovereignty. The
first theory which exerted wide influence was the Jean Bodin. In his view sovereignty was the
highest power in the state which is subject to no laws but is itself the maker and master of them.
It may reside in either one person or in a number of persons, but in either case it is above law,
incapable of any limitation and having an absolute claim to the obedience of all. He admitted that
in some way the sovereign is subject to Law of God and laws of nature, and is therefore he is
bound to respect the rights of property and personal freedom. Nearly a century later a similar
theory was put forward by Thomas Hobbes. He based his sovereignty on a covenant of each
member of a community with another member to surrender all their rights and powers into the
hands of one person or body who thereby becomes the sovereign. Since the sovereign is not
himself a party to the contract it cannot be annulled by those who made it. The authority of the
sovereign is therefore permanent and unlimited. Jermy Bentham revived Hobbes theory of
absolute sovereign and justified it. Thus, we see that much before Austin, there were other great
philosophers who had defined sovereignty.
Austin's legal view of sovereignty carries with it a certain scientific precision and finality which
is highly impressive. His analytical view of sovereignty and law has some implications:
 Its authority is absolute and incapable of limitation. The sovereign receives habitual
obedience from the people but not in the habit of obedience to a like superior.
 Whatever the sovereign commands is law, and without him there can be no law. Law is a
command of the state obliging the subject to do, or to refrain from doing, certain acts,
failure to obey being visited by punishment.
 Sovereignty is indivisible. To divide sovereignty between two or more persons or bodies
of persons is to limit it, while sovereign power is by definition incapable of limitation.

CRITICISMS
Though this theory was advocated as an alternative for anarchism and lawlessness, many
thinkers like Laski, Henry Maine and Krabbe have pointed out its shortcomings and they
are as follows:
One of the main criticisms of this theory is that it is incompatible with modern concept of
sovereignty. Austin’s fascination with legal aspect of sovereignty made him lose sight of
popular sovereignty that says ppl are the ultimate source of all authority
Another criticism of Austin’s theory is that it could lead to an emergence of all-powerful
ruler. When a person/group exercises sovereign power, they become extremely powerful.
This theory could lead to a govt that is irresponsible, it is free to do whatever it wants.
This will lead to decisions being made that do no serve the interest of the ppl.
His theory has also been criticized for putting too much emphasis on force. Ac to him ppl
follow law because they are afraid of the consequences to be followed if they do not
follow the law.
It can also be said that this theory is undemocratic as it gives no place for public opinions.
Ppl have no right to speak against the govt.
The state acc to Pluralist is like any other association. Acc to them, sovereignty should
not be solely vested in the hands of state but should be distributed among various groups
and associations who should have equal sovereign alongside the state.

CONCLUSION:
Regardless of criticisms labelled against this theory it must be noted that he is proponent
of absolute and unlimited sovereignty purely from a legal or formal pov. He does not
prescribe for an irresponsible sovereignty but e does maintain that sovereign cannot be
formally held accountable to any authority similar to himself. Austin has provided a
valuable service by clearly separating the legal and political sovereigns.
 PLURALISTIC/PLURALIST THEORY OS SOVEREIGNTY

Pluralism or the Pluralist theory of sovereignty emerged as a reaction against the Monistic theory
of sovereignty. Some of the leading exponents of the Pluralist theory include Emile Durkheim,
Cole, Laski, Barker, MacIver, Duguit and some others. The Pluralist theory of sovereignty
rejects the monistic theory of sovereignty and denies that sovereignty is the absolute and
indivisible supreme power of the state.
The main features of pluralism may be discussed as under:
1) The pluralist lay particular emphasis on the sovereignty of different groups or associations
flourishes in a society. The Pluralist theory recognizes the role of several associations in the
society, formed by men in pursuance of their varied interests. Such associations include the
church and other religious organizations, trade unions, cooperative societies, voluntary
associations and the like. At best, the state is but one of these associations, standing side-by-side
with them and not above them.
2) The state is not distinct from these associations. Just as an association coordinates the
activities of its members, the state also coordinates the activities of the other associations in the
society. The state is a means of resolving the conflicting claims of these associations. It does so
by evolving a common basis of their functioning, not by imposing its own will on them but by
way of harmonizing and coordinating their several interests so as to secure the “common good”
or the interest of the society at large.
3) Every associations fulfills a particular need of mankind, the sum-total of the interest promoted
by all these associations exceeds that of the state. These associations are equally powerful with
the state in their own spheres. Hence the state cannot claim any superior position.
4) The state does not possess unlimited and absolute power. Its powers are limited by the social
customs and conventions in the internal sphere and by the international laws, agreements and
treaties in the external sphere.
5) Sovereignty is not indivisible. It is divided between the state and various associations. It is
shared by various groups and associations.
6) The Pluralists further attack the Austinian conception of law. According to them, laws are
obeyed not because of fear of punishment. However, people obey it for their own interest. Laws
are obeyed because of the force of public opinion, their utility and their social significance.
Critical Evaluation of the Pluralist Theory
The pluralist theory of sovereignty is criticized on the ground that if sovereignty is divided
among the various associations existing in the society, this division will lead to the destruction of
sovereignty. As a result, there will be chaos and anarchy in the society. Furthermore, some
groups in the society may be more organized and vocal than other groups. In such situations, the
interests of the dominant groups may prevail over the vulnerable sections of the society. Under
such circumstances, the responsibility for protecting the common interests’ rests with the state,
which has to harmonies the conflicting claims of different interest groups. However, in spite of
the criticisms levelled against the Pluralist theory of sovereignty, it must be mentioned that the
pluralist theory was a democratic reaction against state absolutism. It pointed out the limitations
on the authority of the state while acknowledging the role and importance of various groups and
associations in the society
 HISTORICAL THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY
 The modern theory of state was perfected only when the concept of sovereignty was
introduced into it. Jean Bodin a French writer of the 16th century, was the first to
formulate the concept of sovereignty systematically.
 Although Aristotle had mentioned about the supreme power located in different bodies,
he did not mention the idea of sovereignty, as acc to him the power of the ruler was
limited by law which existed above it.
 The idea of sovereignty made its appearance with the dawn of the modern period. The
decreasing power of the nobles and the emergence of new methods of warfare which in
turn increased the power of the king was regarded as a starting point for the concept
called sovereignty.
 Jean Bodin who held Henry III, king of France in high esteem became an exponent of the
concept of sovereignty. The theory developed by him was further developed by other
thinkers such as Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau, Jeremy Bentham and John
Austin over the centuries.
 Bodin defined sovereignty in the 16th cent as the ‘absolute and perpetual power of
commanding in a state’, as the ‘supreme power over citizens and subjects unrestrained by
law’. Thus, Bodin places the sovereign power above law as he himself is the source of the
law. He treated it above the law but not above the duty and moral responsibilities. He
imposed 2 limitations on the power of the sovereign. Firstly, Fundamental law and
secondly, Private property and therefore the sovereign could not tax its subjects without
their consent.
 Hugo Grotius, a Dutch jurist, widely known as the father of International law, made an
important contribution towards the concept of sovereignty. He brought out the
implications of sovereignty of the state in international sphere, i.e. independence of the
sovereign state from external control. He made it clear that nations respected
international law not because it curtailed their sovereignty but because they chose to do
so. In this way he introduced the concept of external sovereignty to the already existing
internal sovereignty and thus gave it a fuller shape.
 Thomas Hobbes, an English political thinker further developed the concept of
sovereignty in the 17th cent. As an exponent of theory of Social Contract, he argued that
state was a product of the will of people, sovereignty is an attribute to the state, its
character is determined by social contract. His contribution to the theory of sovereignty
consists of adding an element of legitimacy to the authority of the sovereign. He made
two submissions, i.e. (a) the sovereign is the product of the will of the ppl, (b) the
sovereign enjoys his supreme authority for its functional value, that is by virtue of
providing order, peace and security in the place of anarchy and oppression.
 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an influential philosopher, contributed to the concept of
sovereignty by emphasizing the idea of popular sovereignty. In his work, "The Social
Contract," he argued that true authority rests with the people, forming a social contract
where citizens collectively decide the rules of governance. Rousseau believed that
individuals should participate in direct democracy, ensuring that the general will of the
 people guides decisions. This notion influenced modern political thought, shaping ideas
about representative democracy and emphasizing the importance of the people's consent
in the exercise of sovereign power, contributing significantly to the evolution of
democratic principles.
 Jeremy Bentham, the famous English Utilitarian philosopher, argued that sovereignty was
not limited by law, but was subject to moral limitations. He maintained that sovereignty
was limited by the possibility of resistance and there were conditions under which
resistance was morally justified. He therefore insisted that the sovereign should justify his
authority by useful legislation with the object of promoting ‘greatest happiness to greatest
number”.
 John Austin, a legal theorist, contributed to the concept of sovereignty by refining the
legal positivist perspective. Austin argued that sovereignty is the ultimate, indivisible
authority to make and enforce laws, residing in a determinate human superior or a
sovereign. His work, particularly in "The Province of Jurisprudence Determined," helped
clarify the idea that legal authority emanates from a recognized source, such as a
government or ruler, establishing a clear link between law and sovereignty. Austin's
analytical approach laid the groundwork for understanding legal systems and their
connection to sovereign authority in a more systematic and structured manner.
It is clear from the above narration that the concept of sovereignty has evolved over the cent. It
has been understood as the supreme power that the state exercises over its citizens and their
associations with the state. This supreme power has elevated the state to highest power and
thereby converted it into an omnipotent org. In this way, the state became a distinct org in
comparison to all other associations in the state.