Problems with the theories of state sovereignty
Those who assume that sovereignty is about the power of the state are mistaken.
They take the view that the state is capable of exercising absolute power whereas
it has been argued that in fact the state only claims this sovereign power, because
others – terrorists, criminals, etc. – challenge it. In other words, the state claims
something that it does not and cannot have, so that the notion of the state as
sovereign imports into the notion of sovereignty the problem of the state itself.Difficulties with the modernist conception
The idea that sovereignty is purely modern confuses formulation with institution.
It is true that sovereignty is only explicitly formulated by modern writers, but the
notion of supreme power is inherent in the state.
The modernist notion misses the ironic part of Weber’s definition: that a
monopoly can be claimed, not because it exists, but precisely because it does not.
The sovereign state claims an absolute power that it does not and cannot have.
Unless criminals and terrorists also exercise some of this ‘supremacy’, it cannot be
claimed. In other words, the notion of sovereignty merely brings into the open the
problem that has existed all along. Like the state itself, the idea of state sovereignty
has severe logical difficulties associated with it.
On the one hand, sovereignty is unitary in its scope. It is absolute and unlimited.
In modern formulations, rulers and ruled are bonded together as citizens. On the
other hand, there has to be a sharp division between the public and the private, the
state and society, before modern sovereignty can be said to exist. There is a clear
contradiction here since we can well ask, how can an institution have absolute
power, and yet be clearly limited to a public sphere? Sovereignty allows the state
to have a hand in everything – and yet we are told that it is confined to the public
sphere and must not interfere in private matters. The formulation of state sovereignty
in the modern period serves only to highlight its absurd and contradictory character.
It is true that in ‘normal’ times the sovereign character of the state is not obvious
to the members of a liberal society but if there is crisis or emergency – as when war
breaks out between states – the capacity of the state to penetrate into all aspects
of life, becomes plain. During the Second World War, the British state told its citizens
what they must plant in their back gardens, and today, for example, the state tells
us through advertising about safe sex, that we should conduct the most private of
activities with adequate protection. The British Cabinet even had a discussion in
the early 1980s about the importance of parents teaching children how to manage
their pocket money (The Guardian, 17 February 1983).
We are told that state sovereignty needs to be limited and restricted. Yet it is
clear from the practice of state even in ‘normal’ times that sovereignty is seen as a
power that can penetrate into the most private spheres of life.Chapter 1 The state 25