Sovereignty
Sovereignty refers to ultimate and absolute authority designated to
either an individual or an institutional body.
The term sovereignty could be contested due to the fact that there is
no universally agreed definition. Thomas Hobbes defined what he
considered the basis of a political body as 'the most high and
perpetual.' (Hobbes, quoted in Heywood, 1997, p26.) This view has
proved rather simplistic. It fails to take into consideration the
limitations on the sovereign. Bodin highlighted that although
sovereignty provided absolutism, there were restrictions such as
natural laws. (Bodin quoted in Heywood, 1997, p26). Offe supports this
by explaining of international restrictions on the sovereign.
'National communities by no means exclusively 'programme' the actions,
decisions and policies of their governments.'(Offe, quoted in Held,
2002, p352). The concept can be further contested by focusing on the
nature of the sovereign. It is largely accepted that the sovereign
holds the ultimate power. However there are critics that argue that
due to sovereignty being intrinsic to democracy, the ultimate power
lies with the electorate. 'The people rule through the sovereign. The
sovereign is their representative.' (Held, 2002, p77). This contests
the idea that there is a single, ultimate source of power. David Held
supported this by explaining that sovereignty is divided among
'national, regional and international' agencies. (Held, 2002, p352).
The concept can be questioned due to distinctions being made between
legal, political, external and internal sovereignty. (Heywood, 1997,
p143). Due to the existence of a typology, the c...
... middle of paper ...
...article refers to the impact EU legislation, in particular the
planned constitution has on UK sovereignty due to EU law overriding
national law. The view generated contradicts that of Jack Straw who
argued that the EU constitution strengthens national government.
Bibliography
BBC News, Roger Knapman on the EU constitution,( 2004)
Httpp://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-1/1/hi/UK_politics/3962309.htm
BBC News, UN backs Lebanon sovereignty call,(2004)
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/3622260.stm
Bealey. Frank. Chapman. Richard.A. and Sheehan. Michael. 1999.
Elements in Political Science. (Cornwall. Edingburgh University Press)
p.323, 360
Held. David. 2002. Models of Democracy.(Cornwall. Blackwell
Publishers) p77,352-360.
Heywood. Andrew.1997. Politics. (Wiltshire. Palgrave) p26,143
In America the Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the American people the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Most notably Amendment 1 is known for and most often cited as giving the Freedom of Speech. Even before this amendment was ratified people in the U.S. were protesting, as in the Boston Tea Party. Protesting has been a way to effect change in America. A question to ask is this: is there a right way or wrong way to protest.
middle of paper ... ... The sovereign is able to hold absolute power but is equally controlled by the actions of the people as they are considered to be a servant of the people. Hobbes’ political thought is said to be the foundation for Parliamentary sovereignty in Canada. He believes society's main goal is to provide a safe, functioning life without the constant fear of death.
In 1852 the term “Popular Sovereignty” was created. This was a political idea that said the people who lived in a region should have the right to decide for themselves what type of government they wanted to have. In America, it was applied to the idea that colonists of a land had to decide under what terms they wanted to join the Union; it was applied to the status of either a free state or slave state. “The first crisis occurred when California, whose population had exploded in the gold rush, petitioned for statehood as a free state in December 1849. Admitting California, however, would upset the current, carefully wrought balance of fifteen slave states and fifteen free states”9
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Romance, Joseph. Political Science 6 class lectures. Drew University, Summer 2004.
Ramsis #53 Mon. 4:00-6:40 History 110 Nobiletti 12/12/13 Four freedoms 11 months before the United States of America would declare war on Japan, President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered a speech to the American people known as the “four freedoms” on January 6, 1941.1 The main purpose of this speech was to rally support to enter World War 2, however in order to declare war the United States of America had to abandon the isolationist policies that emerged out of WWI. These four freedoms would establish human rights after the war, but more importantly they would resonate throughout the United States for decades after the war. Some of these freedoms have remained the same, and some of these freedoms have changed throughout the years. We will be looking at three periods and comparing how the freedoms varied from each of the three periods.
According to Thomas Jefferson, all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are rights given to the people by their Creator rather than by government. These rights are inseparable from us and can’t be altered, denied, nullified or taken away by any government, except in extremely rare circumstances in which the government can take action against a particular right as long as it is in favor of the people’s safety. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America mentions three examples of unalienable rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I believe these rights, since they are acquired by every human being from the day they are conceived, should always be respected, but being realistic, most of the time, the government intervenes and either diminishes or
H W R Wade ‘The Basis of Legal Sovereignty’ (1995) 172 Cambridge Law Journal 186.
Liberty and power were seen as adversarial terms when it came to republican government in the 1800’s. The American people of this period did not have a strict definition for liberty, but instead a group of values and ideas they associated with it. These values were freedom to improve yourself, morally and materially, freedom of religion, freedom from a privileged aristocracy, and freedom of expression. Personal liberty was allowed to prosper, as long as it stayed within state and federal constitutions and did not infringe on another man’s liberty. The biggest threat to liberty was power, often used by governments and private authorities to remove rights they did not have control over. The issue of promoting liberty while restricting power was maintainable when America was largely an agrarian society. The yeoman mentality, of a self-sufficient farmer, growing crops to sustain his family, and with any surplus he could sell or trade for what he could not make himself, was the ideal image of personal liberty. As commerce and industry began to create a new economy, the distance between liberty and power became more indiscernible.
In making this argument this essay seeks to five things. Firstly, to define democracy within the contemporary context offering the key characteristics of a modern re...
When thinking of The United States only two thoughts come to mind; freedom and citizenship. The right to vote, the right to freedom of speech, and the right to a fair, speedy trial are all rights the citizens of America possess. All the same people have responsibilities. People residing in the United States are expected to know their responsibilities such as Supporting and defending the Constitution, or Respecting the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others. In 1791, the Constitution of the United States was amended and the people were given the ten amendments, which is also known as the Bill of Rights, to protect freedom.
Legitimacy and the Foundations of Legitimate Government. In this paper, it is my intention to discuss the issue of legitimacy as it relates to government. I will explore what a legitimate government necessarily consists of; that is, I will attempt to formulate a number of conditions a government must meet in order to be considered legitimate. A logical starting point in an investigation of legitimate government would seem to be an account of the original purpose of government.
Lord Steyn was perhaps the most candid. While he conceded that parliamentary sovereignty is the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution, he claimed that parliamentary sovereignty is a creation of common law and exceptional situations may arise where the courts have to step in to review legislation of the Parliament, implying that even the sovereign Parliament may be subjected to the rule of law.
...ty exclusive of external authorities. Second, in terms of domestic sovereignty, for fairly long time the political structures of states have been following the global trends, from monarchy, to republics, to democratic states most recently. From above we can see that both domestic sovereignty and Westphalian sovereignty are facing challenges all the time, which are not new, but characteristic from time to time. Since sovereignty is the core value of a state, it is reasonable to conclude that nation-state is challenged by globalization but its power is not undermined.
An example of how state responsibility can be important to international organization. The Secretary – General of the UN sent a letter to the President of the International Court of Justice in December of 1948. (Trygve 1948) The Secretary- General wanted the International Court of Justice to give their advisory opinion on a legal question that the General Assembly had. They wanted to know that if an agent of the UN got injured while performing their duties involving the responsibility of state does the UN as an organization have the ability to bring an international claim against the responsible party. They also wanted to know if they could obtain reparation due to the damaged caused to the UN, to the victim, or to the persons entitled through them. (Trygve 1948) Here is an example of an international organization wanting to have the same rights as states when it comes to state responsibility and reparations.
Within democracies there is great dilemma between security (keeping the country and citizens safe) and liberty (honoring individual rights and freedoms). Many would attest that having both is vital to having a democracy. However, during specific periods, the government may value security above liberty or vice versa. In the particular scenario where a country goes to war, the true significance of the debate between security and liberty unveils. More specifically in a situation where a country orders a draft and enacts laws ordering those who protest against the war to be thrown in jail. In this situation, the government is placing the value of security above the value of liberty. Security is necessary, especially in times of war, but ignoring liberties jeopardizes the principles in which democracy was built. In addition, a lack of liberty can cause a country to be divided and citizens to become disloyal. All of which is a recipe for disaster during wartimes. While at the same time, it is important to respect people’s liberties, giving to many liberties threatens the security of the country by allowing citizens to protest and rebel against the government. Thus, a society must decide the right amount of both. People in a society with restricted liberties might begin to feel fear, anger, and resentment. This leads to protest, revolts, and mutinies such as it did in the scenario. Therefore, while security is imperative, undermining citizen’s liberties threatens the structure of democracy by restricting freedom, creating chaos and generating disloyalty in citizens.