Sovereignty Paradox

In an attempt to analyze the sovereign paradox, it is essential to apply the bargaining hypothesis. There are several core assumptions in the hypothesis. First, there is an assumption that all individuals and groups are rational and self-interested. Second, there is an assumption of concession or bargain rationality implying that no cost will be accepted by rules unless corresponding benefits significantly exceed costs of concessions. The last assumption in the hypothesis is about surrender rationality (Magagna). Groups (towns, villages) will surrender power to rules unless local solutions are no longer efficient ones. States aim to be ideal, which can be made only with the help of the right legislature and aspirations to improve the whole political system. Thus, there are three conditions: limitation, superiority, and independence, which are mutually granting the opportunity to create an ideal sovereign state.

According to the general definition, sovereignty is higher and independent political authority within borders. This definition describes the ideal of a modern political organization; it is not the feature of actual political communities. This ideal is seldom realized perfectly; some sovereigns understand their independence in implementation, some accept it undoubtedly in the face of higher authorities. Nevertheless, all meanings do not disqualify its real cost, and a modern ideal of sovereignty varies from state to state (Zaum).

In opposition to the modern understanding, the issue of sovereignty originates from the Middle Ages. The pursuit of the sovereignty reflects post-medieval political life of a decisive form at all levels from local race to power in the international and global affairs. In an ongoing effort to reach and support sovereignty, there is an indispensable condition of the international state system; - basic structure, within which and against which modern political struggle takes place (Zaum).

Though the modern ideal of sovereignty often involves contracting agreements concerning to Westphalian principle of international law, it requires transition to the dominant form of a political organization. Nevertheless, agreements influenced by the Westphalian system provide a convenient marker for long history, because they formalize the most important innovations of the modern ideal of sovereignty. They combine classical and medieval aspirations for the absolute power with modern recognition of higher political authority repeated at the local scale (Zaum).

While the medieval system of political power was characterized by the confused network of feudal obligations and the imposed spheres of imperial and spiritual board, modern sovereignty depends on discrete and exclusive spheres of the power and submission. The principle that the governor is the highest authority in his own sphere was expanding during the thirteenth century. The modern ideal of sovereignty is logical in the "anti-medieval” world of identical sovereigns. It is an ultimate, basic system of post-Westphalian states in which local superiority of one sovereign is compared to the board of others and independence of everyone is reached equally (Zaum).

Today, the modern ideal of sovereignty remains an important material for ideological structures, motivations, and epistemological bases as a feature of the modern state. Respectively, the same ideal is also the cornerstone of norms and laws of the modern international relations. It does not mean that the modern ideal of sovereignty remained an invariable since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; was rather formulated and presented in various forms throughout history.; It is important to consider the twentieth-century struggle against decolonization, as well as the twentieth-first century fears concerning the state autonomy in the globalized world. Thus, sovereignty as an ideal of the highest, independent, although limited power remains fundamental in the modern policy of states. Factors and establishments aspiring to the sovereignty and superiority were characterized by insuperable internal intensity (Whitt). It is possible to claim that the most considerable ideological function of the modern state is a denial of the nature of modern sovereignty. On the one hand, sovereignty is idealized as some kind of constituent power, which not only orders, but also constantly represents its own collective subject (Whitt). In other words, a sovereign defines people on whom it operates as a fund of political community or regulates borders and differentiates its participants from persons which are not members of any organization (Zaum).

On the other hand, sovereignty is perceived as a certain kind of body that has to be resolved by 'people' whom it represents. The supreme power cannot be regarded as the highest one because of its superiority and independence. It will rather increase from a collective subject in which it is carried out to a modern ideal of sovereignty. Thus, there is an intensity between the supreme constituent power and its dependence, because of power of a collective subject which it represents (Zaum).

This intensity has caused several main problems in modern political philosophy. It is also important to pay attention to a phenomenon called the paradox of sovereignty. By means of this paradox, the authority demands to make the supreme state and create a constant act of the constitution. According to the modern ideal of sovereignty, the state does not afford personal allowance; its authority comes from educated people. People, however, do not self-constitute. The constitution is created by the authorized sovereign and this is a document which connects a sovereign and people. Respectively, the constituent power is the subject for further investigations (Whitt).

Thus, there are founders of a sovereign state: people that choose authority and a sovereign that is chosen. Additionally, he embodies the prerequisite and result of the supreme power. Though this paradox of the supreme constitution can seem an abstract philosophical problem, it has certain values for modern policy. Territorial structure which is significantly divided along the modern policy, is an independent sign of paradox of the supreme constitution. If these mechanisms become less and less important for modern political life, it is necessary to understand paradoxes of the sovereignty to form other alternative territorial bases and constitution (Kurlantzick).

There are several arguments for theorizing sovereignty as a type of a constituent body. Partially, it is concentrated on superiority, independence, and conditions of limitation of the supreme power. To be the highest and independent in the corresponding meanings, the power has to define limits of the competence. The supreme power, then, has to be not only is limited, but self-restriction. Conferring itself borders, the supreme powers are to enter certain political substances within its jurisdiction, thus defining, who does and who not, according to its team. To put it briefly, the sovereignty is an ideal of the political power which defines its own borders and identifies its own citizens (Kurlantzick).

Furthermore, the supreme power not only defines its subjects, but also represents them as a consecutive collective subject. The constitution of the sovereign and his collective subject is no less important than ideals of absolute sovereignty of the state and its people. Irrespective of the fact, whether the sovereign is the only monarch or several people, the supreme power is independent which eventually makes people the only source of authority. According to Hegel, whose political philosophy embodies the modern ideal of sovereignty, the highest constituent body has to be independent from the authorities of other states in any system of society of sovereign countries. The constituent body, in other words, is a kernel of modern sovereignty, superiority and independence (Kurlantzick).

The legislature often does not pay enough attention to modern accounts of sovereignty. In theories of international relations and international law, sovereignty is identified with external independence while its internal aspects are ignored or understood as the gained effect of external relations of the sovereign. It is argued that addressing short-term political transformation will seem insufficient. However, is a proof presumption of superiority of external independence, namely, a successful fight against, which occurred in the twentieth century. Decolonization shows not only importance of external independence, but also internal independence of a constituent body. Moreover, the experience of post-colonial states which reached independence without higher internal or external authorities elucidates that the internal aspect of sovereignty is not secondary to its external aspect (Whitt).

However, sovereignty cannot be reduced to external independence; external independence and internal higher authority are necessary conditions for modern sovereignty. According to modern idealization, sovereignty itself is a restriction and a constituent body which is the highest power of rather collective subject it represents, and independent concerning all other political actors. The main innovation of a modern ideal of sovereignty is higher independent authority in the limited sphere of jurisdiction. Borders in this area are limits of the supreme powers, within which the state is the highest political team. The modern ideal of sovereignty under the conditions of its limitation, as well as superiority and independence gives a chance to conclude that the political power has to satisfy all these three conditions together. It means that the supreme power has to interconnect (Whitt). The modern sovereignty is inevitably limited. Its borders can be de jure or de facto, material or conditional, noted or unmarked. However, it should necessarily promote an internal/external dichotomy and inscribe in which it recognizes that legality of the supreme teams is correlated with obedience. This communication is made through the interactive communication power, which in this case, is the sovereign and its subjects. Therefore, it is useful to consider jurisdiction in the sphere of the relations, in which sovereigns are independent subjects in their relation to each other (Whitt).

The supreme team and correlative forms of submission are inscribed within limited spheres of sovereignty. The majority of definitions of sovereignty are devoted to one or more technical requirements. Sovereignty is often comprehended in spatial terms from a position of the Higher and independent political authority in the territory. According to the definition, the achievement of the Supreme power corresponds to borders of political and geographical space (Whitt). This understanding of sovereignty was distributed during five hundred years serving as the dominating structure for organization of the political power in the modern state and the international state system. In any case, it does not mean that obedience and independence, which define the sovereignty within territorial integrity, provide the necessary communication within team (Whitt).

There is no necessary interrelation between jurisdiction of the Supreme power and borders of a certain country, an ethnic origin or ideology. Various criteria of unity and distinctions can play an important role to advance sovereignty, and some of them, such as nationality, have been extremely important for development of today's sovereign states. Nevertheless, the ideal of sovereignty as the higher, independent and limited political authority should not belong to a certain territorial, national, ethnic or ideological way of representation or structure of the relations between the states and,- subjects (Whitt).

Sovereignty of authorities is limited. In this sense, people control them in the political activities. These borders are explained in various agreements. The supreme authority of the state belongs to the dominating political power and to the opposite political team. Additionally, authority belongs to the final appellate court on constitutional questions within its competence. According to both theological and secular ideals of sovereignty, teams are correlated by obedience superiority. The theological principle determines that the supreme power of God, king and the government demands deeper form of submission. Obedience to teams of the sovereign (usually in the form of laws) surpasses other duties when they contradict, except for the cases provided by the most significant supreme power (Whitt).

The supreme independence given to a political body sends it "to an external autonomy of vis-à-vis other authorities." Any external authority or any power can "regularly be allocated with the right to have management or the dominating voice" in the authoritative sovereign against his subjects. Moreover, no external power or force can be a source of the supreme power of its subjects, if any is a subordinate and not the higher, political authority. Thus, an ideal of the supreme independence, as the ideal of the supreme domination, means exclusiveness; the independent power of the sovereign surely expels other independent politicians from the power of actors in the sphere of its sovereignty if the sovereignty means non-interference (Whitt).

Finally, sovereignty undoubtedly means independence in the internal affairs and international law. However, it does not mean that a sovereign cannot be exposed to external political actors such as war. Sovereigns are able to preserve independence, participating in agreements, contracts, and the joint organizations. The corresponding forms of participation, consent, and cooperation are crucial for sovereignty and recognizing on the international arena. Three conditions of limitation, superiority, and independence mutually grant opportunity and mutually create an ideal state. Their relations should constitute the modern ideal of sovereignty as conceptual, historical, and political certain organization of power.