The Emergence of the Sovereignty, Mutations in Citizenship and New Sovereignty

Adnan Can ÇAKIR

‘’Sovereignty is the most supreme,

unlimited, indispensable and

indivisible political power in a

given society. ‘’ Jean BODIN

1

The Concept of Sovereignty

There are plenty of controversions about the meaning,future and

how it should be of sovereignty since the production of the

concept. With the emerging of the modern state, the states have

been exclusive creators and enforcers of law. At the same time,

sovereignty has been used as the sole instrument in order

to legitimize the authority of the state. However, the concept

of sovereignty has undergone lots of change particularly since

the end of the Second World War. State sovereignty has been in

dispute because the idea that absolute sovereignty could

violate human and group rights and the thought that

guaranteeing human rights and freedoms could not be left into

hands of solely the states have both given rise to the

efforts which aim to establish a normative order based on

ethical principles in international level. In addition,

2

enlarging of the global capitalism causes that national

economies are restrained. Emerging of the European Union (EU)

as a new political organization model and “common sovereignty

pool” as the part and parcel of the EU have shown that the

notion of “national sovereignty” reached a new dimension. In

this new dimension, we see that sovereignty does still matter

and it should be perceived as “responsible sovereignty” by the

states.

With reference to one of the most recent assertion of

political science, national sovereignty has become almost

meaningless or at least undergone a distinct change in the

present political and social conditions. This assertion is

normal because modern state which is the most competent

political organization owe to be in existence to sovereignty.

Modern state which identified with nation-state after the

French Revolution seperated from preciding political

organizations. This difference is sovereignty. Because role and

function of nation-state have been being discussed within this

period, discussion of the concept of sovereignty is so usal as

far as I am concerned.

3

In this study, I will try to explain the concept of

sovereignty in the most comprehensive way. Firstly, I will try

to explain the emerging of concept of sovereignty, types of

sovereignty. Afterwards, historical development and

transformation of classical approach of sovereignty will be

explained and then I will also try to answer these questions :

‘’Why do we need to sovereignty, what kind of sovereignty do

we need and which factors have transformation of sovereignty

been causing ? ‘’

The Emergence of the Concept of Sovereignty The concept of sovereignty was presented by French

jurist Jean Bodin firstly. Sovereignty comes from the latin

word of ‘’superanus’’ which means supreme or top. Bodin has

used this word in order to describe absolute and continious

power of a state. ( Bodin, 2003 : 1 ) According to Bodin,

sovereignty is absolute and cannot be limited in terms of

power, function or time because a limitation in this respect is

against the nature of sovereignty. That’s why, there is no

another power above sovereignty apart from the God. ( Bodin,

4

2003 : 3-4 ) Bodin associated sovereignty to monarchy regime in

the conditions of the period. In order to be provided efficient

monarchy regime, the monarchy should have proved its adequacy

over against church and empire. Laws would be made by sovereign

and the state would have the opportunity to act independently

from the influence of external factors thanks to principle of

sovereignty. ( Giddens, 2005 : 133 )

Sovereignty became apparent in terms of political

practices at the international level with 1648 Westphalia

Aggreements. With the emergence of the modern state, states

established national armies, monopolized the right to use

violence and established centralized bureaucratic institutions.

After the Thirty Years War, the principalities could move in

their fields freely and showed respect each other’s natioanal

boundaries. Thus, the principalities recognized sovereignty

mutually and laid the foundation of modern states system.

The Sovereignty of Bodin

As previously mentioned, the concept of sovereignty

which is the key principle of modern state was first used with

its modern meanin by French jurist Jean Bodin. He explained his

5

opinion on the state in his ‘6 Books of the Commonwealth.’

Bodin regards the state like a ship which consists of a broad

amount of elements. These elements are absoluteness,

inalienability and permanency. When trees forming the ship are

removed, the ship is also removed. That’s why, if sovereignty

is removed from state, the state is out of question.

Bodin lived between the years of 1530-1596. These

years are very important because modern state emerged in the

same century. It can be claimed that in this period, religious

bigotry was widespread and in parallel with this situation

violence cases were also general. (Giddens, 2005) The intensity

of the violence cases endangered future of Kingdom of France

and Bodin worked in order to save the France from this bad

situation. Therefore, he writed his book which supported

absolute sovereignty of monarchy for these reasons.

According to Bodin, the supreme purpose of the state

is happiness and happiness of citizens or the state have the

same meaning. Bodin pays special attention to family and a good

family management is the very foundation of the state. ‘’Peter

6

Familias’’ which is the foundation of Roman Law were used by

Boding. Peter Familias is the only competent person and he has

absolute power. His authority is normal and comes from the God.

This person is father of family. Because the state resembles

family, the role of the kingdom of state also resembles father

in a family. Sovereign right of a kingdom just like the the

right of suzerainty of a father is absolute. Unless the members

of the community, families and associations merge as a single

body, we cannot talk about a state according to Bodin.

As I mentioned above, Bodin regards the state like a

ship which consists of a broad amount of elements. These

elements are absoluteness, inalienability and permanency. I

would like to mention these elements briefly.

1 .Absoluteness

The sovereignty which is the highest power of command

is not limited by another power because sovereignty under the

determined conditions or obligation is neither sovereignty nor

absolute power. The sovereign do not seek advice of people or

institutions. Other power structures in a state are composed of

7

the sovereign according to Bodin. The result of absoluteness of

sovereignty is that sovereign can make law without receiving

any approval. That’s why, sovereign can change, ruin or

reconstruct at will. Bodin discriminates between legislation

and law. When he describes legislation as only command of

sovereign, he describes law as fairness and justice. However,

legislation is more important rather than law because

legislation is will of the sovereign. If we can not talk about

only one sovereign or we cannot describe the soverign, we

cannot talk about a state as well.

2. Permanency

Bodin criticizes people who confuse sovereign with

administrator harshly. Administrator exercises power and this

power is not permanent. Therefore, administrator is not a

sovereign. Authority of a administrator may be military or

civilian, but this authority comes from the sovereign.

Administrator cannot argue against legislation of prince.

Administrator can make only one thing. He can leave from the

state. In this sense, right of resistance is not possible as

far as Bodin is concerned. Also, it can be claimed that

8

according to this approach, Bodin approves the concept of ‘’

region di stato’’ which means unlawful practices of the state

in a crisis situation. That is, unlawful policies may be

necessary in order to provide the continuity of the state.

( Devletin bekası… ) The continunity of the sovereignty means

that the sovereign exercises his right for life and then he

transfers his rights with his crown to new sovereign.

Therefore, kings never die. The discourse of ‘’ now the old

king is dead! Long live the king’’ in France is a good example

for the continuity of sovereignty.

3. Inalienability

Sovereignty should become only one in order to be

absolute and continuous. Sovereign can be limited by only

sovereignty. Sovereign can never transfer his sovereignty.

State is completely sovereign. That is, sovereignty is innate

in a state. Bodin mentions three types of states. If one person

has sovereignty ,this system is monarchy. If a minority has

sovereignty, this system is aristocracy and if citizens have

sovereignty, this system is democracy. However, monarchy should

9

be preferred because monarchy is necessary for sovereignty

according to him.

The Sovereignty of Thomas Hobbes

For Hobbes, the essences of a community and a person

are fight, war, lack of confidence and chaos. These essences

have three important results. These are competition,

unreliability and passion of glory. People are always at war if

a state do not exist. People must transfer their all rights to

a sovereign in order to get rid of this situation. If this

process is implemented, the community which occurred after the

process is a state. The sovereign is Leviathan who is mortal

god.

Social legitimacy / contract is necessary for

establishment phase of the state. In this sense, legitimacy is

only a principle of establishment the state. However, after the

establishment of the state, legitimacy can restrict the

political power. That’s why, legitimacy disappears after the

establishment of the state. According to Hobbes, the sovereign

have plenty of rights and these righst show us that unless a

10

governent is restricted, this government becomes both so

totalitarian and authoritarian. Citizens must agree to the

commands of the sovereign and must not criticise sovereign. The

sovereign decides what conditions are necessary for its

citizens. Judgements and conflicts can be solved by only

sovereign. What the good is or the bad is, what the legal or

illegal is are decided by the sovereign because the sovereign

is not as harmful as lack of power. ( Hobbes, 1993 )

We cannot see limiting the power of the government

which is the most important principle of today’s understanding

of democracy understanding of democracy of Rousseau, Hobbes,

Machiavelli and Bodin.

The Sovereignty of John Locke

In the modern sense, the first objection of

absoluteness of the political power comes from John Locke. For

him, the most important principle of a state is public

interest. Political power is to organize and protect property,

make laws and appyl the rules and protect the community from

any damage committed by foreigners. All of them is for the sake

11

of public interest. From this point of view, there are two

basic principles of legitimacy for understanding of sovereignty

of Locke. These are property and public interest. However,

property does not mean to have property for him, but propery is

the protection of freedom of life and property ownership.

( Locke, 1969 ) These principles of legitimacy are the basic

arguments of both Locke and liberal tradition which restricts

political power. That is, the state’s goal is nothing more than

peace, security and public interest. In this order, law is not

a social structure to control individual liberty, law

guarentees the protection of individual liberty against

political power of sovereignty. It can be argued that Locke

rejects absolute and unlimited sovereignty. When a political

power win one time, this does not mean that the political power

is always legitimate. The most important principle is national

will. Unless citizens have freedom of approve and really

approve, the sovereign cannot have any right.

Lock says that if political power is absolute,

unlimited, one and indivisible, this system is tyranny. In

order to solve this problem, the jurisdiction of political

12

power should be divided as legislative, executive and

federative powers. For Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes and Rousseau,

citizens are only source of sovereignty, but For Locke citizens

are both source of sovereignty and user of sovereignty. In this

sense, the first line overlaps totalitarian state tradition and

the second line overlaps democratic state tradition because

democracy is the power of people in its the most basic

definition.

The Emergence of National Sovereignty

The most important milestone in terms of sovereignty

is the French Revolution because after 1789 national

sovereignty appeared as the shape of the sole authority of the

sovereignty. During this period, the single but fundamental

change is that the sovereignty is taken from the monarch and

given to nation. At the same time, one of the most important

practical result of French Revolution is that the modern-state

identifies with the nation- state. The essence of sovereignty

is nation and no person or institution cannot use an authority

which does not come from the nation. Noone take place above the

laws and laws are binding anymore. Thus, sovereignty have a

13

national meanin after the French Revolution. In other words,

the state authority is identified with the presence of nation.

Political society directly connects to consent of the nation as

a founder of the state. On the other hand, the theory of

national sovereignty, against the governmental system based one

person executive, provides to instituionalize of representative

democracy in this period. Rousseau and Sieyes had an important

role in the emergence of the revolution because existing power

relations were damaging the majority of the nation and a

different world was possible fort hem.

According to Sieyes, nation is partners of community

living under a common law and represented by the same

legislator. Privileged classes have no place in nation which

everybody has the same rights because they are detrimental fort

o the nation by staying out of the public order and law. The

location of these privileged classes is just like a seperate

state in a state ( imperium in imperio) ( Göze, 1986 ) Thus,

Sieyes construct a nation with equal rights and duties before

the law.

14

The French Revolution has continued properties of

French Revolution such as continuity and absoluteness. However,

the national sovereignty belongs to nation with the French

Revolution. Revolutinaries forced the idea that all nation

cannot participate in the administration so representatives are

necessary in order to participate in administration. Thus,

representative democracy which starts with the American

Revolution reach the peak after the French Revolution.

( Dupies/Deri, 2004 ) Modern state is seperated from previous

political structures in terms of the notion of law.

Otherworldly and natural law gives place to a secular, rational

and equal understanding of law. In addition, states which

provides its legitimacy with factors other than their own

disappears. The existence of states is self-styled anymore.

As can be seen from all this said, because of the

relationship between modern state and law, modern-state needs

sovereignty too much. However, there is still a significant

danger. The state may be totalitarian based on sovereignty.

Some liberal names such as Karl Popper and Leoun Duguit rejects

sovereignty because the sovereignty provides endless and

15

unlimited power. Popper and Duguit do not hesitate to say that

with develeopment of rule of law, sovereignty losts its

meaning. (Duguit, 2000; Popper,, 2005) II. World War experience

shows us how dangereous the sovereignty may become. Advocates

of this thesis can justify his views with lots of arguments.

However, after the II.World War shows us that unlike the these

liberal thesis, only losing the meaning of sovereignty cannot

provide happier and healthier life for people because hegemony

take the place of sovereignty after the Cold War and inter-

state relations is not based on law, but based on the balance

of power axis. It is not possible to establish a lasting peace

if international order is formed by power rather than law. As

far as I am concerned, on a global scale, there is nothing

wrong to say that the concept which is need too much is

sovereignty.

The Distinction of Internal Sovereignty and External

Sovereignty

According to classical theory of sovereignty, there

are basically two sizes of sovereignty. These are internal and

external sovereignty. Traditional internal sovereignty means

16

that in a specifical geographical area absolute authority of a

state over the citizens. (Hoffman, 1998: 16) Power of the state

is not connected to other power and it is not limited by any

authority. In brief, the authority in the final say belongs to

the state. The state blocks all powers which have possibility

of challenge to state and provides obedience of all citizens in

the sate. External sovereignty means that states are equal

structures in the international system and they cannot

interfere with each other’s internal affairs. That is, all

states have an autonomy. That’s why, external sovereignty is

related to the concept of independence.

Democratic Sovereignty

For Abraham Lincoln, democracy is government of the

people, by the people and for the people. In a constitutional

democratic system where there is consolidation of democracy,

all decisions should be based on general will and decisions

should be accountable and transparent. If the sovereign is

determined by a criterion which is not democratic, then a

crippled understanding of sovereignty appears. Reconciliation

is necessary in order to use of sovereignty. In democracy, the

17

most legitimate and largest reconciliation can be provided by

public consensus. Ignoring the decision of citizens by using

the legal rules is charecteristic of police-state. Citizens

cannot commune with the state if individuals are excluded and

their decisions do not carry value. It can be claimed that if

indivuals cannot see themselves as having real possession of

the state, conflicts and fights cannot be prevented in this

state. It should be noted that disaffected crowded cannot

establish another state, but can destroy the state. Therefore,

the most stable state is a state which adopts national

sovereignty. If sovereignty takes its source from the nation

and the principle of government of the people, by the people

and for the people works well, we can talk about democratic

sovereignty. Legitimacy is possible with democratic

sovereignty. If people who use sovereignty make decisions as

desired by the nation, they gain legitimacy. On the other hand,

if they make decisions as undesired, they lose their

legitimacy.

From the moment of its first use to now, sovereignty

is one of the most controversial concept of public law and

18

political science. In addition,the relation between democracy

and sovereignty has generated one of the intense debates in 20.

century. In terms of democratic sovereignty, there are two

types of sovereignty. (Gözübüyük, 2000 ) These are national

sovereignty and popular sovereignty. Now, I would like to

mention them.

1.Popular Sovereignty ( Halk Egemenliği )

According to 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man

and of the Citizen, the sovereignty belongs to citizens and no

individual or no delegation can use the authority which does

not come from the citizens. The idea that the resource of the

sovereignty is people was asserted by Rousseau for the first

time. In the understanding of popular sovereignty, sovereignty

is not spiritual being and does not seperate from individuals.

Sovereignty directyl belongs to individuals within the society.

Each individual have a part in sovereignty one by one.

According to Rousseau, sovereignty belongs to citizens and it

should remain in the same manner. Representation of sovereignty

by determined people or groups is not true. That’s why,

representative democracy is not appropriate for popular

19

sovereignty. Administrators who take their power from citizens

are civil cervant of citizens and they must act based on the

rules which comes from citizens. Constitutions guarentee the

rights and freedoms of citizens by limiting the state power

legally. Some people asserts that rights of minorities are

violated because of decisions taken by the majority. This

assertion is not true because majority is not stagnant

structure vice versa majority is dynamic structure. We cannot

know who become majority or minority in future. It depends on

the situation. Besides, history shows that those who have

authority misuses their authority until they encounters a

limit. That’s why, political system should establish as limited

structure.

According to Atatürk, ideals of democracy in the true sense,

the entire nation should be able to govern the state or at

least nation should be able to state last word in the state of

affairs. ( Mumcu, 1983 ) Even though the word of nation is

used, nation means citizens in this sentence. ( Çünkü soyut bir

ulus kavramının somut işlere imza atması beklenemez, kastedilen

halktır. Halk egemenliğinde ulus egemenliği ilkesinden farklı

20

olarak egemenliğe sahip olan gerçek fiziki varlığa sahip olan

halk, yani vatandas kitlesi, gerektiğinde kendi iradesini

aracısız ve direkt olarak açıklama imkanına sahiptir. Bu

bakımdan halk egemenliği, referandum, halk oylaması, plebisit

ve halkın kanun teklifi gibi yarı doğrudan demokrasi

yöntemlerinin kullanılmasına da elverislidir. (Kapani, 2001:

74; Yavuz, 2000: 68; Gözübüyük, 2000: 70) Halk egemenliğini

gerçeklestirmeye imkan tanıyan yarı doğrudan demokrasinin ulus

egemenliği anlayısının bir sonucu olan temsili sisteme göre

daha üstün olduğu söylenebilir. )

The National Sovereignty ( Ulus Egemenliği )

The concept of national sovereignty means that sovereignty

belongs to all nation.

The term of ‘’nation’’ does not mean individuals physically,

but it means a spiritual and juridical existence which also

include citizens from past to present. That’s why, national

sovereignty is seperated from popular sovereignty. In addition,

in national sovereignty, national will precedes will of people

who constitute nation. ( Sarıca, 1969 ) ( milli irade, milleti

olusturan vatandaşların iradelerinden üstün bir iradedir )

21

According to Sieyes, citizens can get involved in

administration through only their representatives. The right to

participate in government administration can be possible in the

next election.( from election to election ) Siyes asserts that

being an administrator requires some abilities and only elite

and active citizens can achieve this duty. He asserts this

views in order to advocate and legitimate representative

system. Sieyes who claims that national sovereignty can be

provided in this way is not favour of democracy but oligarchy.

( Akın, 1987 ) National sovereignty just like popular

sovereignty may transform the majority dictatorship because of

representative system. However, in popular sovereignty, if the

will of parliament is contrary to will of citizens, public

initiative, public veto and referendum which is institutions of

semi-direct democracy. Even though national sovereignty and

representative system have significant role in the development

of classical democracy, understanding of popular sovereignty is

gaininig strength day by day. Decisions which are taken by

people on the behalf of ones own are more democratic than

decisions which taken by representatives.

22

Transformation of Classical Understanding of Sovereignty

United Stetes of America is the first place where was lived

developments in the field of rule of law. According to 1776

Virginia Constitution and American Declaration of Independence,

the state is the guarantor of individiual and natural rights.

However, recognition of human rights is not necessary. Of

course, lawfulness and safeguarding of the rights are very

important, but there should be some mechanisms and sanctions in

universal scale which provide to control state’s policies.

There should be universal scale control mechanism because it

should be a power like the state. In national level, the states

is the most supreme authority. However, there should be an

alternative institutional structure in order to control the

state. Apart from 1907 Hague Conferences, international human

rights as a whole became a political and juridical issue after

the II.World War. (Donnely, 1999) Indeed, absolute sovereignty

began to be questioned after the II.World War. The influence of

Nazi experience caused to emerge some views : The understanding

of absolute sovereignty may violate individual and group

rights, guarenteeing of freedom and individual rights cannot be

23

left only to discretion of the government. In international

level, a normative order based on ethical principles should be

established. Thus, European Court of Human Rights established

in the Council of Europe. This is the first and strong example.

European Court of Human Rights is established in order to

prevent violation of human rights in council member states.

When domestic remedies are exhausted, individuals can apply to

ECHR in order to be protected wrong acts and decisions of the

state. States have to follow decisions of ECHR. If council

member states do not follow, these states can be dismissed

from members of Eurupean Council.

If a state does not follow universal rights and human rights,

embargo and cessation of diplomatic relations can be

implemented. States which systematize human rights violations

can be implemented ‘’humanitarian intervention’’ on the behalf

of international community. According to Charter of the United

Nations, soils under the sovereignty of state cannot be

interefered by another state, but humanitarian intervention

which based on universal and ethical principle can be seen as

legitimate. However, there is an important problem here.

24

Humanitarian intervention may cause an understanding of new

hegemonic. Of course, an intervention by using direct power

against a state is not suitable for understanding of

sovereignty, but if there are systematic human rights

violations, interventional is necessary. After all other

options are exhausted, interventional should be seen

legitimate.

Besides, at this stage of global capitalism causes that

national economies should assign their places to a single

global economy. Today’s world, global capitalism see the world

as a single market and this causes that intervention of the

state on economy is blocked. At the same time, supranational

organizations such as IMF, World Bank and World Trade

Organization steals a role from the states and determines the

coordinates of global economy. Especially after the 1970’s,

neoliberalism and new-right aprroach gains power and according

to these ideologies, all kinds of intervention of the state on

economy is violation of individual freedom and in real sense, a

libertarian system can be energized by opening the way of

25

capitalism. This will be realized by international economic

powers even if the right of sovereignty is violated.

As a result of seeking of economic cooperation, European Union

(EU) is the most competent example of supra-national political

formations. Thus, discussions of nation-state sovereignty come

to a new place and sovereignty become unrecognizable for first

theorists. EU constituted a shared sovereignty pool and this

situation has add different dimension to the understanding of

nation-state. In international law system, states cannot

transfer their sovereignties to other organs, but international

law order necessitate a partial transfer of soverignty.

( Dedman, 1996 ) This is a conscious effort because the

creation of common market, harmonization of monetary and fiscal

policies , unified currency, unified military and common action

in foreign policy reflects this idea clearly. EU integration

does not remove sovereignty of states that constitute itself

completely, but takes over a portion of sovereignty of states

and use this authority in covered geography. ( Gerstenberg,

2001 ) Also, in order to protect the environment, the signing

of international agreements is a necessity in order to stay as

26

part of the global community. Undertaking of a number of

functions which is carried out of state by non-governmental

organizations is a different example of change in the

understanding of sovereignty.

At this point, we can say nation-states and sovereignty are

still dominant political systems because representative

democracy is still dominant in today’s world. Moreover,

sovereignty is the justification of the relationship between

government and citizens in internal policy and sovereignty is a

legal principle which protects weak states against strong

states in foreign policy. As it can be remembered, the main

reason for opposition to US intervention in Iraq is violation

of sovereignty by US. These objections are absolutely right.

However, we should not reject or deny sovereignty which is historical phenomenon

and legal principle, but we should redefine the sovereignty by including social rights

and freedoms and considering ethical principles of national law.

Why do we still need to sovereignty ?

27

We cannot say that sovereignty can solve all kinds of problems

which humanity faces like a peaceful world order. Such a claim

is to accredit with unrealistic qualities to sovereignty and is

to crate great expectations. Of course, if sovereignty is

destroyed, power relations between different states will be

lived and strong states use force in order to have weak states

make their own request. Also, because each political power can

be abused, they can violate individual rights. Sovereignty

carries meaning at this point. Protection of the weak against

the strong whether inter-state relations or relationship

between individuals and the state is possible with only law.

The most important side of sovereignty is that sovereignty is

principle to be able to determine legal content of all balance

of power because a state depends on rule of law should take its

authority from law.

Sovereignty is necessary. I would like to give two important

example in order to prove this. The first example is some of

the events in the Middle East Region. Occupy movements of USA

on Afghanistan and Irag show us that when the sovereignty of

other states are not taken into consideration, plenty of

28

unlawful and illegitamate developments can be lived. In spite

of the opposition of United Nations, the USA realized the

military occupation. All states should follow universal law and

respect sovereignty of other states. That’s why, if sovereignty

does not exist, we could see worse developments and chaos. The

second example is human tragedy in Guantanamo Military Base

which is Cuban land rented by USA. Even though prisoners of

Guantanamo are exposed to unlawful implementations and torture

according to Amnesty International and United Nations, people

who is responsible for this unlawful implemantation cannot be

penalized because this area is not under the control of any

country de facto. (Agnew, 2005 )The reason of exposure to

torture of prisoners in Guantanamo is away from the legal

guarantee of sovereignty. ( Paye, 2005 )

Tony Blair who is Former Prime Minister of England said that

sovereignty causes to decrease freedoms, but in order to

provide homeland security we may decrease freedoms partially

after the terror experience during the month of July 2005 in

London. Likewise, we can see these discourses in USA after the

september 11 terrorist attacks. In all western countries, we

29

can see freedom restriction clearly after the september 11

attacks. The reason of this is the idea of protection of

sovereignty. These examples are bad examples in terms of

sovereignty, but when we look at the problem from the opposite,

we face with a different scenery. That’s why, respecting of

sovereignty and using sovereignty by staying certain boundaries

will provide a more stable and peaceful world. Also, the

institutions created fort he purpose of international

cooperation should create an order which based on mutual

cooperation, solidarity and public interest.

What kind of sovereignty do we need ?

As stated above, it is difficult to claim that sovereignty is

enough for being provided and protected of universal peace.

However, sovereignty is main foot of bridge between state and

law. When all these points are taken into consideration, most

realistic and reasonable answer the question of ‘’what kind of

sovereignty’’ is ‘responsible sovereignty’. ( Falk, 2005 ) This

responsible includes both the state and its people and other

states which have the same rights and status. States are

30

responsible for their citizens in all acts and decisions and

have to conform to universal principles of law and do not have

to violate individual rights. The sole owner of the sovereignty

should be citizens. There are a positive relation between

popular sovereignty and democracy. That’s why, in this respect,

the main thing which is necessary to be discussed is not

elimination of sovereignty, but democratization of soverignty.

A political power which is far from people’s demands and

expectations and positions itself above the society cannot

square with the needs of contemporary democracies. The

responsible of soverign states against other states is to

respect their rights of sovereignty and to solve problems with

reconciliation not with power struggle. The next responsibility

of states is to give a helping hand for states which is exposed

to unlawful policies. The most important result of this

situation is that these implementations will not be limited in

the local and national level, but will spread all over the

world and will provide to emerge a more democratic and

libertarian world.

31

It can be concluded that sovereignty has been used in order to

legitimize authorities of the states a certain period in the

history. Absolute monarchies have used political power singly

thanks to sovereignty and have provided the continutity of

existing political power with the emerging of the national

sovereignty. Of course, the understanding of sovereignty of

Bodin is not valid in today's world. We live in quite

different world in comparison with the era of Bodin.  That's

why, sovereignty provides the states gain legal size and

represents legitimacy of the states. Thus, an international

plane formed by the states necessitate the sovereignty to place

a legal framework. Sovereignty inheres in the core of the

states, but it does not mean that the states can have the right

to use unlimited power. Conversely, preserving and providing of

continutiy of political stability are necessary and the states

should have ''responsible sovereignty'' for both in national

and international level. It is not difficult to say that

sovereignty will enter into conflict with freedom in some

cases. In such cases, the balance between freedoms and the

survival of the state ( devletin bekası ) must be provided and

it must not be forgetten that there is a social aspect of

32

sovereignty, that is, soverignty intrinsically belongs to

citizens which live in a state.  In this context, it is not

enough to defined as a respectful understanding of existing

rights of other states. Sovereignty finds meaning with the

rights of individuals and human communities and  an

international system based on trust and peace constituted by

democratically organized states. In short, sovereignty should

not be above the law, but should be within the rule of law.

This will help to ensure a balance between the authority and

freedom. It is not a right approach to say that nation-state

has ended. However, we can say that sovereignty of nation state

has evolved into a different direction. Nation state

is evolving towards a model which is more flexible, in part of

the global order and covers different sociality rather than

homogonizer, holistic and absolute authoritarian understanding

of sovereignty. This international system can provide a more

democratic and libertarian administration. In this way,

sovereignty will protect its importance as a principle responds

to the expectations of all citizens and political actors.

References

33

ARSEL, İ. (1968). Anayasa Hukuku (Demokrasi), Sıralar Matbaası, 2.

Baskı, İstanbul

BERİŞ, Hamit Emrah (2003), “Savaş, Meşruiyet ve Ahlâkilik,”

Birikim (Sayı 169): 57-62.

BODIN, Jean (2003), On Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 6 th ed.) (ed.

Ve İng. Çev. J. H. Franklin)

DUPUIS/DÉRI, Francis (2004), “The Political Power of Words: The

Birth of Pro-democratic

Discourse in the Nineteenth Century in the United

States and France,” Political Studies

(Vol. 52): 118-134

DEDMAN, Martin J. (1996), The Origins and Development of the European

Union: A

History of European Integration (London & New York: Routledge).

GERSTENBERG, Oliver (2001), “Denationalization and Very Idea of

Democratic

Constituonalism: The Case of European Community,”

Ratio Juris (Vol. 14, No. 3):

298-325.

34

DUGUIT, Leon (2000), “Egemenlik ve Özgürlük,” AKAL, C. B.

(Der.)

DONNELY, Jack (1999), “The Social Construction of International

Human Rights,” DUNNE, T./WHEELER, N. J. (eds.), Human Rights in

Global Politics (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press): 71-102

FALK, Richard (2005), Dünya Düzeni Nereye: Amerikan Emperyal Jeopolitikası

(İstanbul:

Metis Yay.) (Çev. N. Domaniç, N. Arhan).

GIDDENS, Antony (2005), Ulus-Devlet ve Şiddet (İstanbul: Devin Yay.)

(Çev. C. Atay).

GÖZÜBÜYÜK, A. S. (2000). Anayasa Hukuku, Turhan Kitabevi Yay.,

9. Bası, Ankara, Eylül

HOBBES, Thomas (2001), Leviathan veya bir Din ve Dünya Devletinin İçeriği,

Biçimi,

Kudreti (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yay., 3. Baskı) (Çev. S. Lim).

HOFFMAN, John (1998), Sovereignty (Buckhingham: Open University

Press).

KAPANİ, Münci (1993), Kamu Hürriyetleri (Ankara: Yetkin Yay., 7.

Baskı).

35

SARICA, Murat (1969), Fransa ve İngiltere’de Emredici Vekâletten Yeni Temsil

Anlayışına

Geçiş (İstanbul: İ. Ü. H. F. Yay.).

Şener, B. (2014 ). KÜRESELLEŞME SÜRECİNDE ULUS-DEVLET ve

EGEMENLİK OLGULARI, Journal of History School (JOHS) Year 7, Issue XVIII, pp.

51-77

36