Austin's Doctrine of Sovereignty PDF

University of Calcutta Political science minor Semester 3 15 marks Q: Write Unitarianism or Austin's doctrine of sovereignty. A. Introduction: Among all the characteristics of a st...

University of Calcutta Political science minor Semester 3 15 marks Q: Write Unitarianism or Austin's doctrine of sovereignty. A. Introduction: Among all the characteristics of a state, sovereignty is the most important characteristic. This characteristic distinguishes the state from other social organizations and gives it the status of uniqueness. By virtue of this special power, the State makes laws and enforces them. However, political scientists do not agree about the nature of sovereignty, or where it is located. Different thinkers have interpreted it differently. Among them, the name of English jurist John Austin is notable. Austin's Doctrine: In Lectures on Jurisprudence published in 1832, Austin propagated his theory of sovereignty. He was greatly influenced by West Ham and Hobbes. Following Hobbes, he said, the sovereign is the ultimate power of the state. The decrees of this sovereign power are laws. Policy has nothing to do with law. That is, the sovereign is above custom, custom and law. While giving a specific definition of this sovereignty, he said,- "If a certain superior authority receives the natural obedience of the majority of the people of that society without accepting obedience to any other authority, then that particular authority possesses sovereign authority in that society.” Features of Sovereignty: Professor Laski analyzed Austin's definition and noted the following characteristics of sovereignty: (a) Austin's sovereign is clear and definite. Not as vague as Rousseau's "General Will". (b) Sovereign power is final and ultimate. His words are the last words. This power is not limited by any moral laws or customs and traditions. (c) Sovereignty is indivisible i.e. it cannot be divided into parts. No other person or social institution can share this power. (d) The people will naturally obey the sovereign. That is, the sovereign power cannot force obedience. (e) The command of the sovereign is law. Everyone is bound to obey this law. Disobeying the law should be punished. Criticism: First: Henry Mayne says that Austin's Unitarianism cannot be supported by history. Because, says Austin,-the sovereign possesses irresistible and ultimate power. But in reality it is not possible. For example, says Austin, Parliament is sovereign in England with the Queen. So possessed of infinite power. With this power, he can make laws according to his will. But Prof. Lasky said, even if there is no legal impediment, Parliament cannot enact whatever law it likes, such as disenfranchisement, confiscation of property, etc. Second, Austin's unitarism strikes at the root of democracy. Pluralists say that democracy is the rule of the people. Here the sovereign power rests in the hands of the people. But Austin denied the sovereignty of the people in establishing the autocracy of the state. Third: Austin's unitary theory of law is flawed. Because, according to him, Law is the Command of the Sovereign. But there are many laws, says Henry Mayne, which derive from the customs of pluralistic societies. So they are not created by order of the sovereign. In fact, these customs are so important in social life that it cannot be denied. Fourth: Unitarists say that sovereign power is indivisible and specific. But in a federal system of governance, power is divided between the center and the states in the context of pluralism. So sovereign power is not divisible. Moreover, in the United States no individual or private parliament can be found in whom sovereignty resides. The people are sovereign. But that is not certain. Evaluation: Although criticized, the interpretation of legal sovereignty by Austin and unitarian theorists is very clear and reasonable. Pluralist critics called Austin a supporter of authoritarianism. But this allegation is not true. Political scientist Cocker said Austin's critics have misunderstood him. For, by establishing the sovereign above the natural obedience of the people, he dignified the consent of the people. Through this he wanted to establish democracy. However, the unitarians have neglected political sovereignty while giving more importance to legal sovereignty. So this doctrine is incomplete.