Scribd
Upload
442 views

Austin's Theory of Sovereignty Political Science

John Austin's theory of sovereignty defines the sovereign as a determinate human superior who receives habitual obedience from the bulk of society and is not in the habit of obedience to any like superior. Austin believed sovereignty to be absolute, unlimited, indivisible, and the source of all law. Pluralists later criticized this view, arguing that sovereignty is limited by other social organizations and law, not the sole source of authority, and that the state is just one association among many in society.

Uploaded by

Soha Rajpoot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
442 views

Austin's Theory of Sovereignty Political Science

John Austin's theory of sovereignty defines the sovereign as a determinate human superior who receives habitual obedience from the bulk of society and is not in the habit of obedience to any like superior. Austin believed sovereignty to be absolute, unlimited, indivisible, and the source of all law. Pluralists later criticized this view, arguing that sovereignty is limited by other social organizations and law, not the sole source of authority, and that the state is just one association among many in society.

Uploaded by

Soha Rajpoot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 11

Austin’s Theory of

Sovereignty
John Austin
• John Austin (1790-1859) was an English
jurist. He is regarded as the founder of
school of analytical jurisprudence
which sought to analyze the nature of
law, rights and sovereignty.
• He expounded his theory in the book
on Jurisprudence published in 1832.
Austin begins his theory of
sovereignty with the definition of
law, which he says is “A command
given by a superior to an inferior”
Austin on
Law In other words, it is a general
command to do or abstain from
doing certain acts, issued directly
or indirectly by the sovereign
Austin on Sovereignty
• Austin’s theory of sovereignty is also known as MONISTIC THEORY Of
SOVEREIGNTY / Theory of determinate human superior
• His theory is influenced by the Thomas Hobbes’ idea of Sovereignty.
• He defined the sovereign or superior in a state as, ‘If a determinate
human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior,
receives habitual obedience from bulk of society , that determinate
superior is the sovereign in society’, to that determinate superior the
other members of society are subject, or on that determinate superior
the other members of the society are dependent
Analysis of the Austin’s Definition:-
1. Only a determinate can be sovereign
It means that sovereignty can't belong to a body of person or to a
general will as the proponents of the popular sovereignty said. Rather
there will be only one sovereign in the state.
2. The power of the sovereign is legally unlimited or absolute
Because the laws which he makes are obeyed by all, while he himself
does not obey any law. Legally speaking, sovereign is Almighty.
3. Sovereignty is indivisible
If sovereignty is divided by the law between two or more persons, then
what would happen? One of them will limit the power of the other and
will become the legal sovereign
4. State is such a society which is organized by rule and obedience. A
law is command calling for obedience. State exists only when there is
sovereignty and subjection or obedience to the law. Sovereignty is
necessary in the state.
So, According to Austin sovereignty is determinate, Supreme, absolute,
illimitable, inalienable, indivisible, all-comprehensive and permanent
power. He believes sovereignty is supreme power unrestricted by law.

This view was criticized by the pluralist philosophers of 20th century


Criticism:
• Pluralists say history doesn't support Austin’s view of Absolutism.
They believe that none of the Kings in ancient times had absolute
powers because there were some social, cultural, religious
restrictions.
• Austin’s theory does not apply to existing states. Because in modern
democratic states (i) Parliament is sovereign (ii) Electorate is
sovereign (iii) Religion is supreme etc.
• It is against the idea of popular sovereignty. It also ignores public
opinion.
Pluralism:-
• Proponents:- Otto Von Gierke was the first person to introduce this idea &
Maitland in 20th century supported this idea.
• The sovereignty of the state is not an absolute, indivisible and exclusive
power.
• Firstly, because the functions of the state have changed over the years. In
ancient times state was only meant to preserve peace. For which it used
power and authority. But now it must perform several other functions for
which the use of supreme authority and command is not necessary. For
instance, it could be public works, health, education, postal services,
railways etc.
• Sovereignty, is not the source of law; it is limited by law. Pluralists believe
that state itself is a subject of law and it is bound by the rules and laws.
• They believe that law is not made by the sovereign. It arises from the
social solidarity and social interdependence of the individuals. It
existed before the state and is superior to it.
• Within one state there are several associations / Organizations which
are autonomous, and they work independently. So, they are
sovereign in their own spheres. State’s only function is to promote
the general well-being. The idea of sovereignty should be replaced by
the idea of public-welfare.
• State is the creature and not the creator of law
• State is just an association like other associations
• Some pluralists said that state is MOST IMPORANT ASSOCIATION
amongst other associations.
• They believe that state is pluralistic in nature. It is community of
communities, group of groups. They reject the monist view of ‘state
versus individual’. They believe that human society today consists of
variety of associations, groups, corporations and organizations which
promote the social, economic, cultural, intellectual, political and
other interests of the citizens. So, the state is not different from them,
it is an association like other associations.
• Pluralists deny that state is unique organization. Other associations
are equally unique, important and natural.
• So, According to the pluralists the sovereignty is vested in all the
associations, because they are all powerful to make their own laws
and execute them.
• Sovereignty is not unlimited, sometimes it is externally and internally
limited.
Criticism:-
1. Pluralism belittles the ‘sovereignty’ because making it equal to other
associations will lead to anarchy, and disorder. Sovereignty is important
for the state. Without sovereignty there can be no state.
2. Sovereignty can not be divided. Because dividing the sovereignty means
destroying it. The sovereignty which is exercised by the other
organizations, that is not all comprehensive. Those powers are delegated
powers, not the supreme. (that is decentralization of power/not
distribution of sovereignty)
3. This theory failed to distinguish between state and association
4. Pluralistic theory is based on the wrong assumptions as it believes that
state and associations are equal in power. Though, they can never be
equal in powers.

You might also like