Internal versus External Sovereignty

As we have seen, the formulations of Bodin, Hobbes, Rousseau, Bentham and Austin have provided the logical and theoretical ground for strong sovereign and legislative supremacy within the State. Internal sovereignty is also based on the territorial concept. On the other hand, external sovereignty represents the power to represent the State in its relations with other States, including the power to declare war and make peace. We may recall how Grotius expounded the concept of external sovereignty where the law of nations and international law regulated the relations between States.

However, it appears that the distinction between internal and external sovereignty may not be justified, as external sovereignty is nothing but an extension of the sovereignty of a State. The concept of territoriality is expressed in the form of respect for the territorial integrity of another State. Similarly, internal sovereignty leads to the concept of sovereign equality of States in their external relations. If external sovereignty is employed to describe the freedom from control and subjection by another State, then it is misplaced, as this is the sine qua non for internal sovereignty as well.

Furthermore, the concept of external sovereignty is neither in consonance with internationalism nor with the process of globalization. Internationalism as the cooperative political evolution of states for achieving international order and peace, subsumes external sovereignty. Laski has remarked that the notion of external sovereignty is dangerous and should be expunged from political science. On the other hand, global economic, finance and trade flows, by introducing element of compulsion on the states in the form of international monetary and trade regulations (INF, World Bank and WTO), has limited the possibility of independent decision making in external matters. Thus, we can say that the concept of external sovereignty though capable of explaining external relations and treaty-making agreements including the declaration of war and peace may not be important from the practical point of view. The concept of ‘internal’ sovereignty itself subsumes this concept and requirements.