Abstract
For the purpose of these introductory remarks, until the further course of the present study will permit the determination of the notion of sovereignty in a more detailed and precise manner, the following definition is submitted thereof: Sovereignty of a State is its supreme power over its territory and inhabitants, as well as its independence of any external authority.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Sir John Fisher Williams, Aspects of Modern International Law, Oxford 1939 p. 29.
Liber autem populus est qui nullius alterius populi potestati est subiectus. Digest, XLIX, 15, 7, I. Grotius accepted and quoted this definition in De Lure Belli ac Pacis, 1625, lib. I, c. 2 par. 21.
Phillipson, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 111, 113, and Vol. II, p. 199.
Cf. the interesting study by L. J. Constantinescu, “Les traités internationaux en droit romain,” in Annales Universitatis Saraviensis, No. 2, Saarbrücken 1955, p. 132 ff.
Cf. Karol Koranyi, Ze studiów nad miedzynarodowymi traktatami w fredniowieczu (Studies on Medieval International Treaties), Lwów 1936, pp. 2–20.
Tractatus Represaliorum, 1354. Cf. here: Angelo P. Sereni, The Italian Conception of International Law, New York 1943, p. 59 ff. The very often quoted opinion by Bartolus reads in Latin: “Cum qualibet civitas Italiae... hodie dominum non recognoscat, in se habet liberum populum et habet merum imperium in ipso et tantam potestatem habet in populo quantam imperator in universo...”
The above quoted excerpt reads in original: “Notories namque at generaliter predicatur ab omnibus et ubique, quod a tempore Christi cifra regnum Francorum solum regem suum sub ipso Ihesu Christo... habuit, nullum temporalem superiorem cognoscens aut habens, quocumque imperatore regnante.” Cf. Mario Delle Piane, “Saggi sull’ideologia nazionale nella Francia di Filippo il Bello,” in Studi Senesi,Siena, fasc. 1–2, 1954, p. 65.
Ibidem, p. 87; other examples pp. 88 ff.; see for further examples in the field: Wiktor Sukiennicki, La Souveraineté des Etats en Droit International Moderne, Paris 1927; E. N. van Kleffens, “Sovereignty in International Law,” Hague Rec., vol. 82, 1953.
Cf. Georg Schwarzenberger, “International Law in Early English Practice,” British Yearbook of International Law 1948, London 1949, p. 55; also: Walter Ullman, The Medieval Idea of Law, London 1946.
Gallus Anonymus, Cronica Poloniae, cf. Manuscript Zamoyski of the XIVth century, edited recently by the Warsaw Scientific Society, Warsaw 1949. Cf. also editions by Bandtke, Warsaw 1924, and Grodecki, Cracow 1923; the latter in Polish translation.
Monumentum pro Reipublicae Ordinatione, Art. 5, 6, 21, included into Acta Tomiciana, Cracow, in the XVI century. Among other editions of this document, see those by Wegner, Poznafi 1860, and Bobrzyfiski in Starodawne Prawa Polskiego Pomniki (Ancient Monuments of Polish Law), Cracow. Cf. also: Fr. Kasparek, The Contribution of Poles to the Growth of International Law (in Polish), Lwów 1885.
Cf. Delos, op. cit.,pp. 215–224; Barthélemy, op. cit., p. 7 ff., 25 ff. Text in Carnegie Classics: Francisci Vitoria de Indis et de Lure Belli Rekctiones, Washington 1917. About the right of society and of communication, see Sect. III: “I. Primus titulus potest vocari naturalis societatis et communications”; “Secunda Propositio” concerns “Commercium.” The right to travel is “Ius peregrinandi.” De Indic, Sec. III, 386.
Les Six Livres de la République, De J. Bodin Angeuin, Paris, Chex Jacques du Puys, 1576. Cf. L.I.IX.125. “République” means “State”; see five kinds of States according to the form of their governments in Book II. Bodin translated himself this work into Latin as De Republica Libri Six.
In the Latin edition, the definition sounds different: “suprema in cives ac subditos legibusque soluta potestas,” which means “the supreme power over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law,” L.I.IX, 125.
Hugonis Grotii, De lure Belli ac Paris, libri Ires, first ed. 1625, L.I., C.I. par. X.
Ibidem, L.II, C. XXIII, pars VI, VII, VIII. Cf. also Basdevant, op. cit., and Maurice Bourquin, “Grotius et les tendances actuelles du droit international,” in Rev. de Droit Int. et de Legisl. Comp., Paris, 1926, pp. 88 ff. Cf. also: J. Walter Jones, Historical Introduction to the Theory of Law, Oxford, 1940: pp. 98–138 about the Law of Nature; pp. 79–97, about the sovereignty theory.
De lure Naturae et Gentium, French. trans. by Jean Barbeyrac, as: Le Droit de la Nature et des Gens, 1712, L.II., Ch. III, p. 169.
Quoted in French by Redslob, op. cit., p. 223.
For generations of lawyers and statesmen Vattel’s book was an appreciated desk encyclopedia of international law. Prof. Jessup gives us in this connection an interesting fact that George Washington borrowed a copy of Vattel’s book from the New York Library on October 5, 1789. Cf. Proceedings of the ASIL, Washington 1955, p. 5.
Cf. Victor Basch, Les Doctrines politiques de philosophes classiques de l’Allemagne, Paris 1927; Xavier Léon, Fichte et son temps, Paris, 3 vols., 1922–1927; see: Frederick Hertz, Nationality in History and Politics, London 1951, pp. 336 ff.
Cf. Hertz, op. cit., p. 340; in his book on the perfect State, published in 1800, Fichte believes that a State, before secluding itself, should occupy a sufficient territory within natural frontiers, and then give solemn assurance to all governments that it would not strive for further expansion, and take no part in any war. Hertz, ibidem, p. 337. This sounds like Hitler’s assurances after every conquest in 1938/39.
Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, 1821, cf. particularly pars. 331–333, 258; see: Roscoe Pound, Interpretations of Legal History, Cambridge, Mass. 1946; about Savigny, pp. 14 ff., about Hegel, pp. 47 ff.
Rudolf von Ihering, Der Zweck im Recht, Berlin 1880, and Der Geist des Römischen Rechts, Vol. IV, also in French ed. as Esprit du Droit Romain, Paris.
Laband followed Ihering in his Public Law of the German Reich, also French ed. Droit Public de l’Empire Allemand; Bergbohm in Das Internationale Recht der zioilizierten Nationen, Berlin 1886.
Ihering in Der Zweck im Recht, 1880, Vol. I, p. 318 ff.; Jellinek in Die Rechtliche Natur der Staatenvertröge, 1880 and in Allgemeine Staatslehre, 1st ed. Berlin 1900, 4th ed. Berlin 1922.
Alfred Verdross, “Règles Générales du Droit International de la Paix,” Hague Rec. t. 30, 1929, pp. 345 f.
H. Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community, Oxford 1933, p. 411. For the review and criticism of the doctrine of self-limitation, and connected German theories, cf. Sukiennicki, op. cit., pp. 174 ff. See for the review and analysis of the doctrines concerning the matters discussed above: James Brown Scott, Law, the State, and the International Community, New York 1939, 2 volumes.
Contribution à la théorie générale de l’Etat, Paris 1920, t. I, pp. 237 ff.
Traité de Droit Public International, Paris 1905, pp. 227, 164.
Treitschke (1834–1896), History of Germany in the nineteenth century, and Politik, Berlin 1897–1898, cf. Vol. II, p. 100. About the overwhelming influence of Treitschke upon the German people and nationalist ideas, see Ernst Leipprand, Treitschke im deutschen Geistesleben des 19 Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1935.
Histoire Romaine, French ed., t. II, p. 36. See also: G. Gooch, History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century, 1920.
Joseph comte de Gobineau, Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines, 1854, and 1884; Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, 1899.
Quoted by Redslob, Histoire..., op. cit.,p. 433. This declaration contradicts the Protocol of London of January 17, 1871 which prohibits the unilateral annulment of international obligations; Germany was one of its signatories.
Frederick General von Bernhardi of the German Grand General Staff, and an adviser to William II, in his book Germany and the Next War, Berlin 1912.
Notwehr and Neutralität, Berlin 1914. The American Institute of International Law, in its Declaration of Rights and Duties of Nations, of January 6, 1916, p. I, rejects categorically this alleged “law of necessity,” affirming that “the right to conserve the State’s own existence neither implies the right nor justifies the act of the State to protect itself or to conserve its existence by the commission of unlawful acts against innocent and unoffending States.” Carnegie, Washington 1916.
Cf. Helmut Nicolai, Die Grundlagen der neuen Verfassung, Berlin 1933.
Mein Kampf, French ed. in Nouvelles Editions Latines, Paris, s.t. Mon Combat; cf. pp. 412, 640, 641, 650–652.
Rassengesetzliche Rechtslehre, Munich 1934, p. 20; cf. also Alfred Rosenberg, Der Mythus des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, and the writings by Evald Banse, Hans Grimm, etc. See for summary presentation of the Hitlerite doctrine: J. Fournier, La conception national-socialiste du droit des gens, Paris 1939 and Lawrence Preuss in Revue Gin. de Droit Int. Publ. (RGDIP) 1935, pp. 669 ff.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1959 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Korowicz, M.S. (1959). Sovereignty of States in Theory. Universalist and Nationalist Conceptions. In: Introduction to International Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9226-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9226-2_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8496-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9226-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive