Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Sovereignty, at its core, denotes supreme power or authority. It is the defining element of a state, enabling it to govern without internal or external constraints. John Austin, a 19th-century legal positivist, formulated a precise theory of sovereignty, emphasizing its legal basis. Simultaneously, Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century philosopher, developed a theory of sovereignty stemming from the inherent dangers of the ‘state of nature’. Both thinkers addressed the necessity of a supreme authority, but their justifications and conceptualizations differed significantly, shaping subsequent political thought and jurisprudence. This answer will delineate Austin’s theory and contrast it with Hobbes’s perspective.
John Austin’s Theory of Sovereignty
John Austin, in his work ‘The Province of Jurisprudence Determined’ (1832), defined sovereignty as the source of law. His theory, often termed the ‘command theory’, rests on three essential elements:
- The Sovereign: The sovereign is an individual or body of individuals who habitually obey no other human being. This implies absolute and indivisible power.
- The Subject: These are the individuals or bodies of individuals who are in a habit of obedience to the sovereign.
- The Command: Sovereignty manifests through commands backed by the threat of sanction. A law is a command of the sovereign, and its validity stems from the sovereign’s power to enforce it.
Austin distinguished between ‘legal sovereignty’ (the ultimate source of law) and ‘political sovereignty’ (the body actually exercising power). He believed that legal sovereignty was the more fundamental concept. Austin’s theory is strictly positivistic, meaning it focuses on ‘law as it is’ rather than ‘law as it ought to be’. He rejected notions of natural law or divine right as sources of legal authority.
Hobbes’s Theory of Sovereignty
Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal work ‘Leviathan’ (1651), argued that the state of nature is a “war of all against all,” where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To escape this chaotic state, individuals enter into a social contract, surrendering their rights to an absolute sovereign.
Unlike Austin, Hobbes’s sovereignty isn’t merely about issuing commands. It’s about maintaining order and security. The sovereign’s power isn’t derived from a legal rule but from the consent of the governed, albeit a consent given out of fear of the state of nature. Hobbes advocated for a single, undivided sovereign – preferably a monarch – to prevent factionalism and ensure effective governance. His theory is rooted in natural law, specifically the natural right to self-preservation, which justifies the surrender of other rights to the sovereign.
Comparison: Austin vs. Hobbes
| Feature | John Austin | Thomas Hobbes |
|---|---|---|
| Source of Sovereignty | Legal positivism – the power to command | Social contract – consent based on self-preservation |
| Justification for Sovereignty | Habitual obedience and the threat of sanction | Escape from the state of nature and ensuring security |
| Nature of Sovereign | Can be an individual or a body of individuals | Ideally a single, undivided authority (monarch) |
| Role of Law | Law is a command of the sovereign | Law is an instrument to maintain order established by the sovereign |
| Underlying Philosophy | Legal Positivism | Natural Law & Political Realism |
In essence, Austin’s theory is descriptive, focusing on the legal structure of sovereignty, while Hobbes’s is normative, explaining why sovereignty is necessary. Austin asks ‘what is’ sovereignty, while Hobbes asks ‘why’ we need sovereignty.
Conclusion
Both Austin and Hobbes offered influential theories of sovereignty, albeit from distinct philosophical perspectives. Austin’s legal positivism provided a precise, analytical framework for understanding the legal basis of authority, while Hobbes’s social contract theory offered a compelling justification for absolute power rooted in human nature and the need for order. While Austin’s theory is often criticized for its rigidity and inability to account for evolving constitutional norms, and Hobbes’s for its potential to justify authoritarianism, both remain crucial for understanding the foundations of political and legal thought.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.