Sovereignty, in political science, can also be defined as the ultimate authority. Derived from the Latin term superanus through the French term souveraineté, sovereignty was originally meant to be the equivalent of supreme power. But as time goes through, the definition shifted bit by bit until eventually, the concept of sovereignty becomes a controversial matter. The concept, being controversial as it is, is closely related to the difficult and varied concept of state, government, independence, and democracy.
Thomas Hobbes
One of those people who gave their thought about sovereignty was Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes was a philosopher which was born on Malmesbury, which is in Wiltshire, England, about 30 miles east of Bristol. Even though he is widely known mostly for his political philosophies, his thoughts are not only limited to politics, but also extends to other fields such as religion, physiology, math, physics, etc
In his political view, Hobbes describes state as a big, scary giant that legitimates himself just because he has the ability to "threaten" the people. The reason why Hobbes describes state as such is because at his time, the form of governance exist was absolute governance. Beside that, according to Hobbes, basically human has same basic character such as appetite, interest, and aversion. And the government at that time was held by king, which is also a human. Hobbes won't approve this arbitrariness, because he wants to base the state to something unwavering.
The fruit of his thoughts is what's called by social contract. At first, he thinks of the state of nature, where there is no supreme power that can discipline the people. He then concludes that the state of nature is the state of war. To prevent this war state, a contract must be made. To be able to ensure security, stability, and welfare, the people must give their right to several people or institute. These people or institute are the ones who hold the full sovereignty in the state. The holder of the sovereignty has the right to rule and ensure the safety of the ruled. But on the other side, the people as the ones who give their rights, don't have any more rights to take it back since that is the most sensible decision they can make to be detached from the on-going war. So, Hobbes' social contract is not a contract between the ruler and the ruled, but a contract to end the state of nature, done by the naturally isolated and anti-social individuals, the unity of the individuals in the social contract is not the source of sovereignty but the consequence of sovereignty.
Immanuel Kant
Another philosopher that gives his thought to the concept of sovereignty is Immanuel Kant. Kant was born on Konigsberg, 1724. At his young age, Kant studied philosophy, math, and science.
And Kant, as a natural science undergraduate, welcome the opinion saying that the state is formed by the social contract. And same with Rosseau, Kant also states that the sovereignty is in the hand of the people, and the general will is formed into the state regulations.
What differentiate Kant's social contract with the others' is that Kant has the view that without a state, humans will not bound to the rules and regulations that were made, and the state itself is bunches of human bound to the rules and regulations because of the act of state is justified. In other words, Kant acknowledges that in the society, the rules and regulations are needed. And in doing the rules and regulations, the society must be under the shade of a state.
Also, another thing that differentiate Kant's social contract with the others' is that Kant's contract is not really a 'contract', but a juridic construction that might help people in explaining how the state was made, how was it existed, how was the power in it, and how was the character.
The most apparent difference between Hobbes' and Kant's social contract is that Hobbes truly believes that the people really make a contract which submit their right of sovereignty to the governance, while Kant believes that the contract is made in the form of juridic construction.
Case example of sovereignty is:
The Court begins by recalling the complex historical background of the dispute between the Parties. It then examines the titles invoked by them. Indonesia's claim to sovereignty over the islands is based primarily on a conventional title, the 1891 Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands. Indonesia, thus, maintains that that Convention established the 4° 10' north parallel of latitude as the dividing line between the British and Dutch possessions in the area where Ligitan and Sipadan are situated. As the disputed islands lie to the south of that parallel, "[i]t therefore follows that under the Convention title to those islands vested in the Netherlands, and now vests in Indonesia". Malaysia, for its part, asserts that the 1891 Convention, when seen as a whole, clearly shows that Great Britain and the Netherlands sought by the Convention solely to clarify the boundary between their respective land possessions on the islands of Borneo and Sebatik, since the line of delimitation stops at the easternmost point of the latter island. Having found that neither of the Parties has a treaty-based title to Ligitan and Sipadan, the Court next considers the question whether Indonesia or Malaysia could hold title to the disputed islands by virtue of the effectivités cited by them. In this regard, the Court determines whether the Parties' claims to sovereignty are based on activities evidencing an actual, continued exercise of authority over the islands, i.e., the intention and will to act as sovereign. Indonesia cites in this regard a continuous presence of the Dutch and Indonesian navies in the vicinity of Ligitan and Sipadan. It adds that Indonesian fishermen have traditionally used the waters around the islands. In respect of the first of these arguments, it is the opinion of the Court that "it cannot be deduced [from the facts relied upon in the present proceedings] that the naval authorities concerned considered Ligitan and Sipadan and the surrounding waters to be under the sovereignty of the Netherlands or Indonesia". As for the second argument, the Court considers that "activities by private persons cannot be seen as effectivités if they do not take place on the basis of official regulations or under governmental authority". The Court concludes, on the basis of the effectivités referred to above, that "sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia". (source: http://www.un.org/press/en/2002/ICJ605.doc.htm)
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar