SOFT LAW AND SOVEREIGNTY – FROM A POLITICAL TO A LEGAL LIMITATION

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
Pravni Vjesnik Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.25234/pv/15594
Dragutin Avramović
{"title":"SOFT LAW AND SOVEREIGNTY – FROM A POLITICAL TO A LEGAL LIMITATION","authors":"Dragutin Avramović","doi":"10.25234/pv/15594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Firstly, the author analyses the theory of sovereignty from the point of its birth and then he considers more recent theoretical challenges facing the notion of sovereignty in a globalised world. Particular attention is paid to soft law – that new, formally non-binding source of international law in the light of its factual influence on the desovereignisation of states. The author holds the position that the relativisation of the notion of sovereignty has been a process that began already in the 18th century and that has only additionally accelerated with new challenges posed by globalisation. The author argues for the only possible and proper use of the notion of sovereignty in its original meaning as an absolute, completely unlimited, and indivisible power. On the other hand, he takes a critical approach not only to the theory of constitutional pluralism but also to the ideas of the state’s legal sovereignty. He pleads for rejection of separating different aspects of sovereignty, artificially distinguishing between the factual and legal sovereignty, as well as the external and internal sovereignty. While theoretically possible, it is of no practical use because the notion of sovereignty can only be correctly understood as a political and legal illimitability. For all other various modalities and attempts at relativising and grading sovereignty, from the 18th century to this day, different terms should be coined. Being mindful of the situation in most of the present-day states, the author advocates the introduction of the term \"pseudo-sovereignty\".","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pravni Vjesnik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/15594","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Firstly, the author analyses the theory of sovereignty from the point of its birth and then he considers more recent theoretical challenges facing the notion of sovereignty in a globalised world. Particular attention is paid to soft law – that new, formally non-binding source of international law in the light of its factual influence on the desovereignisation of states. The author holds the position that the relativisation of the notion of sovereignty has been a process that began already in the 18th century and that has only additionally accelerated with new challenges posed by globalisation. The author argues for the only possible and proper use of the notion of sovereignty in its original meaning as an absolute, completely unlimited, and indivisible power. On the other hand, he takes a critical approach not only to the theory of constitutional pluralism but also to the ideas of the state’s legal sovereignty. He pleads for rejection of separating different aspects of sovereignty, artificially distinguishing between the factual and legal sovereignty, as well as the external and internal sovereignty. While theoretically possible, it is of no practical use because the notion of sovereignty can only be correctly understood as a political and legal illimitability. For all other various modalities and attempts at relativising and grading sovereignty, from the 18th century to this day, different terms should be coined. Being mindful of the situation in most of the present-day states, the author advocates the introduction of the term "pseudo-sovereignty".
软法律与主权&从政治限制到法律限制
首先,作者从主权理论诞生的角度对其进行了分析,然后考虑了在全球化世界中主权概念面临的最近的理论挑战。特别关注软法,这是一种新的、形式上不具约束力的国际法来源,因为它对国家脱主权具有实际影响。作者认为,主权概念的相对化是一个始于18世纪的过程,随着全球化带来的新挑战,这一过程只会进一步加速。作者主张,只有尽可能和适当地使用主权概念的原意,即绝对、完全无限和不可分割的权力。另一方面,他不仅对宪法多元主义理论持批判态度,而且对国家的法律主权思想持批判态度。他请求拒绝将主权的不同方面分开,人为地区分事实主权和法律主权以及外部主权和内部主权。虽然在理论上是可能的,但它没有实际用处,因为主权的概念只能被正确地理解为政治和法律上的不可侵犯性。从18世纪到今天,对于主权相对化和分级的所有其他各种模式和尝试,应该创造不同的术语。考虑到当今大多数国家的情况,作者主张引入“伪主权”一词。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信