Humanities and Social Science Research; Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 
ISSN 2576-3024   E-ISSN 2576-3032 

https://doi.org/10.30560/hssr.v4n3p1 

 1 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

The Concept of Sovereignty in the Political Philosophy – From 
Antiquity to the Contemporary Epoch 

Alexandru ARSENI1 & Veronica POZNEACOVA1 
1 Faculty of Law, Moldova State University, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova 
Correspondence: Veronica POZNEACOVA Faculty of Law, Moldova State University, Chisinau, Republic of 
Moldova. Tel: 373-6764-8753. E-mail: veronicapozneacova gmail.com 
 
Received: July 3, 2021, 2021; Accepted: August 3, 2021, 2021; Published: August 4, 2021 
 
Abstract 
The concept of state power represents the dominant theme of the whole political philosophy. The concept of 
sovereignty, which in contemporary epoch became the norm of constitutional law and unanimously recognized 
principle of international law, has concerned philosophical minds since antiquity to nowadays. The best minds of 
humanity contemplated about the essence of the state power. The major thinkers of all times were finding out the 
answer to the question “How should be organized the state so that all people to be happy?” The answer to this 
question is connected with the concept of sovereignty, which was developed during the humanity’s history. The 
idea of sovereignty refers to the state body or the person who exercises state power. So, for each epoch is 
characteristic its own vision of this concept, that reflects, on the one hand, the entire structure of society, and, on 
the other hand, the state’s ruler position. The sovereignty, which appeared as the concept in the Greek Antiquity, 
was developed in the Meddle Age and Modern Era and fully formed in the contemporary era, being the component 
part of majority national constitutions. This article is a study dedicated to determining the specific aspects of 
sovereignty in the background of the idea’s history. A doctrinal and practical interest in the concept of sovereignty 
is based on the political and legal dimension of this notion in the actual state construction. As a result of this 
research, we aimed to determine the role and the regulation of sovereignty in the cotemporaneous state order at 
national and international level. This research paper focuses on the presentation of the philosophical aspects of 
this concept of constitutional law.  
Keywords: sovereignty, political philosophy, state power, ruler, state’s order, constitution, UN, EU 
1. Introduction 
1.1 The Importance and the Actuality of the Study 
The purpose of the research. Based on the complex, philosophical and legal study of sovereignty, we aimed to 
identify trends in evolution of this concept and the importance of the classical philosophical theories on the actual 
perception of “state sovereignty” in the current conditions of intensive cooperation between states during the 
process of contemporary globalization both at national, regional and international levels. In this context, we 
investigated the problem from the aspect of dialectical evolution with the identification of the negative aspects of 
globalization. We determined the solutions for diminishing the negative consequences of this phenomenon in 
relation to sovereignty. 
Research objectives. To achieve the identified goal, we have outlined the following objectives: to identify the 
fundamental elements of the genesis and evolution of the philosophical concept of sovereignty; to identify the 
specific aspects of notion of this concept, that was promoted in the Antiquity, Meddle Age, Modern Era and 
Contemporary Epoch, to analyze the concept of state ruler, characteristic for each epoch, to establish the essence 
of the concept of sovereignty elaborated during the Enlightenment Epoch, to identify the international law’s 
approaches of the recognition and guarantee of state sovereignty; to determine the legal and practical aspects of 
the exercise of sovereignty in the regional framework – European Union; to perform an comparative approach of 
state sovereignty at different periods of the formation of this concept; to determine the importance of the 
philosopher’s ideas in the modern constitutionalism; to analyze the specific aspects of the legal regulation of 
sovereignty in the Republic of Moldova.  
The originality of this study is manifested in the identification of the primary factors which exert a negative 
influence on the state’s sovereignty, for example, globalization and the determining of solutions that can mitigate 
this negative impact. We analyzed the importance and complexity of state sovereignty both from the point of view 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 2 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

of the independence and sovereignty of power and the necessity of guarantying of fundamental citizen rights at 
national and international level.  
The connection between the philosophical and practical aspect of sovereignty. In this study, we began from 
the philosophical approaches to the concept of sovereignty, analyzed the achievements of the Enlightenment Epoch 
and finally show the connection between theoretical approaches and contemporary legal regulations. 
The legal regulation of sovereignty. We should mention that sovereignty, as a general feature of the state, is 
regulated at the international, regional—European Union and national level. At the international level, the UN 
Charter regulates state sovereignty (United Nations Charter Chapter 6 and 7). The charter, on the one hand, 
proclaims and recognizes the sovereignty of each state. Nevertheless, this international treaty admits “humanitarian 
intervention “, which” constitutes a calculated and unsolicited violation of sovereignty (rights of states) in the 
name of humanity (individual rights)”. At the European Union’s level state sovereignty is regulated by the Treaty 
on the functioning of the European Union (Treaty of Rome of 1957) according to which in some fields, mentioned 
expressly in this document only EU could legislate. State’s are enforced to adopt the legal acts that regulate this 
domain only if the Union empowers the state or it implements the EU’s acts. (The Treaty On The Functioning Of 
The European Union) At the national level state sovereignty, traditionally, is regulated by the Constitution. 
1.2 General Review of the Study 
Sovereignty represents one of the basic concepts of constitutional and international law that are related to the state 
power. During the humanity’s history people try to define the state power, to determine the holder of power. 
Nowadays, sovereignty remains the characteristic feature of power. However, both in the doctrine of constitutional 
law and in the political philosophy aspects related to the philosophical theory of sovereignty remain practically 
unaffected. Due to the fact that the whole theory of the sovereignty was elaborated only in the mid-16th century 
by Jean Bodin, the majority of researchers begin the studying of the history of the crystallization of the concept of 
sovereignty, starting from this period, neglecting the ideas and opinions expressed in the Ancient times and the 
Middle Ages. The possibility of determining the particularities of the theory and practice of state power at each 
stage of development of society manifests the importance of the research of this concept from the evaluative aspect, 
starting from Antiquity and ending with the Contemporary Period. In addition, classical theories of sovereignty 
represent the conceptual basis of sovereignty in contemporary acceptance, which determines the necessity to 
appeal to the origins of state power to determine the importance of theories promoted by great philosophers in the 
current construction of state power.  
We should note that in the XXI century, the concept of sovereignty is in the process of cardinal changing. Actually, 
humanity is facing transformations that were unimaginable in the twentieth century that also influence the concept 
of state power. The capitalization of sovereignty in the evolutionary aspect allows us, on the one hand, to realize 
the experience of the great philosophers who help us understand the concept of state power in all its depth and 
complexity, and, on the other hand, to identify the foundations of state power at each age of development of the 
human community.  
Nowadays, the existence of international organizations leads to the creation and promotion of the concept of 
collective sovereignty that leads to the reconsideration of the concept of state power as the absolute and perpetual 
power of a republic, as it was positioned by philosophers. Therefore, the timeliness of this study is manifested by 
the necessity to research the concept of sovereignty both through the prism of classical theories and the current 
practice of international relations.  
This article aims to determine the philosophical base of the concept of sovereignty in each epoch of the humanity’s 
history in the background of the historical reality of that time and the determination of the practical applicability 
of classical theories in the contemporary period. 
The theoretical implication of this study is manifested by the research of the theory of state power at the early 
stages of the development of the political thinking of humanity, as well as highlighting their actuality nowadays. 
The practical implication of this article manifests in the determining the current challenges of state power and 
systematizing the theory of sovereignty in the current period. 
1.3 Literature Review 
The history of sovereignty begins many centuries ago in Ancient Greece. Since Antiquity to the modern era, people 
were contemplated the best way of the social organization that would give to citizens the possibility to live a happy 
life. In this period of time were developed various theories about a person or state body that exercise or should 
exercise state power.  



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 3 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

Plato and Aristotle, the Ancient Greece’s philosophers, were first thinkers that reflected on the essence and the 
base of state power. Thinkers examined the concept of the form of government and the role of the state’s leader in 
social order. These philosophers did not formulate the notion of sovereignty, but expressed of essence of this 
concept that would be developed later.  
The Middle Ages comes with another political philosophy. In this epoch in the incipient form were outlined the 
most important theories of sovereignty, that were developed later. Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) developed 
the theory of papal sovereignty, according to with papa should be the most influenced person in the state and his 
power should be positioned above the royal power. So, this philosopher legitimated the church’s power, in general, 
and the papal power, in particular. However, Saint Thomas Aquinas confused secular power with religious one. 
This vision mirrors the social organization of that time, the perception of church’s role in state order and the 
struggle between papal and royal power. Another thinker of Middle Ages Marsilius of Padua founded the theory 
of popular sovereignty. According to him, state power belongs to the people, the idea that would be developed 
during the Enlightenment. Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) culminated the formation of political thought of the 
Middle Ages with the elaboration of the concept of royal sovereignty. According to him, the personality of the 
Prince represents the conception of the entire state power. So, Machiavelli personified state power, the approach 
characteristic for totalitarian regimes.  
Analyzing the development of the concept of sovereignty, we should mention the philosophy of Johannes 
Althusius, one of the most influential thinkers of the Modern Epoch. Thinker founded the theory of subsidiarity of 
state power. This theory shows another aspect of sovereignty manifested in the increasing the decision-making 
power of local bodies that should resolve the most important problems of citizens. So, the mechanism of state 
power goes from the bottom up, and not from the top down, as in the framework of the totalitarian regime. Another 
representative thinker of modernity, Hugo Grotius, founded the concept of state sovereignty. Thinker did not link 
the concept of sovereignty with the body exercising state power, stating that supremacy within society should 
belong to the state. This idea, in the interpretation of Thomas Hobbes, embodies the state as a mythical, fabulous 
creature, absolutely independent of the will of the people who compose it. The state becomes a body with its own 
will and interests, an almighty Leviathan, which is indifferent to the rights and interests of people.  
The Enlightenment represents the new epoch in the formation of the concept of sovereignty. In this period human 
potential has been harnessed and namely the person becomes the center of the universe, art and philosophy. Based 
on the social contract theory created by Hobbes, John Locke (1632-1704) founded the popular sovereignty theory 
that met the strong opposition manifested by the foundation of the theory of national sovereignty elaborated by 
Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755). Despite the conceptual differences between the theory of popular and national 
sovereignty, people remain the main holders of power, which does not belong to the state leadership. The 
development of the concept of sovereignty mirrors the fight against absolute monarchy for the defense of human 
potential, fundamental and inalienable human rights. Despite the development of the theory of popular and national 
sovereignty, Georg Hegel supported the sovereignty of the monarch, stating that without the monarch there state 
could not exist. So, the thinker’s vision could be catalogued as a continuation of the ideas of Machiavelli, who 
personified state power. 
In contemporary epoch, the concept of royal sovereignty showed all the negative aspects, including the 
establishment of the totalitarian regime and total disregard for fundamental human rights, which led to the 
diminution of its importance within democratic societies. Actually, the conceptual difference between the theory 
of popular, national and state sovereignty disappears and the people are considered the plenary and plenipotentiary 
holder of state power. However, the foundation and the development of the international organizations such as the 
EU, UN, and over represent a new challenge for the concept of sovereignty, which determines the necessity of the 
awareness of the importance of this concept and updating it according to the current reality.  
2. Methodology  
This research paper is based on the analysis of various researches, mainly aiming to describe the essence of the 
concept of sovereignty from the prism of the political philosophy. In this research, we used the logical method 
with its operations such as analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, generalization, abstraction for the consistent 
study all aspects of the thesis topic. In this paper, we analyzed critically the essence of the most important concepts 
of the philosophers relevant for our study. The application of the synthetic method gave us the possibility to 
identify the philosophical concepts developed by the great thinkers that helped us to support the proposed thesis. 
We could determine the common aspects of the classic and contemporaneous theories that form the actual concepts 
sovereignty by analysis of the theme from the general point of view. We applied the comparative research method 
by analyzing the specific aspects of the popular and national sovereignty and the development of these theories in 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 4 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

the political philosophy. So, we analyzed the similarities and the different aspects of theories developed by 
different thinkers, for example, Plato’s and Aristotle’s doctrine, the concept of people’s sovereignty developed by 
Marsilius of Padua, Johannes Althusius and John Locke. Analyzing the subject from the historical point of view, 
we could determine the dominant tendencies of each epoch and the evolution of the concept of sovereignty from 
Antiquity to the contemporary period. The use of the systemic-structural method was manifested by the treatment 
of sovereignty as a dimension, a component part of the entire state structure. 
Thus, we started by analyzing the definition of the sovereignty from the point of view of Ancient Greece’s 
philosophers because in that period of time this concept has not fully crystallized. An important part of this research 
was dedicated to the question “Who is the holder of the supreme power in the state?” In order to find answer to 
this question, we analyzed the philosophy of the concept of sovereignty, the ideas of the most influential thinkers 
that founded and argued the ideas of papal, state, national and popular sovereignty. Another important part of this 
study is dedicated to comparative method that gives us possibility to determine advantages, disadvantages and the 
legal consequences of each theory. In addition, this research paper focuses on the forecasting some trends within 
the actual theory in the context sovereignty in the XXI century at the international level.  
3. Results and Discussion  
3.1 The Genesis of the Concept of Sovereignty in Antiquity  
The concept of sovereignty has emerged together with the emergence of the state (Deleanu I., 1993, p.72), in the 
period of transition from the pre-state epoch to the state one. This concept could not be separated from the state 
power, referring to the person / category of persons who exercise public authority. So, sovereignty represents an 
inherent attribute of state power. On the one hand, this concept could not be found in pre-state society, the 
conceptual development of sovereignty is linked to the process of integration or reconciliation between the state 
and the community. (Hinsley F. H., 1998, p. 17) On the other hand, the idea of sovereignty is in continue 
development in each society where this concept appeared once. Modifications in the form of government and 
political regime directly affect the vision of the sovereignty of this state. Thus, the concept of sovereignty is in the 
permanent development. Each epoch comes with an alternative approach, a new definition of it that expresses the 
state order in this period.  
At the beginning of the formation of sovereignty as political and judicial concept, it expressed the idea that there 
is supreme and absolute political authority in the political community. (Hinsley F. H., 1998, p.20) So, this concept 
is connected with the political domain of society. From the historical perspective, the sovereignty of state power 
represents the social and political phenomenon and the realization of social-economic life. The sovereignty as a 
practice of the exercise of state power appeared before its crystallization as a theoretical notion. The emergence of 
this concept was determined by the historical needs, reflecting the fundamental characteristics of the state: supreme 
authority exercised in a certain territory, the right to proper economic, social, political, military, administrative 
organization, to draw up and impose compliance to laws. (Ionescu C. 2014) 
It is stated that the classical Greeks developed the idea of sovereignty, at least in the Aristotle’s times it was present. 
Namely, the Greeks were the first who understood the meaning of this concept. (Hinsley F. H., 1998, p. 24) 
However, in Antiquity, especially in Greece, there was not developed all-encompassing definition of sovereignty. 
Thinkers studied the concept of the forms of government from which we could implicitly describe their vision of 
sovereignty. According to antic philosophers, the category of citizens that exercises state power depends on the 
form of government of the state. So, we can conclude that in the state where democracy represents the form of 
government, the power is exercised by all people or most of them. On the contrary, prince exercises all state power 
during the monarchy as a form of government. So, sovereignty is exercised by the aristocratic rulers or by all 
citizens. The Polis was seen as a community governed by law and not by people. Among Greek thinkers, Aristotle 
came closest to the concept of sovereignty when he suggested that it was preferable for superiority to be invested 
in this law than in any person within the community. (Hinsley F. H., 1998, p.24) Accordingly, we note that the 
supreme power in the Greek Polis was attributed to the law, but not to certain persons who exercise state power. 
To establish the holder of state power in the vision of Greek philosophers, we should analyze the system of the 
forms of government described by thinkers. Plato divided all forms of government into just (ideal) and unfair (bad) 
forms of government. An aristocratic republic and an aristocratic monarchy were considered as fair state’s forms. 
The unjust state’s forms included timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. (Guceac I.,2004, p.95) Monarchy 
(one-person’s government) and aristocracy (the rule of intellectuals) “the government of the best citizens” 
represents the best form of government that could be established in the state. So, we can conclude that during the 
monarchy and aristocracy the power is exercised individually or by a small group of people. During these forms 
of government, the state power is exercised by the political elites that include the best citizens of Polis. Another 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 5 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

form of government described by Plato is timocracy (“power based on honor”) in which state power belongs to a 
minority, formed by the people with military successes and brave. (Râbca E., Zaharia V. 2016, p. 56) So, during 
these forms of government sovereignty belongs to the military class in which is concentrated the complete state 
power. Oligarchy (“rule of the few citizens”) represents the form of government in which the state power is 
exercised by the rich persons (Nechaev, 2018, p.7) who can make any decision that concerns the life of the state. 
During the democracy, the power belongs to the majority of citizens of Polis. (Nechaev, 2018, p.7) So, apparently, 
in the description of democracy Plato approaches the concept of popular sovereignty because entire power is 
concentrated in nation. However, the democracy in the vision of the great thinker is the bad form of government 
that generates tyranny in which the power is arbitrary and individually. (Nechaev, 2018, p.7) We can conclude that 
in Plato’s doctrine the person or state body that exercises state power depends on the form of government 
established in society at a period of time.  
Aristotle’s theory of the forms of government is close to that elaborated by Plato, with the difference that Aristotle 
classified the forms of government starting from the number of governors and the interests that are pursued in the 
process of governance. Aristotle distinguishes the following six forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and 
police as good forms of government and tyranny, oligarchy and democracy as bad forms of state organization. 
(Râbca E., 2016, p. 63-64) The doctrine of Aristotle allows a double interpretation. From the first perspective, the 
sovereignty belongs to the person or group of persons exercising state power. From the other perspective, we 
should focus on the plenary holder of power, in other words, in the category of persons in the interest of which 
state power is exercised (Stere C., 2016, p. 43). Within this interpretation, we can conclude that the Aristotle’s 
concept is approaching to the concept of sovereignty promoted in the contemporary era that positions the people 
as the holder of power, and the rulers are only representatives of their interests. 
So, we can conclude that according to Ancient Greece philosopher the concept of sovereignty is related to that of 
the forms of government and the person or state body that exercises state power is the holder of sovereignty. In 
that period, there was no distinction between sovereignty and state power, the person or a group of people exercise 
state power, and the interest that was promoted. So, the theories of ancient thinkers represent the base of the 
concepts as state power, sovereignty and legitimacy of power that refers to the respect of the general interest of 
entire society. 
Speaking about the terminological formation of this concept, we should note that the word “sovereignty” comes 
from Latin form of the word super (above). (Arseni A., 2019, p.31) It is considered that the first definition of 
sovereignty is that formulated in a text of the Roman jurisconsult Proculus (sec. I C. E.): “Liber autem populus est 
is, qui nullius alterius populi potestati est subjectus”, which translates as: “the free and independent people are 
those who have not been subject to the rule of another people.” (Kondurov V., 2016,p.6) Thus, we should note 
that de development of the sovereignty in Antiquity finished with the terminological crystallization of this notion, 
which would be developed in the Middle Ages. 
3.2 The Emergence of the Concept of Sovereignty in the Middle Ages  
The development of the theory of sovereignty continued in the Middle Ages. The first mention of this word is 
found in the large workbook of the Monastery of Saint-Victor. (Kondurov V., 2016,p.6) Later, the sense of the 
word “sovereignty” has changed, meaning the situation of the man whom in social hierarchy is not subordinate to 
anyone. (Arseni A., 2019, p.31) In this sense this word was used for the first time in the 1283 year by Philip de 
Bonnamour, a French jurist who asserted that every baron is sovereign in his estate. (Kondurov V., 2016,p.6) We 
should note that the elaboration and theorization of the concept of sovereignty begins only in the Middle Ages 
when “superanus” was used to show the position of the king who is at the top of the feudal hierarchy. (Deleanu I., 
1993, p. 72)  
In this context we should note the specific aspects of the state organization in Middle Ages. In this epoch were 
established feudal hierarchical relationships between different levels of landowning classes, namely between a 
king, a noble class (which could include nobles, priests, and princes) and a peasant class. Historically, the king 
owned all the available land and he portioned out that land to his nobles for their use. The nobles, in turn, rented 
out their land to peasants. The peasants paid the nobles in produce and military service; the nobles, in turn, paid 
the king. Everyone was, at least nominally, in thrall to the king, and the peasants' labor paid for everything. During 
the feudal system peasant families who had for generations owned small farmsteads became renters, indentured 
servants who owed the landlords their allegiance, their military service and part of their crops. Just before the rise 
of the black plague in the 14th century, feudalism was firmly established and working across Europe. This was a 
near-universality of family-farm tenure by conditionally hereditary leases under noble, ecclesiastical or princely 
lordships who collected cash and in-kind payments from their subject villages. The king essentially delegated the 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 6 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

collection of his needs—military, political and economic—to the nobles. By that time, the king's justice—or rather, 
his ability to administer that justice—was largely theoretical. The lords dispensed the law with little or no kingly 
oversight, and as a class supported each other's hegemony. Peasants lived and died under the control of the noble 
classes. (Hirst, K. Kris, 2018)  
We should mention that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 391AD. With this 
protection, the church grew in numbers and influence and became the most powerful institution in the Europe. 
(The Church’s Role in Feudalism) The beginning of medieval period was characterized by a sharp divide between 
religious and lay life. Religious and lay lives were equally hierarchical and the churchmen’s power and authority 
were similar to that of the great lords’. (Rasheda Parveen, p.3) Every strata of society was wrapped into religious 
boundary. The activities of the soldiers and the knights were judged according to religious ideals. (Rasheda 
Parveen, p.9) 
The church leaders were the most educated individuals in society. They were called upon to help the secular leaders 
as advisors on political, financial, judicial, and military issues in addition to spiritual matters. Most important the 
church with its structure helped to legitimize the feudal system structure. The church taught that God appointed 
the pope and kings (divine right of kings). This meant that each person was born into their divinely determined 
position in society. By the end of the Medieval period, the church was largest landowner in the Europe owning 
one-third of the land. With that much land, the church became very powerful and with power comes the abuse of 
power.( The Church’s Role in Feudalism) 
We should highlight that namely, in Middle Ages begins the sovereignty’s conceptualization from the 
philosophical point of view. Analyzing this period in the idea’s history, we should highlight the domination of the 
religious doctrine that influences the political philosophy. One of the first thinkers that elaborated the entire theory 
of sovereignty was Saint Thomas of Aquino Dominican monk and professor of philosophy and theology, founder 
of the positive right based on the natural right. According to him, the natural law is founded on the divine law. 
Thinker declared the pope of Rome as the representative of the divine life and head of the “Republic of Christ”. 
(Arseni A., 2019, p.31) So, the pope of Rome might sanction monarchs, to elect Kings, and to release their 
subordinates from the obligation to obey the monarch. (Toma d’Aquino, 1994, p. 74) From this consideration, we could 
highlight the whole social hierarchy. According to Saint Thomas of Aquino, the individual should subordinate to 
the monarch and the king should submit to the church. The theory of this thinker legitimizes the papal authority, 
which led to the conclusion that sovereignty belongs to representatives of the Catholic Church. (Vrabie G., 1992, 
p.69) This idea is based on the consideration that the Divine Order objectively limits the entire eventual power of 
the state, (Birmo A.,1978, p.61) which should be subordinated to the church. So, the king is the vassal of church 
and must obey its will, defend and help to achieve goals, in the fight against heretics. As a result, the state plays 
the role of executioner that should execute the enemies of the church. The sovereign’s authority in the state could 
be explained by the biblical thesis “there is no dominion except from God”. (Râbca E., Zaharia V. 2016, p. 80) 
The thinker claimed that the monarch’s power has the supernatural source, as long as the sovereign never violates 
the authority of the church. (Bădescu M., 2002, p.25-28) In Christian conceptions, the temporal ruler (King, 
Emperor) is the Anointed by God for guidance for the common good. When the Ruler uses power in his own 
interest, he loses legitimacy, and God stirs up an adversary and replaces him. According to the opinion of other 
researchers, the concept developed by Sf. Thomas supports the view that the churches, the Pope, without having 
temporal sovereignty over Kings and emperors, could disapprove a worldly Dominion because of the abuses 
caused by sin. (Georgescu P. A., 2001, p. 78)  
So, philosopher considered that the state which does not subordinate to the Church has an illegal character, losing 
its right to existence. (Râbca E., Zaharia V. 2016, p.81) Respectively, we should note that the thinker created the 
theory of divine sovereignty. However, divine sovereignty does not mean that God approves any form of 
government. On the contrary, thinker approves passive and even active resistance to the power that has become 
tyrannical if there are presented some conditions such as: tyrant violates vital interests of state, there is no other 
way to remedy this situation, insurrection expresses the opinion of the majority at least qualitatively, has minimal 
chances of success and does not establish the greater evil than it was until the uprising.  
We should note that the philosopher developed another concept related to that of sovereignty - the concept of the 
legitimacy of state power, stating that legality does not constitute legitimacy, but legitimacy is the base of legality. 
(Birmo A.,1978, p.67) So, the legitimacy of state power is the basis for its legality. If the governors come to power 
as a result of the insurrection, this access to state power is illegal. However, if this insurrection is supported by the 
majority of the population, as a result of the expression of the will of the people, then this is the basis for the 
legality of the rulers’ actions. However, the legality of the coming to state power of a despotic monarch does not 
form the legitimacy of his reign, because he abuses the rights entrusted to him by God. 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 7 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

So, the importance of the theory of Saint Thomas of Aquino is manifested in the foundation of the concept of papal 
sovereignty, which corresponds to the church’s vision in the Middle Ages. However, the thinker realized the danger 
of the establishment of the totalitarian regime, which led him to legitimize people’s right to revolution. So, this 
theory, on the one hand, presents sovereignty as a divine attribute that is monopolized by the church, in general, 
and the pope of Rome, in particular, and, on the other hand, is the beginning of the awareness of the role of man 
in society and his right to decide the state’s fate.  
Namely during this period of time began the struggle between secular and church power. This struggle for supreme 
power in the state was especially manifested during the reign of Philip the Fair. This conflict escalate because 
Philip’s rupture with Boniface VIII Pope of Roma. In February 1296 he issued the bull Clericis laicos, prohibiting 
lay taxation of clergy without papal approval. Both Edward I and Philip, affronted by this threat to their authority 
and their treasuries, responded with retaliatory measures, forcing Boniface to retreat and, in July 1297, to proclaim 
the legitimacy of clerical taxation without the pope’s permission when the ruler attested its necessity. New grounds 
for dispute developed in 1301, when Philip arrested Bernard Saisset, bishop of Pamiers, as a suspected traitor. In 
December 1301 Boniface suspended Philip’s right to tax ecclesiastics and summoned the French clergy to Rome 
to discuss the king’s governance and the state of the French church. Saisset was permitted to go to Rome, but 
Boniface’s other measures encountered immediate resistance. Philip had a papal bull burned and ceremoniously 
invoked curses on any of his sons who dared subordinate the kingdom to any power other than God’s. In 1302-
1303 he rallied public support in a large assembly. He issued his own grand ordinance of reform, which included 
remedies for administrative weaknesses enumerated by the pope. Boniface’s plans to issue a personal sentence of 
excommunication against Philip were forestalled when Nogaret appeared in Anagni and seized Boniface on 
September 7, 1303. Two days later townsmen of Anagni freed the pope, who died the following month. (Ladner, 
G. B., 2020) 
So, these events showed, on the one hand, the confrontation between the state and the church authorities, secular 
and church power and determined the reevaluation of the whole construction of state power. Before this conflict, 
the church legitimized the power of the monarch, which caused the emergence of the concept of papal sovereignty. 
The confrontation between Philip IV and the Pope of Rome determined the necessity of argumentation and 
legitimation of the secular power exercises by monarch, which was no longer dependent on the Pope of Rome. 
These reasons determined the formation of the philosophical theories that argued the secular sovereignty, namely, 
the theory regal, national and people’s sovereignty.  
Another philosopher who contributed to the development of the concept of sovereignty and outperformed the 
theory of popular sovereignty of the Enlightenment is Marsilius of Padua. (Klimenko O., Mirzoev A.,2016, p.23) 
The thinker considered that the source of political power is the people. The government emanates from populace. 
Thus, the prince should govern, respecting the law and people’s will. The head of State could be punished if he 
derogates from the citizens’ will. The philosopher states that the Pope of Rome and the clergy do not have the 
authority to govern, establish laws and punish. So, punishment against heretics could be pronounced only by civil 
courts. (Capcelea V., 2004, p. 96)  
The specific aspects of the ideas of Marsilius of Padua are manifested in the fact that his philosophy is based on 
the theory of social contract. As a result, the political power and the state emanate from the will of the 
people,(Capcelea V., 2004, p. 96) that have the right to issue laws mandatory for everyone, even those who 
government. Every citizen may participate in the legislative process. However, the law could not be adopted by 
one person (the monarch). (Paduansky M., 2014, 105–107, 124–129, 138) The thinker’s theory was inspired by 
the political experience of Padua, his hometown, in which legislative power was exercised by the Local Council, 
a body that was elected and appointed executive power. This state order was considered by Marsilius of Padua the 
most righteous. (Klimenko O., Mirzoev A.,2016, p.23) Analyzing the best form of government, the philosopher 
argued that elected monarchy represents the form of state organization that expresses the citizens’ will. So, the 
people should choose both the state body that will exercise state power and the monarch as the herd of state.  
We should note some changes in the role of religion within the state and its influence on the state’s leadership. 
The church from the plenary holder of power becomes a state structure that no longer has the right to judge, punish 
and dictate its own rules. These changes are evident because of the creation by Marsilius of Padua of the concept 
of the secular state, in which state power should be separated from the church one. On the other hand, the people 
from the subordinate of the monarch obliged to respect divine law become the holder of state power, free to create 
state bodies and legitimize their activity. Power within this state belongs to the people, who choose state bodies. 
Namely, the expression of the will of the people legitimizes the whole mechanism of state power. The practical 
importance of the doctrine of Marsilius of Padua is the foundation of the representative democracy, in which on 
the one hand, the entire state power is concentrated in the people, and, on the other hand, the bodies appointed by 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 8 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

the people are obliged to respect the will of the majority of citizens. It should be noted the foundation of the concept 
of the rule of law, which is manifested by positioning the law above the bodies that exercise state power. The 
doctrine of the thinker founds both the concept of the legality of power, which should be exercised in accordance 
with the legal provisions, and that of legitimacy, which is manifested by the choice and representativeness of state 
bodies. We could conclude that the approach of Marsilius of Padua represents the first attempt for awareness of 
the importance of the person’s role within the state. Thinker noted the tendency to diminish the authority of the 
papacy and the monarchy by increasing the importance of the citizens in the governance process.  
The thinker that founded and developed the concept of the royal sovereignty in the Middle Ages is Niccolo 
Machiavelli (1469-1527). The philosopher understood the essence of the concepts of sovereignty and the 
relationship of forces within the state without developing them into fully political theory. (Lungu D., 2013) 
However, from the Niccolo Machiavelli’s doctrine we could deduce the philosopher’s vision of sovereignty. 
Machiavelli believes that states should act in the best interest of the masses, and as such should behave in a manner, 
which will benefit the state. Accordingly, he expressed his view that the sovereign of the state should not allow 
private interests to overrun public interest. (Leung, J., 2012, p.3-4) So, thinker considered that state interests are 
the most important ones and legitimizes the absolute monarchy. According to philosopher’s point of view, the 
absolute monarchy is the best form of government, which is expressed by the subjectivity of prince that should not 
obey the rules of morality or religion if he wants to gain power. To achieve this goal, the person is entitled to take 
any actions, to remove his opponents. Machiavelli considered that prince should govern, should create a strong 
state and this goal could be achieved using any methods considered necessary by the prince. This philosopher did 
not consider that the people's status within the state deserves to be investigated or that the state could be created 
to ensure the welfare of all citizens.  
Beginning from those exposed above Machiavelli concluded that state’s interests are considered the justification 
of the application of violence towards people.( Machiavelli N.,1998,p.63) He also viewed a strong state as an 
organic whole, with the utmost control over its own domestic affairs as well as its foreign affairs. For Machiavelli, 
domestic affairs dominated the priority of the state. According to philosopher’s point of view, states should behave 
and form decisions with public interest as the first priority in mind, and as such should act in a manner, which will 
benefit the state. According to Machiavelli, it is imperative to have a strong centralized government. (Leung, J., 
2012, 3-4) In his view, "a sagacious legislator of the republic ... whose object is to promote the public good, and 
not his private interests, and who prefers his country to his own successors should concentrate all authority in 
himself.,,( Machiavelli, 1950, p. 138) So, Machiavelli in his theory personified state power that is embodied in the 
monarch's figure with absolute power. (Klimenko O., Mirzoev A., 2016, p.24) According to the philosopher, the 
prince embodies the whole state and his will could prevent civil strife and feudal fragmentation. For the 
philosopher, there is no difference between state power and the person of the prince, between the absolute power 
of the monarch and state sovereignty. 
Therefore, the whole concept of royal sovereignty summarizes in the creation of a powerful despotic state in which 
the Prince's power to action cannot be limited by law, religion or morals. Prince is free to take any actions to 
maintain state power. Machiavelli's state is characterized by stability, but it relies on blood, repression, fear and 
usurpation of power. For many dictators, this state is an ideal that had been translated into practice. Within this 
state formation, the life of man has no price, and people’s role is limited to absolute and unconditional submission. 
3.3 The Crystallization of the Concept of Sovereignty in the Modern Epoch  
Analyzing the development of the concept of sovereignty, we should mention the Jean Bodin’s (1530-1596) theory. 
This philosopher is considered the father of the actual concept of sovereignty. Thinker elaborated another concept 
of the organization of the state, which is based on the rational method. The Jean Bodin’s theory expected the 
development of the science of Law of the modern period. Philosopher founded the secular theory of natural law. 
Thinker’s theory focuses on the concept of sovereignty. (Georgescu Ș., 2001, p.49) According to the philosopher’s 
point of view, the state appeared independently of the people’s will, under the influence of various factors such as 
climate and soil. We should emphasize the circumstances of the formation of this doctrine, because in the 
conditions of antagonisms between secular power and papal power, Jean Bodin argued the laic sovereignty. 
We should note that in the XVI century the royal power reached its apogee during the governorship King Francis 
I (1515-1547). The king was the first monarch who finally subordinated the church to secular power, receiving the 
right to appoint all French bishops to the posts. The pope recognized his right to receive most of the French church 
revenues. Francis I, further, completely refused to convene the States-General. They were not convened in his 
presence even once. The King forbade the Parliament to interfere in state affairs, except for court cases subject to 
its jurisdiction as the supreme judicial chamber. The king personally delved into all the details of state 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 9 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

administration. All central administration was concentrated in the Royal Council, which was divided into 
departments. In foreign policy, French absolutism sought to seize foreign territories. (France of the XVI century) 
Internecine wars between Catholics and Protestants and a bloody struggle for power characterized the reign of 
Henri III, who inherited the throne after Francis I. So, this reality led the thinker to argue the necessity of granting 
to the monarch unlimited powers, which would prevent the unfolding of civil war. We could conclude that the 
governorship King Francis I, according to the philosopher, represents the best political regime that could be 
established in the state. 
Jean Bodin considered that state represents the totality of families that are conducted by sovereign. In this state 
model the leaders of families have the quality of citizens. Defining the Republic as “a government based on the 
natural laws”, Bodin makes legislative power the essence of the state: “where there is no legislative power there 
is no republic”. (Georgescu Ș., 2001, p.49) So, the republic represents the best form of government because it is 
based on the natural laws, which should be transposed into practice by its adoption by Parliament. From that 
exposed above, we can conclude that the Parliament is the most important state bogy because this government 
authority should transpose natural laws into state legislation. Another consideration that could be deduced from 
the Jean Bodin’s theory is that the legislative power forms the republic as a form of government. This idea founds 
the democracy as a political regime, because the principles of the functioning of the Parliament as a state body 
presuppose the necessity to debate the legislative bills, which prevents the establishment of an absolute monarchy 
in which all state power is concentrated in the monarch as a public authority. Bodin supported the hereditary 
monarch as the form of government. The philosopher believed that only the monarchy could ensure the overcoming 
of social and religious confrontations in France at those times. (Râbca E., Zaharia V. 2016, p.88)  
Jean Bodin was the first thinker who formulated the notion of sovereignty that, according to him, represents the 
absolute and perpetual power of a republic to elaborate and to repeal laws, (Capcelea V., 2004, p. 98) declaring 
and ending wars, appointing officials, establishing justice. (Voiculescu M.,1992, p.60) Analyzing this definition, 
we could note, on the one hand, that the philosopher realizes the necessity of the existence of the separation of 
powers in the state because Bodin analyzes the importance of the Parliament and the separation between the 
monarch’s and the Parliament’s power. On the other hand, thinker does not note the importance of executive power. 
Philosopher do not pay attention to the consideration that law laws remain ineffective if they are not transposed 
into reality. Plus, Jean Bodin does not analyze the distribution and management of finances within the state, a 
function that is not included within the legislative duties.  
So, the theory of Bodin, writing in the time of Henry III of France (1551- 1589), describes sovereignty as an 
absolute, unlimited power, which established law but was uncontrolled by it, and, in an ideal system, was vested 
in the king and was possessed by divine right. (Butllowa 1929) In the fight in England for regal instead of papal 
sovereignty this doctrine of sovereignty by divine right was developed at Cambridge, but after the fight had been 
won regal sovereignty was discarded for Parliamentary sovereignty. (Mattern J., 1928) 
Thinker highlighted the most important characters of sovereignty, what are characteristic of state power in 
contemporary epoch. Jean Bodin began with the consideration that in each state should exist the supreme power 
which is characterized by certain traits that stand out in any state. The permanence of state power is one of the 
characteristic features of sovereignty. State power is established for a period of time, which is not determined in 
advance, and the sovereign could not be established for the determined period of time. (Râbca E., Zaharia V. 2016, 
p.81) Actually, this characteristic is preserved despite the choice of state dignitaries who exercise public functions 
for a certain period. Sovereignty belongs to the people; therefore the nation remains the permanent sovereign of 
the state, the reign of which is not limited in time. The absoluteness of state power is manifested in the fact that 
the sovereign (the person or persons who create the laws) cannot be subject to these laws, the behavior of the 
sovereign is superior to laws and inaccessible to legal regulations. So, his will and actions could not be limited by 
legal provisions. (Râbca E., Zaharia V. 2016, p.81) The importance of the sovereign increases because his will 
could not be limited by law. Bodin was convinced that subjecting the sovereign to any kind of statutory right would 
undermine the essential significance of the idea of sovereignty consisting in the power to command everyone and 
in all aspects. (Georgescu Ș, 2001, P. 49) We should mention that this idea contravenes to the concept of the rule 
of law, according to which the law should govern. From these considerations we could deduce that the thinker 
considered that the law could not be illegal, if it emanates from the Sovereign power. In present triumphed the 
vision according to which the law could be declared invalid, if it was adopted with non-compliance with the 
legislative procedure. In these aspects the philosopher legitimizes the totalitarian regime, which arises when 
sovereign abuses of the entrusted power. Plus, state power is indivisible and unitary. The author considered that 
state power should be exercised by a person or state body. (Râbca E., Zaharia V. 2016, p.81) Therefore, the thinker 
did not admit the fragmentation of state power, the concept present in the contemporary doctrine of constitutional 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 10 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

law. However, the philosopher specified the existence of at least 2 state bodies, Parliament and the head of State. 
We should note that sovereignty is unconditional and continuous. This character represents the sovereign’s right 
to solve social political problems, without obligation to coordinate his decisions with other persons or institutions. 
(Râbca E., Zaharia V., 2016, p. 81)  
Thus, Jean Bodin becomes the author of the secular theory of sovereignty, making the King an independent 
sovereign, which led to the separation of states from papal power. (Arseni A., 2019, p.32) So, the monarch was 
subordinated only to natural laws that represent the eternal laws given by God. Thinker started that the monarch 
responds only before God to it, the idea that undermines the ecclesiastical power. (Georgescu Ș., 2001, p. 49)  
We should note that Bodin developed some ideas dominant in the political thinking of Meddle Ages. Thinker 
continued the development of the idea of personification of state power developed by Machiavelli. The philosopher 
concentrated all state power in the personality of the Prince despite the understanding of the role of the Parliament 
within the state and its legislative prerogatives. So, the sovereign (monarch) had very broad prerogatives that 
included legislative, judicial functions, solved problems related to war and peace, appointed civil servants. The 
only limitation of the sovereign’s power is the fact that the King did not have the absolute right to decide on the 
use of the state budget. For example, for the introduction of new taxes and duties, the monarch had to ask the 
consent of the State-General. However, the monarch’s power is approaching unlimited one, only representative 
body had the right to vote for the approval of the state’s tax policy. The unlimited powers of the sovereign imply 
the exclusion of any protection of people from violation of the law. Bodin states about the right to property that 
should not be violated, but this appears to him as a moral requirement addressed to the sovereign. (Georgescu Ș., 
2001, p. 49) The state power, in general, and the monarch’s power, in particular, is practically unlimited. This 
shows that the philosopher was adept of totalitarianism as a political regime. The thinker did not notice the danger 
of granting unlimited power to state bodies. As a finality of the implementation in practice of Bodin’s theory, it 
will represent the totalitarian state approaching to that of Machiavelli. 
However, Bodin legitimated the right to revolution. Thinker considered that the people should obey to the 
monarch’s orders, but they may kill the tyrant. In exceptional situations, when it is necessary to make urgent 
decisions, absolute power belongs to the monarch, who has the “right to the last decision”, which is a dominant 
feature of the sovereignty.(Schmitt K., 2000, p.18-20) We should note the link between ideas of the Aristotle and 
Bodin, that refer to the state construction. Both thinkers considered that family represents the sovereign state. 
(Klimenko O., Mirzoev A.,2016, p.25) So, the ideal of the family is connected with moral norms, the respect of 
private property and sovereignty. (Klimenko O., Mirzoev A.,2016, p.25) Jean Bodin approaches the concept of 
the legitimacy of state power, as the development of the ideas of Saint Thomas Aquinas stating that this power is 
based on natural laws, the violation of which leads to the loss of the legitimacy of state power. (Shumkov D., 2002, 
p.46) 
The importance of the theory developed by the great philosopher is manifested in the elaboration of the concept 
of legitimacy and theoretical system of categories and notions focused on the concept of sovereignty that will be 
developed and perfected by the great philosophers of modernity. (Klimenko O., Mirzoev A.,2016, p.25)  
A conception essentially different from that systematized by Bodin appears in the beginning of the seventeenth 
century, being formulated by Johannes Althusius in the work “Politica methodice digesta” (1603). Althusius 
developed the Aristotle’s theory describing the man as a social being, naturally inclined towards mutual solidarity 
and reciprocity. Sovereignty, according to the thinker’s point of view, belongs to the people. It is imprescriptible 
and resides inalienably in the popular community in which cannot exist the absolute personal power. The people 
could delegate power, but they cannot give it up. Sovereignty emanates from the people. The prince has no 
authority other than that with which he is invested by the people. So, people delegate their power to prince the 
power continuing to be intrinsically and substantially preserved by the people.  
According to the thinker’s point of view, sovereignty is not absolute. Althusius formulated the principle of 
subsidiarity, which is the base of the decisional process. The decisions must be taken at the lowest level, by those 
who are directly affected by their consequences. Thus, even the smallest political units should possess substantial 
autonomous powers, having the representatives at higher levels of power. So, Althusius believed that at each level 
of society there should be two state bodies: one of them represents the lower communities and other represents the 
superior level. Bodies that form the first level of power hold as much prerogatives as they could exercise for the 
people’s benefit. The superior level of state power is limited by the first level. Each level shall designate its 
representatives at low and high level, based on the delegation of power, which may be withdrawn. 
We should note the substantial difference between the subsidiarity and decentralization. The phenomenon of 
decentralization expresses the situation when the local bodies are the holder of the authority granted to it by the 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 11 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

central power. Subsidiarity represents the distribution of power when the local level delegates to the upper level 
the responsibilities and tasks that it cannot assume, solving the problems that are included in its competence. 
Subsidiarity represents the sharing of competences based on the criterion of the sufficiency or inadequacy: each 
level of authority keeps those competences for which it has sufficient power. 
According to Althusius’ point of view, sovereignty represents the level of power that has the large authority, 
decision-making, and enforcement powers. The sovereign is the person who has more power than others. The 
exercise of power is realized if the power is recognized and given to him by people. At each level there is an 
“exchange of authority”, more precisely a differentiation of bodies, a sharing of powers from the lowest level to 
the highest one. 
So, we can conclude that Johannes Althusius attributes the legislative power to the people that are holders of 
sovereignty. The people in their actions are constraints by its conscience, divine and natural right. Although the 
power of the people is not considered unlimited, it is the highest authority because cannot exist the greater power 
than that which belongs to the people. (Georgescu Ș., 2001, p. 49)  
Another thinker that developed the theory of the state sovereignty was Hugo Grotius, the founder of natural law, 
based on the human intellect and people’s tendency to live in the peaceful society. (Bădescu M., 2002, p. 34). The 
thinker is one of the founders of the theory of the social contract according to which people form a civil society 
that represents the expression of their free will. Society arises as a result of an awareness of the vulnerability of 
people living in isolation. People draft 2 contracts: the first contract of free association, and that of submission. 
Consequently, people should unconditionally submit to state power, “steadfast in order to ensure public peace”. 
State power “acquires a superior right over people and their property, as extent as it is necessary to achieve the 
specified goal.”(Grotius H., 1968, p.193)  
From those exposed above, we can conclude that the state could prohibit anyone to resist, in order to ensure peace 
and public order, because otherwise it would not achieve its purpose. If everyone could oppose to state’s will, the 
existence of the state will be endangered. These considerations explain the existence of laws and punishments to 
defend the state’s power (Capcelea V., 2004, p. 106) that form the concept of sovereignty. (Popa N., Dogaru I., 
2002, p.105) "It is called a sovereign power whose acts are so independent of another authority that they cannot 
be annulled by the judgment of another human will.” (Grotius H.,1968, p.162). Grotius sought the answer to the 
question: whom does the sovereignty belong? In thinker’s opinion, the sovereignty belongs to the state. (Popa N., 
Dogaru I., 2002, p.105)  
However, people may choose the form of government that they prefer, but from the moment they have passed on 
their rights to the governors, they lose the right to control or sanction the governors. State conductors must obey 
the natural law and keep promises they made, that represent the principle of natural law. In monarchical states, the 
people delegate irrevocable the exercise of their rights and the people should submit to the will of the monarch. 
(Bădescu M., 2002, p. 37).  
Grotius denies the theory of people’s sovereignty, according to which people could punish kings whenever they 
misuse their authority because the king’s power is based on the people’s will. By designation of the sovereign 
people ceded the right to rule them, withholding no part of this right. (Capcelea V., 2004, p.107) Grotius considered 
that, on the one hand, sovereignty resides in the king's person as in it keeper, but, on the other hand, it always 
remains in the people just as in a whole in which it is part and its ruler. So, the prince governance is the governance 
of people. In the conception of the great philosopher, the sovereignty of the people should be limited, and the king, 
even deposed, may rule, because the parties are obliged to comply with the contractual provisions, according to 
which people cede the right to dispose of themselves. 
The main merit of Grotius is that of formulating the concept of state sovereignty. Thinker showed that the state 
with its legal organization could manifest its sovereignty within its territory, in front of its citizens. The state 
authority cannot be manifested outside the state’s borders. (Bădescu M., 2002, p. 39). Respectively, sovereignty 
appears as a relative element that could be integrated into the system of international law, which takes precedence 
over domestic law. In relations between sovereign states should be applied the principle of equality. (Capcelea V., 
2004, p. 110)  
The brilliant thinker of humanity Thomas Hobbes, in his work “Leviathan” elaborated the concept of the sovereign 
power of the state that transcends the will of the people that compose it. To understand the fullness and complexity 
of the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, we should analyze the political context of Thomas Hobbes’ ideas. English 
philosopher lived in the period of great political and social transformations (Popa N., Dogaru I., 2002, p. 152, 155), 
which manifested in the outbreak of the civil war waged by Parliament against the partisans of the King, 
Cromwell’s victory, the abolition of the monarchy and the beheading of King Charles I Stuart. These events meant 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 12 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

the unleashing of uncontrollable anarchy, which suggested the idea of a return to the “natural state of humanity”. 
(Georgescu Ș., 2001 p. 53) Political problems were for the philosopher of great actuality and even urgency because 
of the events that prepared the bourgeois revolution of 1648. (Popa N., Dogaru I., 2002, p. 152, 155) The central 
problem of this author’s politico-legal research is the possibility of overcoming social violence and saving 
(preserving) the state. (Râbca E., 2016, p. 92) 
 Philosopher is the founder of the theory of social contract, according to which the state appears as a result of a 
voluntary act, by which each man undertakes to each other to invest a third party (future sovereign) with the right 
to govern it. People draft two contracts. They consent to create a society, to associate, by drafting the first contract. 
The second contract consigns the transfer of people’s rights to the sovereign. So, the state becomes the holder of 
sovereignty, as a result of drafting these contracts. State’s sovereignty is absolute, indivisible and inviolable. (Popa 
N., Dogaru I., 2002, p.156) Each person must obey the sovereign’s will and cannot use his own force against him. 
However, the holder of sovereignty is not obliged to respect the law. (Capcelea V., 2004, p. 120) We should note 
that Thomas Hobbes personified state power, which should be concentrated in the personality of prince during the 
absolute monarchy as a form of government. 
We should pay attention to the relationship between the citizens and the sovereign. The people in this relationship 
have an active role; they are not passively subjected to omnipotent political power. So, namely people decide to 
create the society, to designate the sovereign and to create the state. In addition, Thomas Hobbes introduces the 
concept of authorization, which refers to the fact that the citizens are the authors of the political will that is 
explained by the sovereign. In other words, the sovereign is allowed by people, and he acts on behalf of citizens. 
Therefore, the will of the sovereign expresses the will of the people. (Popa N., Dogaru I., 2002, p.156)  
So, the importance of the thinker’s theory is manifested in the concept's substantiation of the sovereignty of the 
state that functions as an independent body. However, the Prince embodies the entire state power. As a result, the 
philosopher’s theory could be positioned as the one based, on the one hand, on the ideas of Machiavelli who 
personified state power and considered that the entire state power belongs to the prince and the theory of Grotius 
according to which sovereignty belongs to the state, without being related to the body that holds power. 
3.4 Comparison between the Theory of Sovereignty in Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin’s Philosophy 
The ideas of these great philosophers aimed to legitimize the secular state power at the expense of papal power. 
However, each thinker argued a different model of state organization. Thomas Hobbes legitimizes the totalitarian 
regime, stating that people creating the state transfer their rights to the sovereign, being obliged to obey the 
monarch's will unconditionally. Jean Bodin, on the contrary, considered that the state occurs independently of the 
people's will. Thinker argued that democracy is the best political regime. The main character of democracy in the 
philosopher's doctrine represents the election of all state bodies by the people. Both thinkers considered that state 
power should be unlimited. However, the main difference between these two theories consists in conceptualizing 
the whole construction of state power. Thomas Hobbes' state represents the almighty body independent of the 
people's will in which do not exists the separation of state's power. Despite the fact that according to Jean Bodin's 
point of view the civil laws could not limit state power, thinker approaches to the conceptualization of the 
separations of powers in the state. Bodin starts the primary role of Parliament in the exercise of state power and 
determines the monarch's position within the state bodies.  
We should note that both thinkers personified state power. For them, the whole state power is concentrated in the 
personality of the prince who is the head of state. The practical realization of the thinker's ideas would have the 
same finality. It would be created the despotic state, as a realization of Thomas Hobbes' ideas or the state in which 
the monarch has unlimited power and governs with the Parliament, according to Jean Bodin's theory. However, 
the people's position within Jean Bodin's state would be better than that of the citizens of Thomas Hobbes' state 
because according to Jean Bodin's ideas the people have the right to the revolution that could be exercised against 
the rule of a tyrant. The role of people within the state differs substantially. Jean Bodin argued the necessity of the 
election of state bodies and the people's right to revolution, which limits the dictatorial tendencies in society. 
Thomas Hobbes, on contrary, developed the concept of the totalitarian state, which could control the confrontations 
present in society.  
We could conclude that despite the legitimization and argumentation of the secular power of the monarch, 
philosophers promoted various methods of exercising state power, the totalitarian and the democratic one which 
leads to the emergence of conceptual differences between the theories promoted by these philosophers. 
 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 13 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

3.5 The Emergence of the Theories of National and People's Sovereignty in John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 
and Charles Montesquieu's Philosophy 
We should analyze the political-social context in which the brilliant thinkers such as Voltaire, Charles Louis 
Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Denis Diderot lived for a better understanding of their ideas. These 
philosophers lived in the Enlightenment epoch. For this intensive period of humanity’s thinking is characteristic 
the appeal to reason as the major criterion of understanding the world and society, popularization of knowledge, 
which should bring benefit to the entire society. In addition, we could note the tendency presented in the 
Enlightenment to systematize the knowledge accumulated during the humanity’s development. In this period, 
France becomes the cultural center of the world. Thinkers wanted to find the principles of man’s natural life, 
searching for the natural religion and law. We should mention the criticism and denial of positive law, formed 
during the historical development of humanity, in favor of natural law. French philosophers such as Voltaire, 
Charles Louis Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Denis Diderot argued the ideas of rationalism, the 
development of political-social ideas and religious tolerance. Their primary goal was the progressive development 
of humanity and the creation of rational society. Indeed, these considerations highlight a link between the ideas 
that dominated the political thought of the Enlightenment and those promoted by the great thinkers, who founded 
the concept of natural and inalienable human rights, perfectly blend into the context of the French Enlightenment 
Society of the XVIII century. 
Certainly, John Locke (1632-1704) is one of the most important thinkers of Enlightenment whose doctrine 
represents the base of the actual democratic regime. In his writings, John Locke expressed the social and political 
aspirations of the English bourgeoisie of his time. The “Two Treatises of Government” written by the great thinker 
is considered as the basic texts of modern democratic doctrine (of constitutionalism, parliamentarianism, the 
supremacy of law) and the main foreshadowing of modern liberalism. The capital significance of John Locke’s 
work for modern political thought and will is connected with the ideal of eliminating arbitrariness and establishing 
a rule-based civilization. (Popa N., Dogaru I., 2002, p. 162)  
According to Locke’s doctrine, the emergence of the state finds its basis in the theory of social contract. As a result, 
the transition to civil society took place, following a consensus by which people wanted maximum security and 
freedom. The essence of his theory Locke expressed thus: “man in the natural state is a reasonable and free being, 
eager to live well. For this, he voluntarily renounces, by contract, of some of his claims and prerogatives in favor 
of the state, which owes him respect and protection.” (Locke J.,1999, p.54) Philosopher observes that people gave 
up their natural state and made up civil society in order to get maximum protection. It transitioned from the natural 
state to the civil State based on a contract. People could denounce the contract underlying this agreement if those 
who hold the power do not fulfill the obligation assumed. As a result, people making up the state keep the freedom 
to end the contract if the state leadership does not respect their rights and cannot grant them the security, violating 
the obligations assumed by concluding this contract. Definitely, the principle of any association can only be 
common consent. As a result, the state relies on the free consent of each, being concluded in the absence of any 
constraint. (Georgescu Ș., 2001, p. 58) People consent to go out of the natural state in order to find in the state 
legal security, prosperity and welfare. People agree with others to unite in society in order to enjoy each one, in 
safety and peace, of what belongs to them—life health, freedom, wealth—in order to be more safe from harm and 
insult. 
So, the state represents a product of the social contract, which results from the expression of the will of the people. 
(Râbca E., 2016, p.98) From Locke’s point of view, “social contract” is not an act of alienation, but the 
compromise, which makes the people true depositary of the general interest. (Locke J., 1999, p. 54)  
Beginning from those exposed above, we should note that John Locke developed the theory of people’s sovereignty. 
The elaboration of this concept represents the counterargument to the manifestations of despotism in the realization 
of state power. (Arseni A., 2019, p.32) The theory of popular sovereignty is linked with the theory of social contract, 
according to which the people entrust the realization of state power to the legislative Assembly, appointed by 
election. The author also imposes the conceptualization of political power as the right to legislate and the right to 
exercise the applicative-legal activity. (Râbca E., 2016, p. 97) As a result of this delegation, the people remain 
sovereigns and could end the social contract; remove or overturn and/or change the composition of the Parliament. 
Plus, people have the right to revolution. (Râbca E., Zaharia V. 2016, p. 125)  
The most important aspects of the people’s sovereignty manifests in the people’s right to revolution. So, people 
could denounce the contract underlying this agreement if those who hold the power do not fulfill the obligation 
assumed. As a result, people making up the state keep the freedom to end the contract if the state leadership does 
not respect their rights and cannot grant them the security, violating the obligations assumed by concluding this 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 14 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

contract. Definitely, the principle of any association can only be common consent. As a result, the state relies on 
the free consent of each, being concluded in the absence of any constraint. (Georgescu Ș., 2001, p. 58) 
So, the people’s obligation to obey the governor’s will is closely related to the government’s compliance with the 
social contract’s provisions. Thinker considered that people do not transfer the sovereignty of the leadership by 
establishing the legislative and executive power. If the rulers violate the people’s rights, they could use force to 
replace the governors. However, the governance could resort to coercive means to ensure that citizens comply with 
the rules established for the achievement of the common good. (Popa N., Dogaru I., 2002, p.168) We should 
highlight that John Locke considered despotic power to be unacceptable. (Capcelea V., 2004, p.124) Thus, J. Locke, 
the author of political liberalism, laid the beginning of the transition from the monarch’s to the people’s sovereignty 
and the legitimacy of power. (Arseni A., 2019, p.33)  
3.6 The Concept of Popular Sovereignty in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Philosophy  
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-17778), the French philosopher of Enlightenment, played an important role in the 
development of the concept of the “people’s sovereignty”. In the work 
“On the Social Contract; or, Principles of Political Right,” the great thinker systematized and finalized the 
conceptual development of the concept of popular sovereignty. The thinker stated that the popular will could be 
expressed only by the whole collectivity of people and tends to achieve the common good. According to this theory, 
all people are equal because everyone has his own “piece” of sovereignty. So, sovereignty belongs to the people, 
as a result of the individual wills. However, the realization of popular sovereignty always requires the expression 
of the will of the majority of citizens. Only in this way the individual “parts” of sovereignty form a complete entity, 
which allows the achievement of the common good. (Popa N., Dogaru I., 2002, p.186)  
We should highlight that the theory of the people’s sovereignty formulated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau positions 
the people as a concrete entity, which is formed from the people who live in a certain territory, associated in the 
state. So, all members of this state are equal in rights, and sovereignty should be divided into equal "parts” which 
belong to all citizens. As a consequence, sovereignty should be exercised by all citizens, being made up of the sum 
of their wills. (Arseni A., 2019, p.36) “Sovereignty, which expresses the general will, cannot be alienated, because 
the will cannot be transmitted.” So, sovereignty is inalienable and indivisible. (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1957, p.102-
103) Therefore, each citizen has his own original right to take part in the exercise of sovereignty, which is 
manifested in the right to issue laws and supervise their execution. People could participate directly in the exercise 
of state power, or, if this is impossible, through representatives who are controlled by them. (Guceac I., 2001, p. 
122) We should note that the exercise of sovereignty does not inhibit the establishment of representative 
institutions (Arseni A., 2019, p.36), which are formed as the result of free elections. So, the governors are directly 
linked with their voters. (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1957, p. 103) In conclusion, sovereignty, according to Jean-Jacques 
Rousseau’s point of view, could be expressed only by the people’s will and governors are “simple mandates” of 
people. (Deleanu I., 1993, p.50) 
The great thinker considered sovereignty as the basis of freedom and equality of citizens, because people are the 
holders of “sovereignty” and the state’s rulers are only the officials who are subordinate to people and could be 
revoked. (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1957, p.99) We should highlight two features of sovereignty: inalienability, 
because only one authority could exercise the power in the determined territory; indivisibility because sovereignty 
could not be divided between individuals who form the state population.(Drăganu T., 1998, p.207). The 
philosopher considered that sovereignty cannot be alienated, being the expression of the general will. (Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, 1957, p.114-116) As his predecessors, Jean-Jacques Rousseau personified state power because 
the people form the concrete entity that leads us to the imperative mandate in exercise of sovereignty. (Arseni A., 
2019, p.38)  
3.7 The Legal Consequences of the Theory of Popular Sovereignty Developed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau 
Thinker considered that the common will which forms the concept of sovereignty should be realized directly by 
the people. As a result, the realization of sovereignty through representative bodies contradicts to the essence of 
the concept of popular sovereignty. However, other researchers considered that the exercise of sovereignty does 
not involve the establishment of representative institutions. These scientists argued the possibility of establishing 
direct or semi-direct democracy. If in the ideal state developed by Jan-Jacques Rousseau are formed the 
representative bodies, the elected deputies are directly related to the imperative will of the voters. (Noţiuni generale 
privind suveranitatea)  
The Romanian researcher Ion Deleanu noted the following consequences of the practical realization of the concept 
of popular sovereignty: a) the trustee does not express his own will, being forced to voice the will of those who 
mandated him (electoral body in a constituency), b) his conduct in the assembly of deputies may not be other than 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 15 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

that expressly prescribed by the constituents; c) the deputy must report periodically to his constituents on the 
actions interpreted in the mandate's exercise; d) voters may withdraw his mandate on the grounds that the trustee 
has not complied with the given prescriptions or because he has exceeded them; e) the holder of sovereignty, the 
people, may amend or annul any decision of the representative assembly, if it does not correspond to their will, 
through a referendum. (Deleanu I., 1993, p.37) 
We should note that the deep analysis of these consequences highlights at least two considerable shortcomings: 
the inability of the deputy to represent the general interests, being forced to act within the interests of a particular 
constituency; the restriction of the freedom of action of the deputy leads to his subordination to the will of his 
constituents. (Noţiuni generale privind suveranitatea) 
We should note some specific aspects of the legislative process in the Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s point of view. 
Thinker considered that a law represents the act, which is adopted or sanctioned by the people. The author proposes 
the establishment of citizens’ assemblies, the control body independent in relation to governors, through which 
could be controlled the governor’s activity. However, Jean-Jacques Rousseau establishes the unlimited domination 
of the social-state organism over the person, stating that the common will is always fair. We could conclude that 
according to the thinker’s theory, the individual does not have any rights in relation to the sovereign. So, Jean-
Jacques Rousseau approaches to the state’s foundation elaborated by Hobbes. (Râbca E., Zaharia V. 2016, p.96)  
3.8 The Concept of National Sovereignty in Charles Montesquieu’s Philosophy  
The brilliant Illuminist, Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755) developed the concept of popular sovereignty 
elaborated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The substantial difference between the theories of these thinkers consists in 
the introduction and use of the category of nation in the political philosophy. Thus, the thinker elaborated the 
concept of national sovereignty. (Montesquieu Ch., 1964, p.11)  
The concept of sovereignty is closely related to the form of government and the political regime established in the 
state. According to Montesquieu’s theory there are three forms of government (Popa N., Dogaru I., 2002, p.117) 
“the Republican, the monarchical and the despotic government. The republican government is that in which all 
people or only a part of them hold the supreme power; the monarchical government is that in which the person 
rules individually according to established laws; whereas, in the despotic one, the prince governs with no law and 
rules, according to his own will”. (Montesquieu, 1964, p. 11) Republican government could be of two types, 
democratic, when the supreme power belongs to all people, and aristocratic, when power is held by a part of the 
people. When all people rule, this political regime represents the government of the people, by the people, in the 
interest of all people that is best form of organization of state power. (Popa N., Dogaru I., 2002, p.117) The aspects 
that could not be managed by all people should be managed through their representatives. In the republican 
government (democratic or aristocratic), “it is a fundamental principle of this government that the people designate 
their representatives”. (Montesquieu, 1964, p. 18) 
So, beginning from that exposed above, we could conclude that the concept of national sovereignty manifests only 
during the republican government because during the monarchical and the despotic government the sovereignty 
belongs to the herd of state. Only democratic or aristocratic forms of government allow the exercise of state power 
by representatives of the people, which is the manifestation of the essence of national sovereignty. 
We should highlight that national sovereignty is characterized as indivisible and imprescriptible. According to the 
thinker’s point of view, the nation is an abstract entity. So, the establishment of direct democracy as the political 
regime is practically impossible. This theory justifies the necessity to appoint representatives by universal suffrage. 
As a result, sovereignty is exercised in the name of nation. Thus, the deputies appointed by the nation become its 
general representatives who do not translate the general will, but form the body that creates the general will. The 
mandate of governors becomes general, representative, free and irrevocable one. (Noţiuni generale privind 
suveranitatea, 2019)  
3.9 The Legal Consequences of the Theory of National Sovereignty Developed by Charles Montesquieu  
This conception has some practical consequences, such as 1. national representation in its entirety becomes the 
mandatory of the nation, since sovereignty is one, indivisible and inalienable; 2. the decisions of deputy should 
not be ratified by the nation; 3. deputies, as representatives of the entire nation, cannot be revoked by their voters 
and they are not obliged to account for them; 4. the deputy does not need the instructions from the electoral body, 
he proceeds according to his intimate conviction. (Deleanu I., 1993, p. 38) 
The concept of national sovereignty has some negative implications including: - exclusion of any organized legal 
subordination of deputies to voters; - the possibility of the deputy to slide towards arbitrariness and voluntarism; - 
the transformation of the electoral body into an instrument for appointing the deputy; - transformation of the 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 16 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

representative assembly into the exclusive depository of national sovereignty, having the omnipotence to decide 
on behalf of the nation, infallible interpreter of the general will; - replacing the general will with the will of the 
party to which the deputy belongs and complies in principle. (Deleanu I., 1993, p. 39) 
We should conclude that during the Middle Ages and Modern Epoch were formulated the most important classical 
theories of sovereignty which contributed to the formation of sovereignty in the current acceptance. In this period 
of time we could note the transition from the sovereignty of the church to the royal one, which triumphed with the 
elaboration of the theory of popular and national sovereignty. Therefore, this modification mirrors the 
transformation in the people’s role in society. Respectively, the man from the servant becomes the souvenir capable 
to exercise state power, appoint representatives and choose the form of government and political regime that best 
corresponds to his aspirations. 
4. The Actual Concept of Sovereignty in the XXI Century  
4.1 The Actual Concept of Sovereignty in the XXI Century at the International Level 
Actually, the concept of sovereignties is facing new challenges. We should analyze the concept of sovereignty in 
the context of the joining various international organizations. Analyzing the sovereignty through the prism of the 
international law, we could conclude that sovereignty as “indivisible, unlimited and illimitable” power that was 
described by Hobbes does not exist. “It may be said that each nation is independent of every other and that 
international law is not a limitation upon any of them because it is self-imposed, but the facts of life limit external 
sovereignty. So far as there are international law, treaties, conventions, and the League of Nations, all national 
sovereignty is limited in international relations. In the same way internal sovereignty has its limits. Both the states 
and the nation in the United States are limited by bills of rights. If sovereignty must be independent and unlimited 
there is no such thing as sovereignty”. (Willis, Hugh Evander, 1929) 
It should be mentioned that actual political philosophy does not position sovereignty as an absolute and unlimited 
power, denying the characteristic approach to classical philosophy. We should highlight the difference between 
the internal and external sovereignty. The internal sovereignty is the state’s right to decide on the organization of 
political, economic, social, cultural life and other areas that are included in the concept of the internal affairs of a 
state. The internal sovereignty manifests in the field of international relations, in the state’s right to conclude 
treaties and to join international organizations. So, according to the doctrine of international law, sovereignty 
represents the supremacy and independence of state power in the sphere of internal and external relations. (Guceac 
I., 2014, p.30) At the same time, state sovereignty is a quality of state power to be supreme in the territory of the 
state and independent from any state or international body, a characteristic expressed in the right of the state to 
resolve its internal and External Affairs freely, provided that the corresponding rights of other states and the norms 
of international law are respected. (Guceac I., 2014, p.83)  
In this context we should mention the declaration of Kofi Annan the UN secretary-general pronounced at 18 
September 1999. According to him “State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined—not least by the 
forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are now widely understood to be instruments at the 
service of their peoples, and not vice versa. At the same time individual sovereignty—by which I mean the 
fundamental freedom of each individual, enshrined in the charter of the UN and subsequent international 
treaties—has been enhanced by a renewed and spreading consciousness of individual rights. When we read the 
charter today, we are more than ever conscious that its aim is to protect individual human beings, not to protect 
those who abuse them”. (Annan, K., 1999) This statement was pronounced by the UN Secretary General in analysis 
of the concept of sovereignty in the context of the humanitarian interventions of the XX century and forecasting 
the change in the sovereignty's meaning in the XXI century. From those exposed abought, we could conclude that 
humanitarian crises, violations of human rights, genocides show that the sovereignty of the state is not absolute 
one.  
So, we should mention that the humanitarian intervention or the responsibility to protect in the actual terminology 
represents the actions of the international community regulated by Chapter 6 and 7 of the United Nations Charter 
that could be taken if there are presented the threat to the peace, the security of humanity and acts of aggression. 
According to the one of the definitions of this concept, the humanitarian intervention represents actions undertaken 
by an organization or organizations (usually a state or a coalition of states) that are intended to alleviate extensive 
human suffering within the borders of a sovereign state. Such suffering tends to be the result of a government 
instigating, facilitating, or ignoring the abuse of groups falling within its jurisdiction. This abuse often takes the 
form of deliberate and systematic violations of human rights, including forced expulsions, ethnic cleansing, and, 
in the most extreme cases, genocide.(Bell, D., 2019) In these situations, the international community intervenes in 
the internal affairs of the state in order to save the categories of the population subjected to persecution. So, the 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 17 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

people’s particular interest is positioned as one more important than the interest of governors who abuse their 
power.  
In this study, we should analyze some aspects of the humanitarian intervention because the application of the 
articles of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter allows the violation of the sovereignty of the state and the application of 
the armed force to restore the peace and security of humanity. We should highlight that “Humanitarian intervention 
constitutes a calculated and uninvited breach of sovereignty (state rights) in the name of humanity (individual 
rights). In the post-Cold War era, however, this conception of sovereignty as sacrosanct came under sustained 
attack. It was argued that despotic leaders should not be able to hide behind the shield of state sovereignty and 
that the international community had an obligation to intervene to stop the widespread abuse of human rights”. 
(Bell, D., 2019) 
In his declaration Kofi Annan noted four aspects of humanitarian intervention which need to be considered with 
special care. “First, “intervention” should not be understood as referring only to the use of force. And yet the 
commitment of the world to peacekeeping, to humanitarian assistance, to rehabilitation and reconstruction varies 
greatly from region to region, and crisis to crisis. If the new commitment to humanitarian action is to retain the 
support of the world’s peoples, it must be—and must be seen to be—universal, irrespective of region or nation. 
Humanity, after all, is indivisible.” (Annan, K., 1999) So, the UN secretary-general does not admit an uneven 
approach to humanitarian crises and genocide situations that are common for several international crises. Each 
humanitarian intervention represents a violation of the sovereignty of the state, as well as the principle of non-
interference in the internal affairs of the state, which determines the necessity of the development of standards 
accepted by the international community that will not allow the application of double standards.  
Kofi Annan highlight that “traditional notions of sovereignty alone are not the only obstacle to effective action in 
humanitarian crises. No less significant are the ways in which states define their national interests. The world has 
changed in profound ways since the end of the cold war, but I fear our conceptions of national interest have failed 
to follow suit. A new, broader definition of national interest is needed in the new century, which would induce 
states to find greater unity in the pursuit of common goals and values. In the context of many of the challenges 
facing humanity today, the collective interest is the national interest.” (Annan, K., 1999) So, the international 
interests which are manifested in the defense and promotion of the human’s rights should prevail over the interests 
of the state leadership that blatantly violates fundamental human’s rights.  
The UN secretary-general argued that “in cases where forceful intervention does become necessary, the Security 
Council—the body charged with authorizing the use of force under international law—must be able to rise to the 
challenge.” (Annan, K., 1999) So, namely UN plays the most important role in the authorization of the 
humanitarian intervention and this international organization should act promptly and uniformly in the situation 
of the existence of the threat of peace and security of humanity. 
Kofi Annan argued that “when fighting stops, the international commitment to peace must be just as strong as was 
the commitment to war. In this situation, too, consistency is essential. Just as our commitment to humanitarian 
action must be universal if it is to be legitimate, so our commitment to peace cannot end as soon as there is a 
ceasefire. The aftermath of war requires no less skill, no less sacrifice, no fewer resources than the war itself, if 
lasting peace is to be secured”. (Annan, K., 1999) So, the role of the international community does not finish 
simultaneously with the finish of the war and UN should do everything possible to lessen the consequences of war. 
We can conclude that at actually humanity is facing with the modification of the concept of sovereignty that is 
transformed from the absolute and unlimited power of the state over the territory and its own citizens into one 
limited by international commitments, treaties, provisions of international law, the guarantee the respect to 
fundamental human rights. Therefore, the UN Security Council sanctions humanitarian intervention, which is an 
exceptional measure undertaken by the international community in the case of flagrant violation of human’s rights 
and threats to the peace and security of humanity. Despite the fact that humanitarian intervention violates the 
state’s sovereignty, the application of force in this case is absolutely legal, if it is carried out in compliance with 
the provisions of the UN Charter because it defends the interest of ordinary citizens persecuted by the state 
leadership. Accordingly, the "individual sovereignty” defined by the UN secretary-general becomes more 
important than the sovereignty of the state which undertakes acts of genocide and mass killings. 
4.2 The Concept of Sovereignty in EU  
The concept of sovereignty in EU should be analyzed both thought the prism of the sovereignty of the state 
members of community and the “sovereignty” of the EU organization as the complete entity.  



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 18 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

We should note that the philosophy of the EU is based on the two concepts that explain the actual construction of 
the EU, namely supranational and intergovernmental theories. According to one of the definitions, a supranational 
union represents a type of multinational political union, where negotiated power is delegated to an independent 
authority by governments of member-states, which actions in the interest of community. The international 
community includes the members from different states. The supranational organization is founded because of some 
benefits that it gives to each member-state by setting trade-related standards that help to maintain economic 
stability in all member-states. The structure of the supranational organization allows the development of political 
and economic standards that are respected by member-states. Another theory that refers to the construction of the 
EU is intergovernmental theory. According to one of the doctrinal definitions intergovernmentalism represents the 
theory of European integration as a type of multinational political union in which states play a more important role 
in decision-making process in comparison with supranational theory. In international relations, scientists who 
develop this theory treat states, in general, and national governments, in particular, as the main actors of the 
integration process.  
The supranational and intergovernmental character of the EU in regulated by the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union, which in the articles 3-5 establish the EU’s competence. According to this treaty, “the Union 
shall have exclusive competence in the following areas: a) customs union; (b) the establishing of the competition 
rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market; (c) monetary policy for the Member States whose 
currency is the euro; (d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy; (e) 
common commercial policy.” (Treaty Roma 1957) According to article 2 of this Treaty “only the Union may 
legislate and adopt legally binding acts” in this domains “the Member States being able to do so themselves only 
if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of Union acts”. (Treaty Roma 1957) This competence 
shows the supranational construction of the EU because in the domains established by treaty states do not have de 
right to legislate.  
Beginning from that exposed above, we should note that in the doctrine of European law crystallized two different 
opinions which refers to the concept of sovereignty within the European Union. According to one point of view, 
the legislative process at the level of the European Parliament violates the sovereignty of the states, because in the 
areas mentioned in the articles 3-5 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union the national Parliament 
do not have de right to legislate. We should note that the right to legislate is one of the most important state’s 
prerogatives and the manifestation of national sovereignty of the state, which is limited in the member states’ of 
EU. According to other savants, the actual construction of the EU does not limit the state’s sovereignty. This point 
of view is based on the fact that the right to join the International Organization is one of the state’s exclusive 
prerogatives. So, namely state decides to join the EU, having the right to leave the International Organization, as 
Britain did. These researchers argue that the State cedes to the International Organization only certain strictly 
limited competences and the state’s sovereignty remains unlimited by the EU’s construction. We adhere to the 
point of view according to which the sovereignty of EU member states is not limited by the implementation of the 
legislative process at the community level, because states through elections appoint their representatives in the 
European Parliament and membership in the International Organization is a right, an expression of the sovereignty 
and free will of the state. 
Analyzing the concept of the sovereignty in the actual construction of the EU, we should analyze the process of 
the accession to EU, during which the sovereignty of all states, members and candidate states is perfectly respected 
because states should ratify the agreement to accession to the EU according to their constitutional rules. This is 
not a formal prerogative because Norway, for example, twice gave up joining the European community. The 
sovereignty of the candidate state is respected until the last stage of accession, especially when public opinion 
considers that the negotiated conditions of accession are not satisfactory. (Coșleț N., 2020) 
We should note that among the conditions of accession to the EU is the compliance to the acquis of EU. This 
condition may seem as a very restrictive one and may be an obstacle to the exercise of sovereignty in the economic 
and legal fields. The candidate must accept not only the treaties’ regulations but also the whole legislation of the 
EU. It should be noted that the candidates have always achieved a transition period for adapting the state to their 
new economic and legal situation. Plus, the introduction of the single European currency represented another attack 
on the sovereignty of the state, because coin minting of the national currency was traditionally the responsibility 
of the state as a manifestation of its sovereignty. (Coșleț N., 2020)  
Actually, in the community's law appears the concept of the “strategic sovereignty”. The emergence of this concept 
is based on the fact that European countries are increasingly vulnerable to external pressure that prevents them 
from exercising their sovereignty. This vulnerability threatens the European Union’s security, economic health, 
and diplomatic freedom of action, allowing other powers to impose their preferences on it. To prosper and maintain 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 19 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

their independence in a world of geopolitical competition, Europeans must address the interlinked security and 
economic challenges other powerful states present – without withdrawing their support for a rules-based order and 
the transatlantic alliance. This means creating a new idea of “strategic sovereignty”, as well as establishing 
institutions and empowering individuals that see strategic sovereignty as part of their identity and in their own 
interest. Most fundamentally, the EU needs to learn to think like a geopolitical power. (European Sovereignty) 
The emergence of the concept of strategic sovereignty of the EU is determined by the deepening of the 
supranational tendencies of this organization. The concept of strategic sovereignty is manifested in several areas 
including security, health, climate, economic and digital fields.  
Therefore, actually within the EU could be identified two trends related to the concept of sovereignty. On the one 
hand, states transfer the defining powers to supranational bodies for the proper functioning of the International 
Organization and for the development of uniform policy in the areas established in the Treaty on the functioning 
of the EU. On the other hand, there is created the concept of strategic sovereignty of the EU, which is seen as a 
superpower capable of promoting its own interests, based on the unity of the legislation of the member states. 
Respectively, we could note the transfer of the states’ competence to the supranational bodies and creating a new 
concept of sovereignty that allows the promotion of the interests of the member states of the community. 
4.3 The Concept of Sovereignty in the Actual State’s Constitutions  
Actually, the concept of sovereignty is the component part of the constitutional law, in general, and the state’s 
national regulation, in particular. The absolute majority of the state’s constitutions regulate the mechanism of the 
exercise of state power and the plenary holder of this power. In this study, we would like to analyze the 
constitutional regulation of sovereignty, to determine the holder of supreme power in state and to highlight the 
difference in the regulation of this aspect in contemporaneous state’s constitutions.  
The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany adopted on May 23, 1949 in article 20 regulates the form of 
government and the political regime of this state. So, according to 1 and 2 paragraph of this article: “(1) The 
Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state. (2) All state authority is derived from the 
people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, 
executive and judicial bodies.” (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany) We should note that Germany 
adopts the concept of popular sovereignty, according to which all state power emanates from the people. Namely, 
people are the holders of the supreme power in the state. According to 4 paragraph of article 20 “All Germans 
shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is 
available.”(Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany) However, people could defend their right to hold the 
state power and to govern by any legal methods. If these methods are ineffective, the people may defend the 
constitutional order by force. This mechanist represents an effective means of fighting against the tendencies of 
the establishment of the totalitarian regime and the dictatorship.  
According to the constitution of the Republic of France, adopted on October 4, 1958 art. 2 “The principle of the 
Republic shall be: government of the people, by the people and for the people.”( Constitution of the Republic of 
France) So, this principle embodies the Aristotle’s idea of polity, the form of government, during which the entire 
state power is exercised by all people or by the majority of them in the benefit of all state citizens. Article 3 of 
French Constitution regulates the state’s sovereignty. According to this article, “National sovereignty shall vest in 
the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives and by means of referendum. No section of the 
people nor any individual may arrogate to itself, or to himself, the exercise thereof. Suffrage may be direct or 
indirect as provided for by the Constitution. It shall always be universal, equal and secret.” (Constitution of the 
Republic of France) We should highlight that this article uses both the notion of national and popular sovereignty, 
which were formulated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Charles Montesquieu. However, the concepts that were 
developed by these thinkers form the classical theory of sovereignty. Actually, there is no difference between the 
concept of popular and the national sovereignty because beyond the conceptual terminological differences the 
essence of these theories remains the same - the people are the holders of the supreme power in the state.  
We should mention that in the concept of sovereignty in the legal order of the Republic of Moldova is regulated 
by 3 constitutional acts: Declaration of the sovereignty of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova, The 
declaration of independence of the Republic of Moldova, Constitution of the Republic of Moldova. Declaration of 
the sovereignty of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova adopted on June 23, 1990, declares at art. 1 that “The 
Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova is a sovereign state. The sovereignty of the S. S. R. M. is the necessary 
condition of the existence of the statehood of Moldova”. According to the art. 2 “The bearer and source of 
sovereignty is the people. The higher representative body of the power of the Republic realizes sovereignty in the 
interests of the entire nation. No part of the people, no group of citizens, no political party or public organization, 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 20 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

no other form of organization may assign the right to exercise sovereignty”.( Declaration of the sovereignty of the 
Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova) According to The declaration of independence of the Republic of Moldova 
adopted on August 27, 1991, “The Republic Of Moldova is a sovereign, independent and democratic state, free to 
decide its present and future, without any external interference, keeping with the ideals and aspirations of the 
people within its historical and ethnic area of its national making”. (The declaration of independence of the 
Republic of Moldova) We should note the regulation of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova with in the 
art. 1. paragraph 1 regulates the state power. According to this national document “The Republic of Moldova is a 
sovereign, independent, unitary and indivisible state”. (Constitution of the Republic of Moldova) So, we could 
conclude that the Republic of Moldova adopts similar acts that refer to the regulation the principle of national 
sovereignty, following the implementation in practice of the classical theories of sovereignty developed by Locke, 
Rousseau and Montesquieu.  
Analyzing the concept of sovereignty in the USA constitutional law, we should note that in the U.S. Constitution 
the concept of sovereignty is not expressly regulated. The essence of the idea of “popular sovereignty” was 
developed by politician Thomas Jefferson, who considered that the government’s goal should by the guarantee of 
human rights. According to him, state’s power emanates from the consent of the people. If the form of government 
is harmful to this purpose, the people have the right to abolish it and establish a new government. (Arseni A., 2019, 
p.34) We should mention that according to the Declaration of Independence of U.S. the sovereignty belongs to 
people. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their 
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—That 
to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the 
Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People 
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing 
its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” (Transcript of the 
Declaration). So, the phrase that governors derive “their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed” shows us 
that peoples are holders of the state power. According to American scientists, the concept of sovereignty “follows, 
therefore, both by principle and by authority, that under the United States Constitution, the doctrine of sovereignty 
in the United States is that doctrine which defines sovereignty not as independent, unlimited, indivisible power to 
compel obedience and freedom from liability, but in the narrow sense of the power to delimit personal liberty by 
social control or to protect personal liberty against social control; and which makes this power reside not in the 
organs of government, nor the Constitution, nor Divine Law, nor even in the states or nation (although all of these 
are juristic personalities), but in the people as a whole as organized at present in our dual form of government 
which is manifested in the fact that states and nation are not sovereign within their respective spheres but are 
merely exercising for the time being those sovereign powers which the people have seen fit to delegate to each of 
them for exercise.” (Willis, Hugh Evander, 1929) Therefore, we come to the same conclusion that sovereignty 
belongs to the people, and state bodies only exercise the powers conferred to them by the people. 
In this study, we would like to analyze the concept of sovereignty in the states in with is established the monarchy 
as a form of government. The constitution of Belgium, in which as a form of government is establish the 
constitutional monarchy, regulates the state’s supreme power in the article 33. According to this regulation, “All 
power comes from the Nation. They are carried out in accordance with the procedure established by the 
Constitution.” (The Belgian Constitution, 2014) So, we could claim that the regulation of sovereignty in the 
constitution of Belgium is similar to the constitutions of other states mentioned above. Another example of the 
state in winch the monarchy is the form of government and the official religion is Islam is the Morocco. The 
specificity of this state is manifested by the regulation of the official religion that allows the positioning of the 
Morocco as an Islamic state. Analyzing the historical development of states in which state power was not separated 
from church power, we note the application of the concept of divine sovereignty, according to which power 
emanates from God and is exercised by prince. According to the Morocco’s Constitution of 2011 “Sovereignty 
belongs to the Nation which exercises it directly, by way [voie] of referendum, and indirectly, by the intermediary 
of its representatives. The Nation chooses its representatives from among the institutions elected by way of free, 
honest [sinceres] and regular suffrage.” (Morocco's Constitution) Despite the fact that Morocco is an Islamic State 
with monarchy as a form of government, its constitution declares that the supreme power in the state belongs to 
the people. 
We should highlight that the state’s form of government (monarchy or republic) or the political regime (the 
presidential, parliamentary or semi-presidential republic) does not influence the concept of sovereignty. In France 
that is the semi-presidential republic, in German, that is parliamentary republic, in the USA that is presidential 
republic, in Belgium, that is the constitutional monarchy as a form of government, in Morocco, that is the Islamic 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 21 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

state with monarchy as the form of government the sovereignty belongs to people. So, all conceptual differences 
that arise as a result of the different attributions of state’s bodies and the different co-report especially between the 
executive and the legislative power do not influence the concept of sovereignty because all states in which the 
democracy is established as a political regime regulate that sovereignty belongs to people.  
5. Conclusions 
We should note that sovereignty is the basic concept of the constitutional law that is present in each society, 
organized politically. The crystallization of the concept of sovereignty begins with the formation of the first state 
organizations and continues at present. The brilliant thinkers of humanity contemplated about the origins of the 
state power and the person/ body that should hold the entire power in state. Each epoch comes with another theory 
of sovereignty, which, on the one hand, mirrors the correlation of powers in the state and, on the other hand, 
demonstrate place and role of the people within the state. Thus, the emergence of the concept of sovereignty begins 
in Ancient Greece when Plato and Aristotle researched the forms of government existing in that period of time and 
determined the holder of state power. However, these influential thinkers did not elaborate the entire theory of 
sovereignty, formulating this theory only tangentially. The terminological formation of the notion of sovereignty 
is linked with the development of the Antic Roman Empire.  
The evolution of this concept continued in the Middle Ages being a means of the legitimating of the church power, 
in general, and the power of Pope of Roma in particular. So, Saint Thomas Aquinas promoted and argued the 
church’s view of state power by positioning the Pope of Rome as a holder of the entire state power, which comes 
from God. This approach shows, on the one hand, the influence of the church on the state leadership, the confusion 
between the secular and the church power, and, on the other hand, it mirrors the position of the people in society, 
who must unconditionally obey to the orders of the church and the King practically having no rights. The 
philosophy of Marsilius of Padua shows us the emergence of the democratic ideas of the popular government. The 
thinker started that people should hold state power that is exercised by the elected bodies. This idea laid the 
foundation of the popular and national sovereignty that triumphed over the political thinking of humanity during 
the Enlightenment. We should note the modification of the people’s role within the state, who from the servant 
became the holders of state power. However, the theory of the royal sovereignty reflected the domination of the 
totalitarian tendencies within the state which are manifested in the growth of the royal authority at the expense of 
the rights and social position of the people. So, the “war” between royalty and the church power was won by 
secular power. However, this victory of royal power did not lead to an improvement of the people’s position within 
society and did not bring an increase in their well-being.  
We should highlight that the entire theory of sovereignty was elaborated only in the Modern Epoch by Jean Bodin. 
This thinker created a theory of secular sovereignty which is concentrated in the power of price. The most 
important difference of this theory from those exposed above is the elaboration of the notion of sovereignty and 
the characteristic features of this concept that remain actually at present. One of the most important theories of 
sovereignty was developed by Johannes Althusius who promoted the concept of popular sovereignty and 
developed the idea of subsidiary of state power which is explained by the creation of state bodies at the central and 
local levels.  
We concept of state’s sovereignty was developed by Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbes. Hugo Grotius in 
elaboration of the theory of sovereignty did not start from the identification of the state body that exercises state 
power, but stipulated that all power belongs to the state itself which is the sovereign within its borders. The 
originality of Thomas Hobbes ideas is manifested in the creation of the concept of the state as an almighty body 
independent of the will of the people in which the supreme and unlimited power belongs to the prince. So, we 
should note the beginning of the “war” for power between the personal government and democratically one, 
between the popular and the national sovereignty, supported by John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the 
royal one developed by Hobbes. In this “was”, as a result of the Great French Revolution won the concept of 
popular / national sovereignty depending on the constitutional system adopted by the state and the representative 
or imperative mandate of the deputies, which signified the triumph of human rights and fundamental freedoms. 
So, the formation of the classical theories of sovereignty ended with the formation of all-encompassing theories 
of popular and national sovereignty, which represent the base of contemporary constitutionalism.  
Actually, appear the new aspects of the concept of sovereignty. This no longer represents the unconditional and 
unlimited power of state power over a territory and citizens of this state. Now, the exercise of the state’s 
sovereignty is linked with the state’s obligation to guarantee and to respect the human rights and fundamental 
freedoms. The UN may authorize the military forces of the state or coalition of states to enter the territory of 
another state if its leadership undertakes acts of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and threatens the 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 22 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

peace and security of humanity. So, the people’s well-being and the respect of human’s rights become more 
important than compliance with the state’s sovereignty and the power of the state over the territory and its citizens. 
Despite the violation of sovereignty by humanitarian intervention, its implementation is legal if the UN Security 
Council authorizes it in accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter.  
In the XXI century the specific of the state’s sovereignty is manifested by the cession of the state’s competence to 
community bodies within international organizations, for example, the EU. So, this leads to the emergence of the 
concept of strategic sovereignty that is held by the EU, but it is not exercised by member-states of this organization.  
Beginning from those exposed above, we could conclude that from ancient times to the present, the concept of 
sovereignty has been and remains one of the most polemized theories which mirror the entire structure of the 
state’s organization. At present, in political philosophy is presented a tendency towards the revaluation of 
sovereignty, which is adapted to the conditions of contemporary reality.  
References  
Annan, K. (1999). Two Concepts of Sovereignty', The Economist, 18 September. Online: Two concepts of 

sovereignty | United Nations Secretary-General. 
Arseni A. (2019). Legitimitatea mandatului reprezentativ în exercitarea suveranității naționale, Chișinău: CEP 

USM Printing House 
Bădescu, M. (2002). Conceptele fundamentale în teoria și filosofia dreptului, Școli și curente în gândirea juridică, 

Lumina Lex Publishing House, Bucharest. 
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany Online: https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf 
Bell, D. (2019, March 26). Humanitarian intervention. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/humanitarian-intervention  
Birmo A., (1978). Les arands courants de la philosophier du dreit et de L’Etat, Ed. A. Pedone, Paris,  
Butllowa, History of the theory of sovereignty, quote after Willis, Hugh Evander, (1929). The Doctrine of 

Sovereignty Under the United States Constitution. Articles by Maurer Faculty. 1256. Retrieved from 
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/1256 

Capcelea, V. (2004). Filosofia dreptului: Manual pentru instituții de învățământ superior, Chisinau, Arc Publishing 
House 

Consolidated Version of The Treaty on The Functioning of The European Union Official, EN Journal of the 
European Union C 326/47 26.10.2012. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN  

Constitution of the Republic of France OF OCTOBER 4, 1958 Retrieved from https://www.conseil-
constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/anglais/constiution_anglais_oct2009.pdf 

Constitution of the Republic of Moldova Published: 29.03.2016 in Monitorul Oficial no. 78 Article No. 140 
Effective date: 08/27/1994 Online: Constitution of the Republic of Moldova — Presidency of the Republic 
of Moldova (presedinte.md)  

Coșleț, N. (2019). Impactul calității de membru a statului în cadrul ONU, NATO și UE asupra suveranității statului. 
In Realităţi şi perspective ale învăţământului juridic naţional: (Vol. 1, pp. 667-674). ISBN 78-9975-149-79-
2.  

Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Moldova Adopted in Chisinau, by the Parliament of the Republic 
of Moldova on this day, the 27th of August, 1991. Online: Declaration of Independence of the Republic of 
Moldova — Presidency of the Republic of Moldova (presedinte.md)  

Declaration of the sovereignty of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova adopted on June 23, 1990 Nr.148-XII 
din 23.06.90 "Vesti" Nr. 8/192, 1990 Online: Declaraţia de suveranitate a Republicii Sovietice Socialiste 
Moldova (RSSM) (istoria.md). 

Deleanu, I. (1993). Drept constituțional și instituții politice, Iași, vol. 1, Cugetarea Printing House. 
Drăganu, T. (1998). Drept constituțional și instituții politice, vol.1, București Lumina Lex Printing House. 
European Sovereignty Online: European Sovereignty – European Council on Foreign Relations (ecfr.eu). 
France of the XVI century. Retrieved from http://o-france.ru/frantsiya-xvi-veka.html  
Georgescu, P. A. (2001). Filosofia dreptului în contextual actualității. Tratat și antologie de texte, Bucharest, Titu 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 23 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

Maioarescu University Publishing House. 
Georgescu, Ș. (2001) Filosofia dreptului. O istorie a ideilor din ultimii 2500 de ani. Bucharest, ALL BECK. 
Grotius, H. (1968). Despre dreptul războiului și al păcii, București, Scientific Publishing House. 
Guceac, I. (2001). Curs elementare de drept constituțional, vol. 1, Chisinau, Central Printing House. 
Guceac, I. (2004). Curs elementare de drept constituțional, vol. 2, Chisinau, Central Printing House. 
Guceac, I. (2014). Constituția la răscruce de milenii, Chișinău, Central Printing House. 
Hinsley, F. H. (1998). Suveranitate, Chișinău, Știința Printing House. 
Hirst, K. K. (2018). Feudalism - A Political System of Medieval Europe and Elsewhere. Retrieved from 

http://thoughtco.com/feudalism-political-system-of-medieval-europe-170918. 
Ionescu, C. (2015). Câteva consideratii pe marginea art. 29 din Constitutia României, revizuite. Pandectele 

Romane, (12), 17. Retrieved from https://www.juridice.ro/343767/cateva-consideratii-pe-marginea-art-2-
alin-1-din-constitutie.html 

Rousseau, J. J. (1957). Despre Contractul Social sau Principiile Dreptului Politic, București,  
Klimenko, O., & Mirzoev, A. (2016). The development of the concept of sovereignty from Marsilius of Padua to 

Hegel, Legal science. № 3, Ryazan Online: Развитие понятия суверенитета от Марсилия Падуанского до 
Гегеля (cyberleninka.ru) ISSN: 2218-7499. 

Kondurov, V. (2016). Karl Schmitt's Philosophy of the State Final qualifying work of the 2nd year student of the 
master's program of the 2nd stream of group No. 030901 of full-time education, St. Petersburg. Retrieved 
from 
https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/5129/1/Vypusknaya_kvalifikacionnaya_rabota_%28Kondurov_V_E
_%29.docx  

Ladner, G. B. (2020, October 7). Boniface VIII. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from 
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Boniface-VIII  

Leung, J. (2012). Machiavelli and International Relations Theory. Glendon Journal of International Studies, 1. 
Retrieved from https://gjis.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/gjis/article/view/35136  

Locke, J. (1999). Al doilea tratat despre cârmuire. Scrisoare despre toleranță. Bucharest Nemira. 
Lungu, D. (2013) Niccolo Machiavelli Online: Niccolo Machiavelli. Retrieved from http://societatesicultura.ro  
Machiavelli, N. (1998), The Sovereign, Moscow: EKSMO-Press; Kharkiv: Folio. 
Machiavelli, N. (1950). The Prince and The Discourses. New York: Modem Library. 
Mattern, J. (1928). Concepts of State, Sovereignty and International Law: With Special Reference to the Juristic 

Conception of the State. Johns Hopkins Press. 
Montesquieu, C. (1964). Despre spiritul legilor, București, vol. 1, Scientific Publishing House. 
Morocco's Constitution of 2011. Retrieved from 

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Morocco_2011.pdf?lang=en  
Noţiuni generale privind suveranitatea 03.04.2019 Online: Noţiuni generale privind suveranitatea - Biblioteca 

Digitala Online de Administratie si Management (administrare.info)  
Paduansky, M. (2014). Defender of the World. Defensor pacis / translated from the French by Yesenov B. U., 

scientific editor, Lupareva G., Moscow, Publishing and Trading Corporation "Dashkov and K" 
Popa, N., Dogaru, I., Dănișor, G., & Claudiu, D. D. (2002). Filosofia dreptului. Marile curente, Bucharest, ALL 

BECK. 
Râbca, E., Zaharia, V., Mărgineanu, V., & Ciobanu R. (2016). Filosofia dreptului, Chisinau, Artpoligraf Publishing 

House. 
Rasheda Parveen Literature and Social History, Unit 1 Medieval Period: Feudalism and Role of the Church. 

Retrieved from https://ddceutkal.ac.in/Syllabus/MA_English/Paper_03.pdf  
Schmitt, K. (2000). Political Theology. Moscow, KANON-PRESS-Lj kuchkovo FIELD. 
Shumkov, D. V. (2002). Socio-legal foundations of the state sovereignty of the Russian Federation (historical and 

theoretical analysis): abstract of the dissertation of the Doctor of Law. St. Petersburg. 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 4, No. 3; 2021 

 24 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

Stere C., (2016). Curs de drept constituțional, Chișinău, Cartier Printing House. 
The Belgian Constitution This publication contains the text of the Belgian Constitution as updated following the 

sixth institutional reform (constitutional revisions of 6 January 2014 – Belgian Official Gazette of 31 January 
2014) May 2014 Belgian House of Representatives. Retrieved from 
http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/bel135227E.pdf  

The Church’s Role in Feudalism. The Church’s Role in Feudalism – Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church – ELCA 
(graceeluth.org). 

Toma d’Aquino, Summa contra Gentiles ( Împotriva erorilor necredincioșilor) citat după Zăpârțan Liviu Petru, 
(1994). Doctrine politice, Iași, Chemarea Printing House. 

Transcript of the Declaration (as adopted). Retrieved from https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-
s-three-greatest-achievements/the-declaration/transcript-of-the-declaration/ 

United Nations Charter (full text) Online: United Nations Charter (full text) | United Nations. 
Voiculescu M.,(1992). Istoria doctrinelor politice, București, Hyperion XXI Printing House. 
Vrabie G., (1992). Drept constituțional și instituții politice, Iași, “CUGETAREA” Printing House. 
Willis, Hugh Evander. The Doctrine of Sovereignty Under the United States Constitution" (1929). Articles by 

Maurer Faculty. 1256. Retrieved from https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/1256  

 
Copyrights 
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. 
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).