ABSTRACT
Within every civil society – or polity – there will be found, as a social and political fact, one supreme power. The nineteenth century jurist John Austin8 was one of the earliest ‘modern’ theorists to offer an in depth analysis of sovereignty, and his work – while much criticised by later writers – still marks a useful starting point for analysis of the concept. Austin’s theory was an attempt to define law in the positivist tradition.9 Law is nothing more or less than the commands of the identifiable, illimitable and indivisible sovereign body. The sovereignty conferred exhibits itself in the habit of obedience of the people, which in turn is instilled by the fear of sanctions which attach to all laws and thus underpin the legal system. Laws are nothing more nor less than the general commands of this sovereign, to which sanctions are attached:
While the model most closely accords with the criminal statute, it is difficult to endorse in relation to much of the civil law and in relation to those laws which regulate the law making and law enforcing institutions within the state. However, in every state, whether monarchical or parliamentary, unitary or federal, there must be some body which demonstrates the characteristics of a sovereign. For Austin, sovereignty as a legal concept within the United Kingdom lies with the Queen in Parliament: as a political concept, the ultimate sovereignty vested in the people.
