ABSTRACT
Traditionally lawyers, scholars, judges, and statespersons describe the international community as a community of independent sovereign states. The term “sovereign” echoes a time when dealing with a sovereign state meant dealing with a specific individual whose word was recognized as authoritative by his or her people. The characterization “sovereignty” describes jurisdictional competencies, both internal and external. Two of sovereignty’s principal elements—territory and population—indicate where and upon whom the third required element—a government—may exercise authority. Sovereignty is a metaphor for a conduit for communication. Without group acceptance of the legitimacy of a centralized communication process, there can be no sovereignty, either for internal or for external purposes. Externally, lacking a reliable communication conduit, no other state could even begin to engage in relations with the people in the territory in question. The recognition of a state by other members of the world community is, in fact, merely an acknowledgement that the internal recognition of the central institution’s governmental legitimacy has occurred.
