A Sphere Sovereignty Theory of the State: Looking Back and Looking Forward
International and Public Affairs
Volume 3, Issue 1, June 2019, Pages: 13-19
Received: Jun. 18, 2019; Accepted: Jul. 10, 2019; Published: Aug. 5, 2019
Views 155      Downloads 18
Author
Renato Saeger Magalhaes Costa, T. C. Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
The conception of the State is constantly challenged. The new disruptions and social, political and economical developments have questioned the existence, meaning and scope of the institutionalized State. While many believe that the State is no longer necessary in a current international law environment, others defend its applicability and relevance. Many theories of the State have risen either as justification for its existence or termination. Sphere sovereignty is a known theory within the Christian tradition. It lacks, however, acknowledgement in a wider context. Although this theory presents a relevant approach to the formation and the meaning of the State, its origins and developments are not widely known. The article proposes the reader to look back in order to understand the roots of sphere sovereignty and its basic tenets to, then, look forward, proposing that some challenges in international law could be faced through the lens of sphere sovereignty.
Keywords
Sphere Sovereignty, State, International Law, Political Philosophy, Globalization
To cite this article
Renato Saeger Magalhaes Costa, A Sphere Sovereignty Theory of the State: Looking Back and Looking Forward, International and Public Affairs. Vol. 3, No. 1, 2019, pp. 13-19. doi: 10.11648/j.ipa.20190301.13
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Revelations 1: 5 and Ephesians 1: 21-22.
[2]
Constance Youngwon Lee, ‘Calvinist Natural Law and Constitutionalism’ (2014) 39 Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 9.
[3]
Saint Augustine, The City of God (Cambridge University, 1998), Book III.
[4]
John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion (Christian Classics Ethereal Library, first published in 1536, translated version by Henry Beveridge, 1845), 1238.
[5]
David T Koyzis, Political visions and illusions: A Survey and Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies (InterVarsity, 2nd ed, 2019).
[6]
David W Hall, Calvin in the Public Square: liberal democracies, rights and civil liberties (P&R, 1st ed, 2009).
[7]
Abraham Kuyper, Calvinism: The origin and the safeguard of our constitutional liberties (Bibliotheca Sacra, 1895) 658.
[8]
William F Keesecker, The Law in John Calvin's Ethics in Calvin and Christian Ethics (Peter De Klerk (ed), Calvin Study Society, 1987), 19-20.
[9]
Augusto Zimmermann, ‘The Christian Foundations of the Rule of Law in the West: A Legacy of Liberty and Resistance against Tyranny’ (2005) 19 (2) Journal of Creation.
[10]
It remains uncertain whether Alexander Hamilton or James Madison is the author of the Federalist Paper No. 51, for all original publishing was subscribed by anonymous ‘Publius’.
[11]
Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, ‘Federalist No. 51’ in Clinton Rossiter (ed), The Federalist Papers (New American Library, 1961).
[12]
Alexis de Tocqueville, ‘Unlimited Power of the Majority in the United States, and its Consequences’ in Democracy in America (Henry Reeve (trans.), 1835), Vol I, chapter XV.
[13]
Hans Baron, ‘Calvinist Republicanism and its Historical Roots’ (1939) 8 Church History 30, 39; Kuyper, above n 9, 659; Zimmermann, above n 17; Lee, above n 2, 33, 40.
[14]
Johannes Althusius, Politica methodice digesta (Liberty Fund, 1995)
[15]
Daniel Elazar, Covenant and Civil Society: the constitutional matrix of modern democracy (Transaction Publishers, 1998), 20; and, Nicholas Aroney, ‘Althusius At The Antipodes: The Politica And Australian Federalism’ (2003) in Frederick Carney, Heinz Schilling and Dieter Wyduckel (eds), Jurisprudenz, Politische Theorie und Politische Theologie (Duncker & Humblot, 2004).
[16]
Daniel Elazar, “Althusius’ Grand Design for a Federal Commonwealth” in Johannes Althusius, Politica methodice digesta (Liberty Fund, 1995) xxxv.
[17]
William Dunning, A History of Political Theories from Luther to Montesquieu (Macmillan, 1905) 61-62.
[18]
Joan Lockwood O'Donovan, ‘Political Authority and European Community: The Challenge of the Christian Political Tradition’ (2009) 47 Scottish Journal of Theology 12.
[19]
Leonardo Ramos and Lucas G Freire, ‘Introdução’ [‘Introduction’] in Herman Dooyeweerd, Estado e soberania: ensaios sobre cristianismo e política [‘State and Sovereignty: Essays on Christianity and Politics’] (Vida Nova, 1st ed, 2014).
[20]
Herman Dooyeweerd, Roots of Western Culture: pagan, secular, and Christian options (Paideia Press, 2012).
[21]
Guillaume Groen Van Prinsterer, Le Parti Anti-Revolutionaire et Confessionel dans l’Église Réformée des Pays-Bas (H Höveker, 1860).
[22]
Abraham Kuyper, Sphere Sovereignty (Speech at the inauguration of the Free University, Amsterdam, 08 March 1880).
[23]
Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Cosimo Classics, originally published in 1931, 2009).
[24]
Dieter Grimm, Sovereignty: The Origin and Future of a Political and Legal Concept (Columbia University, 1st ed, 2015).
[25]
Gregory Baus, ‘Dooyeweerd’s Societal Sphere Sovereignty: A Theory of Differentiated Responsibility’ (2006) 7 Griffin’s View on International and Comparative Law 209-217.
[26]
Johan Van Der Vyver, ‘Sovereignty and Human Rights’ (1991) 5 Emory International Law Review 346.
[27]
Herman Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1969), Part III.
[28]
Herman Dooyeweerd, ‘The Relation of the Individual and Community from a Legal Philosophical Perspective’ (1997) in Alan Cameron & D F M Strauss (eds) Essays in Legal, Social, and Political Philosophy, (Te Edwind Mellen, 1997) 97.
[29]
Roger Townshend, ‘Beyond Freedom vs. Democracy: A Dooyeweerdian Contribution to the Individual-Colective Debate’ (1991) University of Toronto 20.
[30]
Herman Dooyeweerd, The Christian Idea of the State (Craig Press, John Kraay (trans), 1968).
[31]
Dooyeweerd listed at least 15 modal aspects: Quantitative, Spacial, Kinematic, Physical, Biotic/Organic, Sensitive/Psychic, Analytical, Formative, Lingual, Social, Economic, Aesthetic, Juridical, Ethical/Attitudinal, Pistic/Faith.
[32]
SS Lotus Case (France v Turkey) (1927) PCIJ (ser A) No 10.
[33]
Island of Palmas Case (United States v Netherlands) (Award) (1928) II RIAA 829, ICGJ 392 (PCA).
[34]
Robert Jennings, ‘Sovereignty and International Law’ in Gerard Kreijen (ed), State, Sovereignty, and International Governance (Oxford University, 2002).
[35]
For an analysis of the debate on the future of State sovereignty: Alfred Van Staden and Hans Vollaard, ‘The Erosion of the State Sovereignty: Towards a Post-territorial world?’ in Gerard Kreijen (ed), State, Sovereignty, and International Governance (Oxford University, 2002).
[36]
James W Skillen, ‘Problems of Theory in Political Integration: Europe’ (1976) 40 (1/2) Philosophia Reformata 154-156.
[37]
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening) (Judgement) (2012) ICGJ 434, No 143.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186