Austin’s final lecture should finally proceed to the analysis of positive law. As we have seen, he describes positive law as a commandment by a superior. If the lawgiver itself has a superior in a community, their power of giving laws is derived from this superior actor. Ultimately, all positive law is then dependent on some actor who has no superior in an independent society, that is, a sovereign. Thus, Austin says, he has to characterise the concepts of sovereign and of independent society.
Austin defines a sovereign of a community as such a person or a group of persons that 1) most of that society habitually obeys them and 2) this person or group does not habitually obey any individual or group in that society, although they might occasionally submit to a command of someone. The other members of the society are then said to be subjects of the sovereign.
Austin calls a community consisting of a sovereign and all the people subject to the sovereign an independent political society, although he admits that actually only the sovereign is independent, while all the subjects are dependent. Austin notes that this definition does not mean that the society in question could not be subjected to other societies in a transitory manner. Thus, when the allied forces occupied France, the French nation was still an independent society, since the government of France obeyed the occupiers only in a transitory manner.
Austin emphasises that an independent political society can have only one sovereign. Thus, he argues, a society in a civil war, where one side obeys one government and the other side another is not an independent, political society, although the two sides of the conflict might be.
Austin compares an independent political society, first, with a dependent political society. Such a society is political, because it answers to a common superior, such as a viceroy, but this society is not dependent, because this superior has a further superior and the whole society is then subordinate to another society.
Secondly, Austin compares an independent political society with an independent natural society. In such a society the members interact with one another, but are not part of any political society. Closely related to such a natural society is the society of sovereigns, since although as sovereigns they are part of political societies, in relation to each other they do not form a political society. Thus, Austin concludes, international politics are not regulated by a positive law.
Austin admits that this classification of societies is not perfect. In other words, there are societies that are not independent political societies, subordinate political societies, independent natural societies or societies of sovereigns. Examples of such societies include families within political societies, since they are not themselves political societies, but do not exist in a state of nature.
Austin admits that his definition of an independent political society is not completely precise. It says that the bulk of that society must habitually obey the sovereign, but this leaves still undetermined, what proportion must obey or how often and how long they must do so. Thus, although there are clear cases of independent political societies and clear cases of societies that are not independent or political, there are also some cases which cannot be easily categorised into either categories, such as a society recovering from a civil war or a colony fighting for its independence.
Austin notes also that his definition of an independent society contains an implicit assumption that the society in question is big enough. What the exact size for this “big enough” is cannot be exactly determined, but we can still say that a family living in a state of nature is no political society, although all the family members would obey one person as their superior.
Austin goes on to classify various forms of sovereigns. He has already stated that the sovereign is either a single person or a group of persons. He mentions also the possibility that the whole of the society would govern itself, but discards it as improbable, since society always has people who are unable to govern. Thus, Austin concludes, the government of an independent political society is either a monarchy, with a single individual as a sovereign, or aristocracy, with a group of persons as a sovereign.
Furthermore, Austin continues, aristocracies in this general sense can be divided into oligarchies, with a very small group as a sovereign, aristocracies in the proper sense, with a somewhat larger group as a sovereign, and popular governments or democracies, with a relatively largest group as a sovereign. Yet, he admits, no precise numbers can be assigned to these kinds of aristocracies.
Austin notes that in aristocracies the sovereign may consist of a single homogenous group of individuals or of several groups, some of which might be larger and others smaller. The latter kind has an indefinite number of subdivisions, he remarks, but the only one he considers worthy of consideration is the so-called limited monarchy, where one part of sovereign is an individual person, often titled monarch, although this is not the case of proper monarchy according to Austin’s definition.
Whatever the form of the sovereignty, Austin says, the sovereign can exercise their power through delegates or subordinates representing them. This is often even a necessity, when the size of the society grows so large that the sovereign itself could not govern everything by themselves. An interesting species of such representatives is formed by societies where sovereignty is at least partially with a large part of the populace that elects representatives to rule for them, like in the British system, where the commons vote their representatives to the parliament.
Austin considers the supposed division of sovereign power to legislative and administrative or executive powers. According to his definition of positive law, this division seems meaningless, since many of the powers deemed often executive and also the special judicial power are simply legislative. Thus, Austin concludes, the only definite division of sovereign powers that can be made is that of supreme and subordinate powers.
Austin reflects on the notion of so-called half-sovereign or imperfectly sovereign societies, the prime example of which were supposedly the states in the Holy Roman Empire, which in some sense governed themselves, but had also some political duties toward the Empire. Austin thinks that no such notion is actually required. In some cases such states are simply just nominally independent, in others truly independent (like Prussia). There is a third possibility, Austin admits, where a state, like Bavaria in its relation to the Empire, is partially independent of another state and still has to obey it in some cases, but then the true sovereign is not the government of the first state alone, but this government together with the government of the second state. Furthermore, in a case like Hannover and Great Britain sharing a monarch, the British state was not, according to Austin, imperfectly sovereign over Hannover, but the sovereign of Hannover was part of the sovereign of Great Britain.
Austin points out that in some cases independent political states have united into a composite state, or as he prefers to call it, a supreme federal government: a good example would be the United States. Such a composite state, Austin thinks, forms a single independent political society, but its sovereignty does not lie just in the central government, but is shared by it and the governments of the constituent states. Then again, he insists, this is very different from a system of confederated states, such as the so-called German Confederation following the Holy Roman Empire, where the states remain independent, but they have formed a permanent alliance.
Austin argues that the power of sovereign cannot be legally restricted in its own society, because they are the source of all legal restrictions. Of course, their power can be restricted by divine law or by positive morality, in other words, their actions might be considered unethical or against the common opinion. Furthermore, if a sovereign is a group of persons, the power of a part of this group can be also legally restricted, so that e.g. the king of Britain could be legally punished. Furthermore, he also admits that the sovereign might be legally restricted in another independent political society: for instance, if the British government has assets in a Swiss bank, it must obey Swiss jurisdiction with its interaction with the bank.
In Austin’s opinion, since the sovereign power can never be legally restricted within its own political society, political liberty can mean only the liberty from legal obligation granted by the sovereign. He is also critical of thinkers who extol political liberty as the supreme end of a political society. Instead, he insists, the true end of a political society is the common good, which might in some cases require limiting the political liberty of someone. Indeed, Austin points out, all political liberty requires setting legal limits someone else, for instance, my liberty to travel freely in a country must be guaranteed by the duty of others not to harm me in my travels.
Just like sovereign power has no legal restrictions in its own society, the sovereign also has no legal rights in its own society, Austin thinks. According to him, legal right is something conferred by the sovereign government to an actor in its society, so that respective duties are conferred to other actors. Clearly, he argues, the sovereign cannot hand such rights to themselves, since it already has the legal power to do anything. Of course, the sovereign may still have divine or moral rights. Furthermore, the sovereign can have legal rights in other independent political societies, if such rights are given to it by the legislation of the other society.
The purpose of an independent political society is the common good of its citizens, thus, Austin argues, the cause for its continued existence is that the subjects consider it more useful for the society to obey their sovereign than, for instance, resist its commands. The origin of a political society, on the other hand, could have been of various sorts, Austin conjectures, but one element of its generation has to have been that the majority of its subjects have thought its existence to be generally useful. Yet, he is adamantly against the idea of a so-called social contract, which is not just clearly a fiction for historical reasons, but also suggests the erroneous idea that the political society would be based on a consent of people in the natural state, when no such consent would form a legal contract in a state with no political society, and indeed, would not obligate the sovereign in any manner.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti