CARL SCHMITT’S CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY IS A BORDERLINE CONCEPT THAT DIFFERS FROM HOBBE’S AND BODIN’S UNDERSTANDING IN CERTAIN KEY RESPECTS.
Sovereignty is the supreme authority realised by the constituents of a territory. In modern terms it means authority exercised by a state (political authority) over the people of that state. It implies independence of a state and control over the conditions one lives under. It also thrusts responsibility upon the people to be obedient to the sovereign authority.
This concept became prominent through the writings of political thinkers like Carl Schmitt, Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes and many more. But each of them had distinct views on who should be considered sovereign, where this sovereignty is derived from, and the powers of the sovereign. Carl Schmitt defines sovereign as he who decides upon the exception. By exception he means he who has the authority to decide in case of emergency of state. He believes that a rule made during the emergency of state is an actual applicable rule as opposed to a rule made under general conditions,
which does not include the occurrence of an exception. Exceptions prove everything, they make the concept of sovereignty an important concept as the emergency of state cannot be foreseen by the sovereign and therefore the decision taken by the sovereign in such a situation proves whether the authority lies with the correct representative of the people or not. He emphasizes upon the state in conflict and what intrigues him the most is the norms that the authority makes during the state of conflict. As the constitution does not mention the norms to be followed in a state of conflict, it just mentions who decides in the state of conflict. Emphasis is laid upon this because according to him sovereignty conceptualizes two important points, which are security and public order. These cannot be implemented or tested upon unless they are threatened in any manner. The ultimate sovereign authority is the one...