Editing Sovereignty (section)

==Definition and types==
{{quote box
| width = 30%|There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon.|[[Lassa Oppenheim]] (30-03-1858 – 07-10-1919)|an authority on international law<ref>[[Lassa Oppenheim]], International Law 66 (Sir Arnold D. McNair ed., 4th ed. 1928)</ref>
}}

===Absoluteness===
An important factor of sovereignty is its degree of [[Absolute monarchy|absoluteness]].<ref name="link.springer.com">{{cite journal|last1=Núñez|first1=Jorge Emilio|year=2014|title=About the Absolute State Sovereignty|journal=International Journal for Law|volume=27|issue=4|pages=645–664|doi=10.1007/s11196-013-9333-x|s2cid=150817547}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal|last1=Núñez|first1=Jorge Emilio|year=2015|title=of Absolute State Sovereignty: The Middle Ages|journal=International Journal for the Law|volume=28|issue=2|pages=235–250|doi=10.1007/s11196-014-9379-4|s2cid=153788601}}</ref> A sovereign power has absolute sovereignty when it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by [[Custom (law)|custom]], and no areas of law or policy are reserved as being outside its control. [[International law]]; policies and actions of neighboring states; cooperation and respect of the populace; means of enforcement; and resources to enact policy are factors that might limit sovereignty. For example, parents are not guaranteed the right to decide some matters in the upbringing of their children independent of societal regulation, and municipalities do not have unlimited jurisdiction in local matters, thus neither parents nor municipalities have absolute sovereignty. Theorists have diverged over the desirability of increased absoluteness.

===Exclusivity===
A key element of sovereignty in a legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of [[jurisdiction]] also described as the ultimate arbiter in all disputes on the territory. Specifically, the degree to which decisions made by a sovereign entity might be contradicted by another authority. Along these lines, the German sociologist [[Max Weber]] proposed that sovereignty is a community's [[Monopoly on violence|monopoly on the legitimate use of force]]; and thus any group claiming the right to violence must either be brought under the yoke of the sovereign, proven illegitimate or otherwise contested and defeated for sovereignty to be genuine.<ref>Newton, Kenneth. Foundations of comparative politics: democracies of the modern world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.</ref> International law, competing branches of government, and authorities reserved for subordinate entities (such as [[federated state]]s or republics) represent legal infringements on exclusivity. Social institutions such as religious bodies, corporations, and competing political parties might represent ''de facto'' infringements on exclusivity.

===''De jure'' and ''de facto''===
''[[De jure]]'', or legal, sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally recognised right to exercise control over a territory. ''[[De facto]]'' sovereignty means sovereignty [[De facto#Government and culture|exists in practice]], irrespective of anything  legally accepted as such, usually in writing. Cooperation and respect of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an area; means of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various functions of state all represent measures of ''de facto'' sovereignty. When control is practiced predominantly by the military or police force it is considered ''coercive sovereignty''.

====Sovereignty and independence====
{{more citations needed section|date=July 2015}}
State sovereignty is sometimes viewed synonymously with [[independence]], however, sovereignty can be transferred as a legal right whereas independence cannot.<ref name="talmon"/> A state can achieve ''de facto'' independence long after acquiring sovereignty, such as in the case of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.<ref name="talmon"/> Additionally, independence can also be suspended when an entire region becomes subject to an occupation. For example, when [[Iraq]] was overrun by foreign forces in the [[Iraq War of 2003]], Iraq had not been [[annexed]] by any country, so sovereignty over it had not been claimed by any foreign state (despite the [[facts on the ground]]). Alternatively, independence can be lost completely when sovereignty itself becomes the subject of dispute. The pre-World War II administrations of [[Latvia]], [[Lithuania]] and [[Estonia]] maintained an exile existence (and considerable international recognition) whilst their territories were annexed by the [[Soviet Union]] and governed locally by their pro-Soviet functionaries. When in 1991 Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia re-enacted independence, it was done so on the basis of continuity directly from the pre-Soviet republics.<ref name="talmon">{{cite book|last=Talmon|first=Stefan|title=Recognition of Governments in International Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=scc8EboiJX8C&pg=PA50|series=Oxford Monographs in International Law Series|year=1998|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780198265733|page=50}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Mälksoo|first=Lauri|title=Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR|year=2003|publisher=M. Nijhoff Publishers|isbn=978-9041121776|page=193|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p5w6AQAAIAAJ}}</ref>

Another complicated sovereignty scenario can arise when regime itself is the subject of dispute. In the case of [[Poland]], the [[History of Poland (1945–89)|People's Republic of Poland]] which governed Poland from 1945 to 1989 is now seen to have been an illegal entity by the modern Polish administration. The post-1989 Polish state claims direct continuity from the [[Second Polish Republic]] which ended in 1939. For other reasons, however, Poland maintains its communist-era outline as opposed to its pre-World War II shape which included areas now in [[Belarus]], [[Czech Republic]], [[Lithuania]], [[Slovakia]] and [[Ukraine]] but did not include some of its western regions that were then in [[Germany]].

Additionally sovereignty can be achieved without independence, such as how the [[Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic]] made the [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic]] a sovereign entity within but not independent from the USSR.

At the opposite end of the scale, there is no dispute regarding the self-governance of certain self-proclaimed states such as the [[Republic of Kosovo]] or [[Somaliland]] (see [[List of states with limited recognition]], but most of them are [[puppet state]]s) since their governments neither answer to a bigger state nor is their governance subjected to supervision. The sovereignty (i.e. legal right to govern) however, is disputed in both cases as the first entity is claimed by [[Serbia]] and the second by [[Somalia]].

===Internal===
{{further|Free state (polity)}}
Internal sovereignty is the relationship between sovereign power and the political community. A central concern is [[Legitimacy (political science)|legitimacy]]: by what right does a government exercise authority? Claims of legitimacy might refer to the [[divine right of kings]], or to a [[social contract]] (i.e. [[popular sovereignty]]).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Wayback Machine |url=https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62691/1/Investigating-Legitimacy-in-the-Political-Order-of-Conflict-torn-spaces.pdf |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250120090417/http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62691/1/Investigating-Legitimacy-in-the-Political-Order-of-Conflict-torn-spaces.pdf |archive-date=2025-01-20 |access-date=2025-03-09 |website=eprints.lse.ac.uk}}</ref> [[Max Weber]] offered a first categorization of political authority and legitimacy with the categories of traditional, charismatic and legal-rational.

With "sovereignty" meaning holding supreme, independent authority over a region or state, "internal sovereignty" refers to the internal affairs of the state and the location of supreme power within it.<ref>{{cite web|last=Heywood|first=Andrew|title=Political Theory|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/51146058/41/Internal-sovereignty#page=108|work=pg. 92|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|access-date=25 June 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111224011743/http://www.scribd.com/doc/51146058/41/Internal-sovereignty#page=108|archive-date=24 December 2011}}</ref> A state that has internal sovereignty is one with a government that has been elected by the people and has the popular legitimacy.  Internal sovereignty examines the internal affairs of a state and how it operates.  It is important to have strong internal sovereignty to keeping order and peace.  When you have weak internal sovereignty, organisations such as rebel groups will undermine the authority and disrupt the peace.  The presence of a strong authority allows you to keep the agreement and enforce sanctions for the violation of laws.  The ability for leadership to prevent these violations is a key variable in determining internal sovereignty.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Wolford |first1=Scott |last2=Rider |first2=Toby |title=War, Peace, and Internal Sovereignty|url=http://spot.colorado.edu/~wolfordm/implementation2.pdf|work=pg.1|access-date=19 June 2011}}{{dead link|date=April 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> The lack of internal sovereignty can cause war in one of two ways: first, undermining the value of agreement by allowing costly violations; and second, requiring such large subsidies for implementation that they render war cheaper than peace.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Wolford |first1=Scott |last2=Rider |first2=Toby |title=War, Peace, and Internal Sovereignty|url=http://spot.colorado.edu/~wolfordm/implementation2.pdf|work=pg.3|access-date=19 June 2011}}{{dead link|date=April 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Leadership needs to be able to promise members, especially those like armies, police forces, or paramilitaries will abide by agreements. The presence of strong internal sovereignty allows a state to deter opposition groups in exchange for bargaining. While the operations and affairs within a state are relative to the level of sovereignty within that state, there is still an argument over who should hold the authority in a sovereign state.

This argument between who should hold the authority within a sovereign state is called the traditional doctrine of public sovereignty. This discussion is between an internal sovereign or an authority of public sovereignty. An internal sovereign is a political body that possesses ultimate, final and independent authority; one whose decisions are binding upon all citizens, groups and institutions in society. Early thinkers believed sovereignty should be vested in the hands of a single person, a monarch.  They believed the overriding merit of vesting sovereignty in a single individual was that sovereignty would therefore be indivisible; it would be expressed in a single voice that could claim final authority. An example of an internal sovereign is [[Louis XIV]] of France during the seventeenth century; Louis XIV claimed that he was the state. Jean-Jacques Rousseau rejected monarchical rule in favor of the other type of authority within a sovereign state, public sovereignty.  Public Sovereignty is the belief that ultimate authority is vested in the people themselves, expressed in the idea of the general will. This means that the power is elected and supported by its members, the authority has a central goal of the good of the people in mind.  The idea of public sovereignty has often been the basis for modern democratic theory.<ref>{{cite web|last=Heywood|first=Andrew|title=Political Theory|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/51146058/41/Internal-sovereignty#page=108|work=pg. 93|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|access-date=21 June 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111224011743/http://www.scribd.com/doc/51146058/41/Internal-sovereignty#page=108|archive-date=24 December 2011}}</ref>

====Modern internal sovereignty====
{{further|Tribal sovereignty}}

Within the modern governmental system, internal sovereignty is usually found in states that have public sovereignty and is rarely found within a state controlled by an internal sovereign.  A form of government that is a little different from both is the UK parliament system. [[John Austin (legal philosopher)|John Austin]] argued that sovereignty in the UK was vested neither in the Crown nor in the people but in the "[[Queen-in-Parliament]]".<ref name="Britannica" /> This is the origin of the doctrine of [[parliamentary sovereignty]] and is usually seen as the fundamental principle of the British constitution.  With these principles of parliamentary sovereignty, majority control can gain access to unlimited constitutional authority, creating what has been called "elective dictatorship" or "modern autocracy".  Public sovereignty in modern governments is a lot more common with examples like the US, Canada, Australia and India where the government is divided into different levels.<ref>{{cite web|last=Heywood|first=Andrew|title=Political Theory|work=pgs. 94–95|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/51146058/42/External-sovereignty|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120120191845/http://www.scribd.com/doc/51146058/42/External-sovereignty|archive-date=January 20, 2012}}</ref>

===External===
{{See also|Sovereign state#Recognition}}
External sovereignty concerns the relationship between sovereign power and other states. For example, the [[United Kingdom]] uses the following criterion when deciding under what conditions other states recognise a political entity as having sovereignty over some territory;
{{quote box
| width = 30%|"Sovereignty." A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country or a foreign sovereign state.|(''The Arantzazu Mendi'', [1939] A.C. 256)|Stroud's Judicial Dictionary
}}

External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law – such as when, if ever, is [[Foreign intervention|intervention]] by one country into another's territory permissible?

Following the [[Thirty Years' War]], a European religious conflict that embroiled much of the continent, the [[Peace of Westphalia]] in 1648 established the notion of territorial sovereignty as a norm of [[non-intervention|noninterference]] in the affairs of other states, so-called [[Westphalian sovereignty]], even though the treaty itself reaffirmed the multiple levels of the sovereignty of the Holy Roman Empire. This resulted as a natural extension of the older principle of ''[[cuius regio, eius religio]]'' (Whose realm, his religion), leaving the Roman Catholic Church with little ability to interfere with the internal affairs of many European states.  It is a myth, however, that the Treaties of Westphalia created a new European order of equal sovereign states.<ref>Andreas Osiander, "Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth", ''[[International Organization]]'' Vol. 55 No. 2 (Spring 2001), pp. 251–287.</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Burbank |first1=Jane |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y7B9euuLEkUC |title=Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference |last2=Cooper |first2=Frederick |date=2010 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-12708-8 |pages=182, 219 |language=en}}</ref>

In [[international law]], sovereignty means that a government possesses full control over affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit. Determining whether a specific entity is sovereign is not an exact science, but often a matter of diplomatic dispute. There is usually an expectation that both ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' sovereignty rest in the same organisation at the place and time of concern. Foreign governments use varied criteria and political considerations when deciding whether or not to recognise the sovereignty of a state over a territory.{{Citation needed|date=January 2011}} Membership in the [[United Nations]] requires that "[t]he admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be affected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."<ref>{{cite web|title=UN Chart, Article 2|url=https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter2.shtml|access-date=4 October 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131208031716/https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter2.shtml|archive-date=8 December 2013}}</ref>

Sovereignty may be recognized even when the sovereign body possesses no territory or its territory is under partial or total occupation by another power. The [[Holy See]] was in this position between the annexation in 1870 of the [[Papal States]] by Italy and the signing of the [[Lateran Treaties]] in 1929, a 59-year period during which it was recognised as sovereign by many (mostly Roman Catholic) states despite possessing no territory – a situation resolved when the Lateran Treaties granted the Holy See sovereignty over the [[Vatican City]]. Another case, ''[[sui generis]]'' is the [[Sovereign Military Order of Malta]], the third sovereign entity inside Italian territory (after [[San Marino]] and the [[Vatican City State]]) and the second inside the Italian capital (since in 1869 the Palazzo di Malta and the Villa Malta receive [[extraterritorial]] rights, in this way becoming the only "sovereign" territorial possessions of the modern Order), which is the last existing heir to one of several once militarily significant, [[crusader state]]s of sovereign [[Military order (society)|military order]]s. In 1607 its Grand masters were also made [[Reichsfürst]] (princes of the Holy Roman Empire) by the Holy Roman Emperor, granting them seats in the [[Reichstag (Holy Roman Empire)|Reichstag]], at the time the closest permanent equivalent to an UN-type general assembly; confirmed 1620. These sovereign rights were never deposed, only the territories were lost. Over 100 modern states maintain full diplomatic relations with the order,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.orderofmalta.int/diplomatic-relations/862/sovereign-order-of-malta-bilateral-relations/?lang=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151203180316/http://www.orderofmalta.int/diplomatic-relations/862/sovereign-order-of-malta-bilateral-relations/?lang=en|url-status=dead|title=Bilateral diplomatic relations of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta|archive-date=3 December 2015}}</ref> and the UN awarded it observer status.<ref name="UN_ARES48265">{{UN document |docid=A-RES-48-265 |type=Resolution |body=General Assembly |session=48 |resolution_number=265 |access-date=10 September 2007|title=Observer status for the Sovereign Military Order of Malta in the General Assembly}}</ref>

The [[government-in-exile|governments-in-exile]] of many European states (for instance, Norway, Netherlands or [[Czechoslovakia]]) during the [[Second World War]] were regarded as sovereign despite their territories being under foreign occupation; their governance resumed as soon as the occupation had ended. The government of [[Kuwait]] was in a similar situation ''vis-à-vis'' the [[Iraq]]i occupation of its country during 1990–1991.<ref name="nolan">{{cite book|last=Nolan|first=Cathal J.|title=The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FMJ8KP8i3v0C&pg=PA1559|volume=4|year=2002|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|page=1559|isbn=9780313323836}}</ref> The government of [[Republic of China]] (ROC) was generally recognized as sovereign over [[Greater China|China]] from 1911 to 1971 despite the 1949 victory of the Communists in the [[Chinese Civil War|Chinese civil war]] and the [[Retreat of the government of Republic of China to Taiwan|retreat of the ROC to Taiwan]]. The ROC represented [[China and the United Nations|China at the United Nations]] until 1971, when the People's Republic of China obtained the UN seat.<ref name=":Chen">{{Cite book |last=Chen |first=Dean P. |title=China under Xi Jinping: A New Assessment |publisher=[[Leiden University Press]] |year=2024 |isbn=9789087284411 |editor-last=Fang |editor-first=Qiang |chapter=Xi Jinping and the Derailment of the KMT-CCP "1992 Consensus" |editor-last2=Li |editor-first2=Xiaobing}}</ref>{{Rp|page=228}} The ROC [[political status of Taiwan|political status]] as a state became increasingly disputed; it became commonly known as [[Taiwan]].

The [[International Committee of the Red Cross#Legal status|International Committee of the Red Cross]] is commonly mistaken to be sovereign. It has been granted various degrees of special privileges and legal [[Immunity from prosecution|immunities]] in many countries, including Belgium, France, Switzerland,<ref>By formal agreement between the Swiss government and the ICRC, Switzerland grants full sanctity of all ICRC property in Switzerland including its headquarters and archive, grants members and staff legal immunity, exempts the ICRC from all taxes and fees, guarantees the protected and duty-free transfer of goods, services, and money, provides the ICRC with secure communication privileges at the same level as foreign embassies, and simplifies Committee travel in and out of Switzerland.<br />On the other hand Switzerland [http://www.udiregelverk.no/~/media/Images/Rettskilder/Visa%20Code/Visa%20Code%20vedlegg%2010%20a.ashx does not recognize ICRC issued passports] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110510112534/http://www.udiregelverk.no/~/media/Images/Rettskilder/Visa%20Code/Visa%20Code%20vedlegg%2010%20a.ashx|date=10 May 2011}}.</ref> Australia, Russia, South Korea, South Africa and the US, and soon in Ireland. The Committee is a private organisation governed by Swiss law.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.icrc.org/eng/who-we-are/overview-who-we-are.htm|title=About the International Committee of the Red Cross|date=29 October 2010}}</ref>
===Shared and pooled===
Just as the office of [[head of state]] can be vested jointly in several persons within a state, the sovereign jurisdiction over a single political territory can be shared jointly by two or more consenting powers, notably in the form of a [[condominium (international law)|condominium]].<ref>Joel H. Samuels, ''Condominium Arrangements in International Practice: Reviving an Abandoned Concept of Boundary Dispute Resolution'', 29 Mich. J. Int'l L. 727 (2008).

Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol29/iss4/3 </ref>

Likewise the member states of international organizations may voluntarily bind themselves by treaty to a supranational organization, such as a [[continental union]]. In the case of the European Union member-states, this is called [[Member state of the European Union#Sovereignty|"pooled sovereignty"]].<ref>{{cite journal|title=The European Union: Pooled Sovereignty, Divided Accountability | doi=10.1111/1467-9248.00096 | volume=45|issue = 3|journal=Political Studies|pages=559–578|first1=John|last1=Peterson|year = 1997| s2cid=144362061 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=McNaughton|first1=Neil|title=Understanding British and European political issues : a guide for A2 politics studies|date=2003|publisher=Manchester University Press|isbn=978-0719062452|page=207|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tMrD6RRoZkQC&pg=RA1-PT152}}</ref>

Another example of shared and pooled sovereignty is the [[Acts of Union 1707]] which created the [[unitary state]] now known as the [[United Kingdom]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Mannin|first1=Michael L.|title=British government and politics balancing Europeanization and independence|date=2010|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers|isbn=9780742567771|page=134|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ucS-AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA134}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Rawlings|first1=Richard|last2=Leyland|first2=Peter|last3=Young|first3=Alison L|title=Sovereignty and the law : domestic, European, and international perspectives|date=2013|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0199684069|page=28|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dyUiAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA28}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Jesse|first1=Neal G.|last2=Williams|first2=Kristen P.|title=Identity and institutions: conflict reduction in divided societies|date=2005|publisher=State Univ. of New York Press|isbn=978-0791464519|page=[https://archive.org/details/identityinstitut0000jess/page/120 120]|url=https://archive.org/details/identityinstitut0000jess|url-access=registration}}</ref> It was a full economic union, meaning the Scottish and English systems of currency, taxation and laws regulating trade were aligned.<ref name="Mitchison2002p314">R. Mitchison, ''A History of Scotland'' (London: Routledge, 3rd edn., 2002), {{ISBN|0415278805}}, p. 314.</ref> Nonetheless, Scotland and England never fully surrendered or pooled all of their governance sovereignty; they retained many of their previous national institutional features and characteristics, particularly relating to their legal, religious and educational systems.<ref>{{cite book|last1=McCann|first1=Philip|title=The UK Regional–National Economic Problem: Geography, globalisation and governance|date=2016|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781317237174|page=372|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uAi4CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT372}}</ref> In 2012, the [[Scottish Government]], created in 1998 through [[devolution in the United Kingdom]], [[2014 Scottish independence referendum#Legality of a referendum|negotiated terms]] with the [[Government of the United Kingdom]] for the [[2014 Scottish independence referendum]] which resulted in the people of Scotland deciding to continue the pooling of its sovereignty with the rest of the United Kingdom.

=== Nation-states ===
A community of people who claim the right of [[self-determination]] based on a common ethnicity, history and culture might seek to establish sovereignty over a region, thus creating a [[nation-state]]. Such nations are sometimes recognised as [[autonomous area]]s rather than as fully sovereign, independent states.

=== Federations ===
In a [[federal republic|federal]] [[system of government]], ''sovereignty'' also refers to powers which a constituent state or republic possesses independently of the national government. In a confederation, constituent entities retain the right to withdraw from the national body and the union is often more temporary than a federation.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Confederation|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/confederation-politics|access-date=17 June 2020|website=Encyclopædia Britannica}}</ref>

Different interpretations of [[states' rights|state sovereignty]] in the [[United States|United States of America]], as it related to the expansion of [[Slavery in the United States|slavery]] and [[fugitive slave laws]], led to the outbreak of the [[American Civil War]]. Depending on the particular issue, sometimes both northern and southern states justified their political positions by appealing to state sovereignty. Fearing that slavery would be threatened by results of the [[1860 United States presidential election|1860 presidential election]], eleven slave states declared their independence from the federal Union and formed a new [[Confederate States of America|confederation]].<ref>[[James M. McPherson|McPherson, James]], ''[[Battle Cry of Freedom (book)|Battle Cry of Freedom]]'', (1988) pp. 40, 195, 214, 241</ref> The United States government rejected the [[secession in the United States|secessions]] as rebellion, declaring that secession from the Union by an individual state was [[unconstitutional]], as the states were part of an indissoluble federation in [[Perpetual Union]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Lincoln on Secession |url=https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/secessiontableofcontents.htm |website=National Park Service |access-date=31 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200916204338/https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/secessiontableofcontents.htm |archive-date=16 September 2020 |language=en |date=10 April 2015 |quote=The secessionists claimed that according to the Constitution every state had the right to leave the Union. Lincoln claimed that they did not have that right. |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Sovereignty versus military occupation ===
In situations related to war, or which have arisen as the result of war, most modern scholars still commonly fail to distinguish between holding sovereignty and exercising military occupation.

In regard to military occupation, international law prescribes the limits of the occupant's power. Occupation does not displace the sovereignty of the occupied state, though for the time being the occupant may exercise supreme governing authority.  Nor does occupation effect any annexation or incorporation of the occupied territory into the territory or political structure of the occupant, and the occupant's constitution and laws do not extend of their own force to the occupied territory.<ref>{{Citation
|url=http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs4/86FRD227.html
|title=U.S. v. Tiede
|author=United States Court of Berlin
|date=14 March 1979
|publisher=United Settlement (Canada).
|access-date=26 October 2021}}</ref>

To a large extent, the original academic foundation for the concept of "military occupation" arose from [[On the Law of War and Peace]] (1625) by [[Hugo Grotius]] and [[The Law of Nations]] (1758) by [[Emmerich de Vattel]].  Binding international rules regarding the conduct of military occupation were more carefully codified in the 1907 [[Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907|Hague Convention]] (and accompanying Hague Regulations).

In 1946, the [[Nuremberg trials|Nuremberg International Military Tribunal]] stated with regard to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1907: "The rules of land warfare expressed in the Convention undoubtedly represented an advance over existing International Law at the time of their adoption ... but by 1939 these rules ... were recognized by all civilized nations and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war."