|
|
|
Email this citationCIAO DATE: 7/5/2006
What to Say about the State
Mathias Risse
February 2006
Abstract
In a little-known 1677 essay by Leibniz, two diplomats wonder about the status of princes of the Holy Roman Empire. These princes obtained a great deal of independence in the Treaty of Westphalia, but nonetheless remained subject to the Emperor. Were they, at least those with sizeable territories, “sovereign” or not? While the Treaty of Westphalia is considered the Magna Charta of the state system, its historical purpose was to keep the Empire functioning politically. Conceptual clarification was not a priority. In response, Leibniz offered an account of sovereignty meant to shed light on the Empire’s confusing political realities.
Leibniz distinguished between “Majest é” (majesty) and “Soverainet é” (sovereignty), the former being the “supreme right to command, or the supreme jurisdiction” (“le droit supreme de commander, ou la supreme jurisdiction”), and the latter a ruler’s “legitimate and regular power to force one’s subjects to obey, while [that ruler] could not himself be so constrained other than through war” (un pouvoir legitime et ordinaire de contraindre les subjects à obëir, sans qu’on puisse estre constraint soy même si ce n’est par une guerre;” Leibniz (1864), p 352). Crucially, princes are sovereign in virtue of having the immediate day-to-day power to enforce rules (a power Leibniz calls “ordinaire”). Although the emperor’s authority is higher, he can enforce it only through war. (Of course, the emperor may be a sovereign in some territories.)
