SOVEREIGN STATE: FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL-POLITICAL PROJECT OF MODERNITY (1)

In searching for a consistent theoretical framework of the political science understanding of the state, one should rely on valid substantial and methodological markers. The author identifies them in this article by means of a critical and productive dialogue with three major contemporary contributions to the pertinent understanding of the state: the theory of the state by A. Passerin d'Entreves, the history of states by B. Barret-Kriegel and the history of the modern concept of the state by Q. Skinner. In the first part of the article their key insights into the (modern) state are briefly outlined. The seminal work is that by Passerin d'Entreves, in which he presents the categorial set essential for a comprehensive understanding of the state in general, and the logic of sovereignty in particular. The state as such should be understood as might or force (from the perspective of effectiveness), as power (from the perspective of legality), and finally as authority (from the perspective of legitimacy). To conceptually define the state, comprehensively and accurately, means to be able to explain and understand how force (or might), first legalized as power, gains legitimacy in the form of authority. The concept of sovereignty marks the transepochal project of the transformation of might into power through the mediation of law which subjects it to laws. These key insights are made more precise and are partly corrected by the research done by Barret-Kriegel and Q. Skinner. The sovereign state is a doubly abstract public authority and is not a transepochal category but an epochal legal-political project, modernity's distinguishing feature. The sovereign state is an epochal political novum, as it is the first organization of political power in history that self-limits its might to ensure personal security and indipendence of citizens as legal subjects. As a notion of the rational and legitimate power it historically affirms itself as an antithesis to oriental despotism and the ancient patrimonial-seniorical regime.