The Fall of Sovereignties: Reverse Perspective. Part 3

The article analyses the problem that always remains relevant in the legal science, namely, the problem of sovereignty. The author compares this concept with its another hypostasis, i.e. independence of the state, and makes an attempt to identify their common features and fundamental differences by means of applying dialectical opposition. The sovereign, as a subject of sovereignty, can take both personal and anonymous form, be of individual and collective nature. The article emphasizes the fictitious nature of the sovereign subjectivity inherent to the era when sovereignty substantially changed its content and essence, i.e. to the Art Nouveau era. This transformation process was marked by such thinkers as Fyodor Dostoevsky, Vladimir Solovyov, Friedrich Nietzsche and others. A false or imaginary sovereign, even possessing authority and power, is deprived of his true legitimacy that cannot be restored by either public opinion or direct violence. Neither mimicry nor manipulation can help. "Two bodies" of the King break up in two and never unite again. A fictitious sovereign becomes a head of a fictitious "phantom" state. A "substrate" of such statehood is not people, but "masses" as specific associations fastened together by staples of external power, violence and ideology. Sovereignty associated with the freedom of existence is absorbed by the force of the power with which it is incompatible. External law plays a much more important role than the inner truth that has always been the foundation of justice. Justice itself is replaced with its own metaphor, i.e. the law. Depersonalized force of law that used to be expressed by means of making willful decisions not only limits sovereignty, but substitutes it. Sovereignty as the status radiates both movement and dynamics. Fictions that are typical for the Art Nouveau era pursue the policy of connivance for creating "unjust laws" neglecting both the truth and justice and focusing on the feasibility and effect only. The realm of law lacks metaphysical and transcendental foundations that earlier connected it with higher instances not associated with law. Normativism becomes the dominant ideology of modernism and modernity giving the law and sovereignty a completely new form and giving rise to unexpected consequences for the life of a rule of law State.

sovereignty, independence of the State, authority, legitimacy, legality, subject, personality, State, legal form, norm, justice, truth, legality

1. Агамбен Д. Средства без цели. - М., 2015.

2. БатлерДж. Психика власти. - СПб., 2002.

3. Гвардини Р. Конец Нового времени // Феномен человека. - М., 1993.

4. Гегель Г. В. Ф. Конституция Германии // Политические произведения. - М., 1978.

5. Губрехт Х. У. В 1926 году : На острие времени. - М., 2005.

6. Гурвич Г. Социология права // Философия и социология права. - СПб., 2004.

7. Делез Ж. Ницше. - СПб., 1997.

8. Касториадис К. Воображаемое установление общества. - М., 2003.

9. Кожев А. Введение в чтение Гегеля. - СПб., 2003.

10. Кожев А. Очерк феноменологии права // Атеизм. - М., 2007.

11. Кьеркегор С. Страх и трепет. - М., 1993.

12. Луман Н. Власть. - М., 2001.

13. Манн Т. Философия Ницше в свете нашего времени // Собрание сочинений. - М., 1961. - Т. 10.

14. Ницше Ф. По ту сторону добра и зла // Сочинения. - М., 1990. - Т. 2.

15. Слотердайк П. Критика цинического разума. - Екатеринбург, 2001.

16. Флоренский П. Предполагаемое государственное устройство в будущем // Сочинения. - М., 1996. - Т. 2.

17. Франк С. Крушение кумиров // Сочинения. - М., 1990.

18. Франк С. Крушение кумиров // Сочинения. - М., 1990.

19. Шмитт К. Диктатура. - СПб., 2005.

20. Шмитт К. Политический романтизм. - М., 2015.

21. Штернер М. Единственный и его собственность. - Харьков, 1994.

22. Юнгер Ф. Ницше. - М., 2001.

23. Юнгер Э. Через линию // Судьба нигилизма. - СПб., 2006.

24. Ясперс К. Ницше. - СПб., 2004.