I came across these two words, "Shared Sovereignty" and "Indivisible Sovereignty" in the book I was reading: From Plassey to Partition and After A History of Modern India. I will quote the paragraph:

Ayesha Jalal argues, "required a political arrangement capable of accommodating cultural differences." They looked for "shared sovereignty"; they were not against a united India but contested Congress's aim to indivisible sovereignty.

What is the difference between Shared Sovereignty and Indivisible Sovereignty?


Shared Sovereignty is letting foreign powers control aspects of your government:

Shared sovereignty would involve the engagement of external actors in some of the domestic authority structures of the target state for an indefinite period of time. Such arrangements would be legitimated by agreements signed by recognized national authorities. National actors would use their international legal sovereignty to enter into agreements that would compromise their Westphalian/Vattelian sovereignty with the goal of improving domestic sovereignty. One core element of sovereignty, the ability to enter into voluntary international agreements, would be preserved, while at the same time another core element, the principle of autonomy, would be ceded.37

The same source gives a couple of concrete examples of this, of which I have chosen one:

At the end of the nineteenth century, shared sovereignty arrangements were created in several countries in the area of finance. The Ottoman Empire and Greece offer two examples. The Empire entered international capital markets in the 1850s and, after several additional loans, found itself unable to meet its external obligations in 1875. In 1881, the Ottomans agreed to create the Council of the Public Debt. The members of the council--one each from Germany, Austria, Italy, and the Ottoman Empire itself, and one from Britain and Holland together-were selected by foreign creditors. The Council was given control over several specific sources of revenue including the salt and tobacco monopolies, the stamp tax, and the spirits tax.

You can see here, the Ottoman Empire gave up some of its power to foreign authorities, though retained certain privileges.

Indivisible Sovereignty, on the other hand, is almost the opposite:

As Hans J. Morgenthau once stated this point, “sovereignty over the same territory cannot reside simultaneously in two different authorities, that is, sovereignty is indivisible.”1 Sovereignty cannot be divided without ceasing to be sovereignty proper, and precisely this quality of being indivisible distinguishes sovereign authority from other forms of political power. Dividing sovereignty between two or more authorities within a given state would therefore be to dissolve that state into parts. The indivisibility of sovereignty is thus a necessary condition of the unity of the state.

So, the idea here seems to be that if you give some of your authority to someone else, you are no longer truly sovereign. Indivisible Sovereignty is the idea that two parties cannot simultaneously control a territory/population without sovereignty ceasing to exist.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .