generate an abstract from following material.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             International law defines sovereignty as an independence of state power on any other power, both in international relations as well as internal matters. This means the outside independence and autonomy of the state as well as independence within the state itself. Furthermore a sovereign state is not limited by anything more than further sovereign rights of the other states, general international law and freely accepted international commitments. Königová argues that sovereignty entails two important elements. The first is universality, the ability to subject all entities in a particular territory, regardless of their mode of grouping. The second element is right-creation which is characterized by the fact that all areas of activities are regulated by legal standards that are recognized by the state authorities. Sovereignty is characterized by three important features. The first feature is the authority, the law of the state to command, and at the same time being obeyed. We must not confuse authority with power. The authority differ from the power in a way that the power is done by someone who has the ability to influence the others despite his real interests. Outside of authority and power, sovereignty also includes a supremacy and territoriality. Sovereignty is an authority within the area defined by the boundaries. 
As already noted the state is independent outside and separate inside. Sovereignty of the state has two dimensions, internal and external. Internal sovereignty is understood to mean the sovereign rights of the state in decision-making and enforcement authority in a given territory inhabited by certain populations. External sovereignty of the state means acceptance of the authority of a state by the other states. Furthermore, apart from internal and external sovereignty, distinction can also made between absolute and non-absolute sovereignty. Absolute sovereignty applies where there is no compelling reason to interfere in the internal affairs of a state.
On the contrary, non-absolute sovereignty is based on the idea that there may be circumstances when state sovereignty may be violated. The doctrine of sovereignty, the fundamental organizing principle of contemporary inter-State relations, is based on the premise of mutual recognition of the political independence among states, mutual co-existence, exercise of formal equality in mutual relations and the corresponding principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other States. Sovereignty as a concept emerged as an attribute of the State at a particular stage of historical development and, consequently, in the course of its evolution, has been accorded different connotations in the context of its substance, scope and principles. 
Three specific elements were associated with the concept of sovereignty at the stage and which remained its attributes in the subsequent phases of its development. These elements were:
(a)	Sovereignty is an essential attribute of State power.
(b)	The essence of sovereignty is constituted by the independence of State power from any other power.
(c)	A tendency to free the State from any form of limitation (both legal and moral), as well as an inclination to identify sovereignty with force (for instance, with material force or the physical possibility of realizing sovereignty).
These characteristics bear close semblance to the theory of absolute sovereignty. At this juncture in the history of sovereignty, the concept was applied only in the internal context of the State to define the functions of the government to enable it to establish law and order, and there was no reference to its application in the international relations of the State, for the reason that international relations were of minimal importance to the States at that time.
II.	MEANING OF SOVEREIGNTY IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND RELATIONS
Oppenheim accords supreme power as the defining attribute of sovereignty on the internal plane of the State when he asserts that:
Sovereignty is supreme authority, which on the international plane means legal authority, which is not in law dependent on any other earthly authority. Sovereignty in the strict sense and narrowest sense of the term implies, therefore, independence all round within and without the borders of the country.
However, on the international plane he de-absolutists the concept, as relations between States are characterized by equality and interdependence. In fact, the main function of sovereignty in the international realm, according to Oppenheim, is to provide the criteria for statehood in the international community, whereby; after fulfilling the criteria the State would have a legal personality and the capacity to possess rights and duties in international law.
Lauterpacht opines that international law recognizes the sovereignty of States in two aspects - the internal aspect and on the external level. In the internal sphere, a State can be recognized as a subject of international law if it is independent of other States and “possesses a sovereign government…” In the external sphere, sovereignty implies independence from other States. In addition, Lauterpacht argues that the sovereignty of States is subject or to subordinate to international law. Lastly, he maintains that sovereignty under international law confers upon the State the right to determine the future content of international law by which it will be bound, and at the same time, determine the present norms of international law.
Anand, a staunch advocate of relative sovereignty, submits that the theory of absolute sovereignty is inconsistent with a system of international law which is itself based on the principle of reciprocal rights and obligations. He views absolute sovereignty as the interdependence of States.” Furthermore, he maintains that all international law of today is made up of limitations of sovereignty which are limitations created by sovereignty itself. However, Anand views sovereignty as an integral attribute of state power in its internal sphere, when he says that sovereignty denotes absolute and perpetual power within a State. He asserts that apart from the absence of a supranational executive authority, a State does not recognize a legislator above itself.
Brownie, in the context of international law, lists the following corollaries of sovereignty and equality of States as follows: jurisdiction of State, prima facie exclusive over a territory and the permanent population living there; a duty of non-intervention in the area of exclusive jurisdiction of other States; and the dependence of obligations arising from customary law and treaties on the consent of the obligor. The last has certain special applications it implies that the jurisdiction of international tribunals depends on the consent of the Parties; that membership of an international organization is not obligatory; and that the organizations have powers to determine their own competence, to take decisions by majority vote, and that the enforcement of decisions depends on the consent of the member States. The above views on the concept of sovereignty affirm the relativist approach to the concept in the realm of international law. 
The views of Laski, on the concept of sovereignty, classically represent the relativist approach to sovereignty in the external sphere of State and de-absolutisation of the concept in the internal sphere of the State. Laski views a sovereign State merely as a historical incident in the evolution of the concept of power and considers sovereignty merely as one of the various ways in which use of power can be organized. Giving a utilitarian perspective, he states that the most important aspect in the nature of power is the end that it seeks to serve, which should be the promotion of the interests of its citizens. Viewing State as a moral entity, he maintains that the legitimacy of the government depends on the conditions created by it to enable its citizens to realize the best in themselves and promote their interests. The law, according to Laski, imposes a moral limitation on the power and authority of the State, and its most important aspect is that it should represent the will of the community. Further, like a true pluralist, Laski maintains that the State is just like any other association and has a clearly delineated sphere of power and responsibility, which is to exercise influence on the conduct of government itself.
On the external plane too, Laski argues, the concept of an absolute and independent sovereign State is incompatible with the structure of international relations. The growing interdependence among States and the growing consciousness of promotion of the human interests have necessitated international government, which in turn “implies the organized subordination of States to an authority in which each may have a voice, but in which, also that voice is never the self-determined source of decision. In fact, the main purpose served by the State, according to Laski, has been to secure self-government against the absorptiveness of power.
At the same time, the dynamics of a changing international scenario necessitate a shift in the nature of sovereignty, whereby it should accommodate the multiple interests of mankind transcending geographical frontiers, and permit the growth and development of the other organs along with the State in an environment of heightened cooperation.
III.	THEORIES OF SOVEREIGNTY
There are basically two theories of sovereignty. These include absolute sovereignty and relative sovereignty. 
1.	Absolute Sovereignty
The late nineteenth century was characterized by the growth of the theory (and the practice) of ‘absolute’ sovereignty in Germany, and later in England. The advocates of this doctrine articulated that sovereignty is not merely the supreme authority – summa potestas i.e. an authority over which there is no other authority, but also the plenitude potestas, that is, full and more or less unlimited power.
The extreme consequences flowing out of the theory may result in states becoming independent of one another, of any other higher authority and of any higher principle. Further, they enjoy full freedom to either fulfill their obligations or to denounce them, in accordance their national interests. This results in the negation of equality as an element of sovereignty on one hand, and on the other hand implies equation of sovereignty with the actual power to exercise it, which in the final analysis would mean its identification with force and lead to a distinction, made in this context, between ‘legal’ and factual’ sovereignty. Further, the theory accords primacy to sovereignty (for instance, domestic law) vis-a-vis international law.
2.	Relative Sovereignty
In the period between the two world wars, the relativist approach to sovereignty dominated the international legal and political thinking. It emerged in the context of the need to adjust sovereignties in an increasingly interdependent international community, and the main focus of the theory was to ‘de-absolutism’ the concept of sovereignty.
The main feature of the theory of ‘relative sovereignty’ is that sovereignty can be subordinated to international law; however, importantly, sovereignty of a State cannot be subordinated to another State because all States in principle are equal. The above premise leads to the following important consequences. The doctrine of relative sovereignty establishes the primacy of international law over state sovereignty. Furthermore, sovereignty is identified with external independence i.e. independence of a State from any other ‘sovereign’ authority, but at the same time does not imply ‘independence’ from the norms which govern the ‘sovereign’ States i.e. the international law. However, in exercising its sovereignty, the State can assume obligations towards other States through mutual agreement. Another consequence flowing out is that every State is sovereign within the sphere of its jurisdiction, and this means that it has the right to independence from any form of intervention. However, its independence and freedom are limited by the equal freedom and independence of other States, as well as by international conventions and specific agreements entered into by these States. Independence in turn, it is maintained, entails legal equality of States in their mutual relations and autonomy in their internal relations.
Thus, the theory of relative sovereignty provided the essential prerequisites for the co-existence of States within the international community. However, keeping in mind the preponderant western influence in the constitution of the norms of international law, the subjection of sovereignties of states to such norms may amount to erosion of sovereignty of the developing countries.
IV.	SOVEREIGNTY AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
Taking the League of Nations as an example of a form of international government, Laski maintained that it was an association of Nation-States that were politically unequal but juridical equal. Further in this forum, the representatives of the States were required to act upon the orders given to them by those from whom their authority was derived. In accordance with Laski’s views on the internal aspects of sovereignty, this implied that the source of this authority, in the final analysis, resided in the community that the State represented on the international plane.
After an analysis of the views of eminent scholars on the nature of sovereignty, it would be worthwhile to examine the application of the concept in the context of international organizations, and especially under the UN Charter.
Sovereignty, in political theory, is the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision process of the state and in the maintenance of order. The concept of sovereignty – one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law – is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government and of independence and democracy. Derived from the Latin term superanus through the French term souverainete, sovereignty was originally meant to be the equivalent of supreme power. However, in practice it often has departed from this traditional meaning.
	
V.     SOVEREIGNTY AND INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY
A basic principle of international law is that every State irrespective of size and endowment has complete and exclusive sovereignty over its territory. Although the doctrine of sovereignty has had an important impact on developments within states, its greatest influence has been in the relations between states. The difficulties here can be traced to Bodin’s statement in 1576 that the sovereign who makes the laws cannot be bound by the laws he makes (majesties EST summa in elves cie subditos legibusque soluta potestas). This statement has often been interpreted as meaning that a sovereign is not responsible to anybody and is not bound by any laws. However, a closer reading of Bodin’s writings does not support this interpretation. He emphasized that even with respect to his own citizens a sovereign is bound to observe certain basic rules derived from the divine law, the law of nature or reason, and the law that is common to all nations (jus gentium), as well as the fundamental laws of the state that determine who is the sovereign, who succeeds to sovereignty, and what limits the sovereign power. Thus, Bodin’s sovereign was restricted by the constitutional law of the state and by the higher law that was considered as binding upon every human being. In fact, Boding discussed as binding upon states many of those rules that were later woven into the fabric of international law. Nevertheless, his theories have been used as justifying absolutism in the internal political order and anarchy in the international sphere.
This interpretation was developed to its logical conclusion by Hobbes in Leviathan (1651), in which the sovereign was identified with might rather than law. Law is what the sovereign commands, and it cannot limit his power; sovereign power is absolute. In the international sphere this condition led to a perpetual state of war, one sovereign trying to impose his will by force on all other sovereigns. This situation has changed little over time, with sovereign states continuing to claim the right to be judges in their own controversies, to enforce by war their own conception of their rights, to treat their own citizens in any way that suits them, and to regulate their economic life with complete disregard for possible repercussions in other states.
During the 20th century important restrictions on the freedom of action of states began to appear. The Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907 established detailed rules governing the conduct of wars on land and at sea. The Covenant of the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations (UN), restricted the right to wage war, and the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 condemned recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and its use as an instrument of national policy. They were followed by the Charter of the United Nations, which imposed the duty on member states to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered” and supplemented it with the injunction that all members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force.” However, the Charter listed as one of the basic principles of the UN “the principle of sovereign equality of all its Members.”
In consequence of such developments, sovereignty ceased to be considered as synonymous with unrestricted power. States have accepted a considerable body of law limiting their sovereign right to act as they please. Those restrictions on sovereignty are usually explained as deriving from consent or auto-limitation, but it can easily be demonstrated that in some cases states have been considered as bound by certain rules of international law despite the lack of satisfactory proof that these rules were expressly or implicitly accepted by them. Conversely, new rules cannot ordinarily be imposed upon a state, without its consent, by the will of other states. In this way a balance has been achieved between the needs of the international society and the desire of states to protect their sovereignty to the maximum possible extent.