There seems to be one exception to the all-comprehensive and universal power of the State; it does not extend to the diplomatic officials and embassies of foreign States within its territories. But it is not so. The sovereign has himself extended this concession to the diplomatic representatives of other States for the sake of international co-operation and courtesy. It is necessary for civilised intercourse between sovereign States. But what the State gives, it can also take back. By virtue of its sovereignty, any State can withdraw the diplomatic immunity of the representatives of the foreign State, if it so likes. It is a concession and not a compulsion. Hence, the extra-territorial rights and concessions of the foreign diplomats are no exception to the rule of universality of the sovereign power of the State.
Permanence
Sovereignty of the State lasts as long as the State continues to exist. This attribute points out the basic distinction between the State and the government. The State is a permanent association; government is a temporary organization. The government may change, but the State continues to exist. When a king dies, another steps into his shoes, because the State continues to exist. The death of a king does not mean the destruction of the kingdom. This is the real meaning of the English saying; “the king is dead: long lives the king”. It is the sovereignty of the king that lives long, though the individual king does not. Only by the destruction of the State itself can sovereignty be destroyed. Permanence, therefore, means the continuity or perpetuity of the sovereign power of the State, which is unaffected by governmental changes.
Exclusiveness
By exclusiveness we mean that quality by virtue of which there can be only one sovereign power in a State which is entitled to be legally obeyed by its citizens. One sovereign excludes another. It is nicely illustrated by the Persian proverb. “There cannot be two kings in a kingdom”. This quality of sovereignty is really derived from its two other attributes, absoluteness and indivisibility. It is based on the principles of the unity of the State, which means that the State is a single unit, ruled by one sovereign. To say otherwise would mean to admit “the possibility of imperium in imperio”—’a State within a State. But this is impossible. Sovereignty cannot be divided or shared between two or more persons. When two persons ride a horse, one must sit in front and hold the reins. It is said that ten beggars can sleep in a blanket, but two kings cannot live in a kingdom. The reason is obvious: none of the beggars is sovereign. And if one of them becomes a sovereign, he will surely drive out the others, or, if he is a clever beggar, make them his subjects!
Inalienability
By this we mean that the supreme power cannot be alienated or taken away from the personality of its holder without destroying it. To alienate or give away sovereignty is to destroy it. “Sovereignty”, said Lieber, “can no more be alienated than a tree can alienate its right to sprout or a man can transfer his life or personality without self-destruction”. Sovereignty is non-transferable. When a State cedes away its sovereignty, it ceases to exist, and some other State may come into being in its place. It should be noted here that the quality of inalienability relates to the sovereignty and not to the territory of the State. A portion of territory can be ceded without affecting the sovereignty over the remaining portion, in which the State remains as supreme as before. For instance, a” Pakistan was carved out of the territory of the British India, as sovereign State.
Imprescriptibility
This characteristic follows from that of inalienability. It means that sovereignty is not lost even if its holder does not exercise or assert it for a long period of time. The State remains sovereign, whether it actually asserts its supreme power over a period of time or not. Once a Sovereign, always a Sovereign. Here the constitutional law differs from the private law. In private law, if a person does not assert his ownership over a piece of land or house for, say, 12 or 20 years, he loses his ownership of it. This is called the principle of prescription. But sovereignty is not lost by prescription. It is imprescriptible.