Lastly, Austin’s view that the State is externally independent of all other like organizations is also attacked by internationalist writers. Modem age is one of interdependence and co-operation among States and countries. The idea of national sovereignty and independence on which the nation States were organized since the end of the Middle Ages, is both outdated and dangerous in the modem age. Not national self-interest, but the well¬being of all nations is the basis of modern life, science and industry. The full utilisation of the world’s resources demands co-operation among the nation-States. Hence, instead of Austinian notion of independent sovereignty, we need theory of interdependence of the States. The real unit of allegiance, as Laski says, is the world, and not the nation-State. Conclusion:
Austin’s chief error was that he laid too much stress upon one aspect of sovereignty, the legal aspect, to the exclusion of all other influences and forces which determine the nature of law and sovereignty. This was natural for a lawyer, who was interested in lawyer’s view of sovereignty. But for political philosophy and science, it is too narrow and too abstracts a view. As Sir James Stephen remarks, “as there is in nature no such thing as a perfect circle, or a completely rigid body, or a mechanical system in which there is no friction, or a State of society in which men act simply with a view to gain, so there is in nature no such things as an absolute sovereign”.
It is aptly remarked that “one begins by thinking Austin self-evident; one leams that many qualifications have to be made and, finally, one ends by treating his whole method as absurd and theoretic.” Indeed, as Laski said, “it is impossible to make the legal theory of sovereignty valid for political philosophy”. Nevertheless, Austin’s theory of sovereignty has certain merits and some value. It provides a most consistent juristic theory of sovereignty. It is a logical exposition of the monistic view of sovereignty. If sovereignty is strictly viewed as a legal concept, Austin’s theory is, as Garner remarks, clear and logical, and much of its criticism is based on misconception and misapprehension.