The writings of Jean Bodin provides us with an early theorisation of the idea of sovereignty even though the examples he uses are quite extensive. Essential to Bodin's notion of sovereignty is that the power the sovereign holds must be absolute and permanent. If a ruler holds absolute power for the duration of his life he can be said to be sovereign. In contrast, an elected official or some other person that holds limited powers can not be described to be sovereign. Although at times Bodin suggests that the people are sovereign, his definition of sovereignty as absolute, unlimited and enduring power points purposively towards a positive association of sovereignty and a singular monarchical, or even tyrannical, power.
Another qualification that Bodin introduces into the definition of sovereignty as absolute and perpetual is one that will become increasingly important in subsequent theorisations, culminating in the work of Carl Schmitt. For Bodin, a sovereign prince is one who is exempt from obedience to the laws of his predecessors and more importantly, those issued by himself. Sovereignty rests in being above, beyond or excepted from the law. Although it occupies a subordinate place in Bodin's theorisation, it could be said that this exception from being subject to the law is the quintessential condition of sovereignty in so far as it is understood politically.
Although for Bodin sovereignty is characterised by absolute and perpetual power he goes on to make a series of important qualifications to this concept. These come from two principle concerns. The first is real politics - Bodin seems to be aware that absolute power could licence behaviour injurious to sovereign authority. Hence for example a sovereign cannot and should not confiscate property nor break contractual agreements made with other sovereigns, estates nor private persons. The second reason is Bodin's underlying theological notion of divine authority and natural law. A sovereign may put aside civil law, but he must not question natural law (in which it appears right of property is sanctioned). Saying this, it is ultimately from this divine authority that the earthly right of sovereign power is legitimated. The prince literary does god's bidding, and yet by virtue of this can do wrong. Hopefully this helps out some :)
The one way that both truman and Stalin's approaches to maintaining peace were similar was :
Both support countries whose government or economic system were similar to their own.Truman keeps giving support to the countries with liberal views while Stalin gave that support to the countries with communist views.
Explanation:
During the cold war, both leaders abstained from any physical or formal acts of warfare. It mostly consisted of them getting control of foreign nations that were battling each other, but neither the US or Soviet Union announced war on one another. This was because it appeared so soon after WWII that neither wanted to be held accountable for another war. Nevertheless, they both were feuding, so they implemented to other non-violent means to battle with each other- such as spying, double-agents, surveillance, etc.
PBecause once upon a time.........it was the POPE who controlled a large swath of power......like a KING, which included large territories.
But over the years, and power shifts later........the Pope became less and less important, and more or less became boxed in, within Vatican City.......his last seat of Power. When Italy became a Unified Country..............they had to arrange a special deal with the POPE that left him in charge of his little area........a King, of sorts, within the Kings Kingdom. So they declared his little Popedom.......seperate , and allowed him to keep his little seat of Power.
Reformers would not have demanded change because British and French economies are more stable