Home › Principles of Public Law › Part 1 · The state and public law

Part 1 · The state and public law

Public law is the law of public power. Before the subject can control that power it has to know who holds it, so everything begins with two distinctions: the state is not the government, and public power is not private power. Then comes the question the essay really turns on, which is whose sovereignty the whole structure sits upon.

Ideas and cases at a glance

Authority	In a line
Montevideo Convention art 1	A state should possess a permanent population, a defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states
Montevideo Convention art 3	Political existence is independent of recognition by other states: the declaratory theory
Morris	The state is the continuing, impersonal institutional order of political authority; the government is its temporary agent
Scott	States simplify: they render nature, space and people legible in order to govern
Kwaymullina	Narrative sovereignty: authority sourced in story, country and relationships, carried by legal traditions that long predate 1788
Crawford, The Creation of States	The declaratory account of recognition against the constitutive theory, and the contested edges of statehood
Klabbers	International law has been closely connected with imperialism and colonialism

The two distinctions that carry the subject

Public law governs public power. It asks who may exercise power over us, on what authority, and subject to what limits. None of those questions can be answered until you know what kind of entity holds the power and what kind of power it is, which is why the module opens with two distinctions rather than a case. Get them precise now, because the rest of the subject assumes them without restating them.

The state is not the government

The state is the enduring legal and institutional order of political authority. The government is the temporary agent that exercises the state's authority at any given time. Ministers resign, parliaments dissolve, parties lose office, and the state continues. That continuity is why the obligations of the state, its treaties, its debts and its laws, survive a change of government: the agent changed, the principal did not.

RULE. arrowDistinguish the state from the government: the state is the continuing, impersonal institutional order of political authority, and the government is the temporary agent that exercises that authority at any given time (Morris).

Trap. The state and the government are not the same thing. Writing "the state" when you mean the government of the day is the module's most common error, and it quietly wrecks any argument about continuity, obligation or accountability. Fix the vocabulary first and the analysis follows.

Public power is not private power

The second distinction explains why the subject exists at all. A private actor may do anything the law does not forbid. A public actor may do only what the law permits. Public power is held for the public, must be authorised by law, and is therefore subject to the special controls the rest of the subject builds: parliamentary accountability, judicial review, and interpretive presumptions that protect the individual. If you ever lose the thread of a public law question, come back to this asymmetry, because it is the reason every control in the course exists.

RULE. arrowA private actor may do anything not forbidden by law; a public actor may do only what the law permits. Public power must be authorised, and that is what makes it public.

What is a state?

The Montevideo test

Having separated the state from its agent, the next question is what makes a state in the first place. International law supplies the working test. Under art 1 of the Montevideo Convention a state should possess four marks: a permanent population, a defined territory, government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Notice the drafting. Art 1 says a state "should possess" these marks, so the test reads as a working description rather than a rigid statute, and real disputes are fought at the edges of one criterion rather than across all four.

RULE. checklistStatehood under Montevideo art 1: (1) a permanent population; (2) a defined territory; (3) government; (4) capacity to enter into relations with other states. Run all four, then spend your time on the contested one.

Recognition: declaratory against constitutive

The fourth criterion drags in the hardest edge, recognition. Art 3 declares that the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. That is the declaratory theory: recognition acknowledges statehood, it does not create it. The rival constitutive theory says recognition is exactly what creates statehood, because a state exists as a legal person only when other states treat it as one (Crawford, The Creation of States). The Convention takes the declaratory side, but the argument is not closed, and an essay that can weigh the two theories against a concrete contested entity is already ahead of one that recites the four criteria.

RULE. scalesDeclaratory against constitutive: art 3 enacts the declaratory position, and Crawford maps the contested edge where recognition still matters. Name the theory you are applying and weigh it against the rival before you conclude.

Trap. Sovereignty is not statehood. Statehood is a status under international law. Sovereignty is authority over territory and people. A statist account such as Morris ties sovereignty to territory, and Indigenous accounts decouple the two. Do not equate them automatically: a question that asks "whose sovereignty?" is testing exactly that gap, and it wants both accounts.

Seeing like a state, and seeing past it

Scott: the state simplifies

Scott's contribution is about how states manage to govern at all. States simplify: they render nature, space and people legible through cadastral maps, surnames and censuses, because a state cannot tax, conscript or administer what it cannot see. The insight cuts both ways. Simplification is what makes modern government possible, and it is also a loss, because whatever does not fit the grid disappears from the state's view. Contrast Kwaymullina's holistic, non-linear and relationship focussed mode of interacting with the world, which is precisely what the state's grid cannot capture.

Kwaymullina: narrative sovereignty

Kwaymullina makes the historical point and the conceptual point together. An international legal order, she writes, "did not begin with the writings of Grotius or Vattel or the rise of the Westphalian state". Aboriginal Nations operated sophisticated inter-polity legal traditions long before 1788. Her idea of narrative sovereignty describes authority sourced in story, country and relationships rather than in territorial control. The point is not decoration for the end of an essay. It is a rival account of where authority comes from, and it does real argumentative work whenever a question presses on whose sovereignty the Australian legal order rests upon.

RULE. compassWhen a question asks whose sovereignty, characterise before you argue. The statist account (Morris) ties sovereignty to territory and institutions; the Indigenous account (Kwaymullina) sources authority in story, country and relationships. The strong essay holds both frames and shows what each can and cannot explain.

Klabbers supplies the critical edge that joins the two halves of this module. International law has been "closely connected with imperialism and colonialism": the doctrines of territory and sovereignty served acquisition by European powers, so the neutral-looking test of statehood carries a history. That history becomes doctrine in the next topic, Territory and sovereignty, where the common law confronts what those doctrines did in Australia.

The essay that earns the marks

This is an essay topic, and the marks are for a position argued with authority rather than a tour of the concepts. The plan below keeps the essay honest.

Attack plan. Five steps, in this order. 1. Define the state and distinguish it from the government (Morris). 2. Explain what makes public power different and why it needs special control. 3. Where the question asks whose sovereignty, set the statist account against the Indigenous account and use both. 4. Anchor every move in the quote or example the question gives you, not in the topic at large. 5. Take a position rather than surveying the field.

RULE. staircaseThe essay climbs in order: definitions before frameworks, frameworks before application, application before position. An essay that argues about sovereignty before defining the state has skipped the bottom steps, and examiners notice the wobble.

Trap. The survey essay. Marching through Montevideo, Morris, Scott and Kwaymullina in turn describes the field without answering the question. Every authority you cite should be doing work for your thesis; if you cannot say what work, cut it.

Worked example

"Sovereignty and statehood are simply two names for the same idea." Discuss.

A Pass answer says. Statehood is defined by the Montevideo Convention, which requires population, territory, government and capacity for foreign relations. Sovereignty means supreme authority over territory. They usually go together, but Indigenous accounts show they can come apart, so the statement is partly true. This is accurate as far as it goes, but it never chooses a frame, the authorities appear as a list rather than an argument, and the conclusion hedges instead of deciding.

An H1 answer says. The claim holds only inside the statist frame. On an account like Morris's, sovereignty is tied to territory and exercised through the state's continuing institutional order, so sovereignty and statehood track one another and the equation looks natural. Kwaymullina breaks the equation: narrative sovereignty locates authority in story, country and relationships, and it was exercised by Aboriginal Nations through inter-polity legal traditions long before any Montevideo criterion was satisfied by a coloniser. Even within international law the equation is unstable, because art 3's declaratory rule shows statehood itself is contested at the recognition edge (Crawford). The answer then uses Klabbers to show the equation is not a neutral definition but a choice with a colonial history, and concludes that the statement is true only if you first accept the frame it assumes.

Critical pitfalls and counter-arguments

Calling the government the state. The distinction is the module's first idea, and blurring it undoes every later point about continuity and obligation.
Treating Montevideo like a statute. Art 1 says a state "should possess" the four marks. It is a working test with contested edges, and the contest is where the marks are.
Equating sovereignty with statehood automatically. They come apart, and the exam's favourite question sits precisely in the gap.
Using Kwaymullina as decoration. Narrative sovereignty is a rival account of authority, not a respectful aside. Deploy it as argument or engage it as counter-argument, but do not gesture at it.
Forgetting the power asymmetry. Private actors may do what is not forbidden; public actors only what is permitted. An essay on public power that never states this has missed the subject's premise.

Take it to the practice bank

This topic is examined as an essay, and it does not yet have a dedicated drill set of its own. The Principles of Public Law practice bank drills the adjacent topics in the subject, and the sovereignty themes introduced here keep resurfacing across those problems, each of which comes with a realistic Pass answer, an H1 model answer and the examiner's comments.

Practice prompts

Write two definitions from memory, each in one sentence: the state, and the government. Then write a third sentence explaining why the state's obligations survive a change of government, citing Morris.
Take the worked example prompt and write the opening paragraph twice: once conceding the statist frame, once refusing it with Kwaymullina. Notice how the whole essay changes with the frame.
Draft a paragraph applying the Montevideo criteria to a contested entity of your choosing, then add the recognition problem: what does the declaratory theory say, what would the constitutive theory say, and which do you defend?

Check your understanding

Auto-marked drills. Answer, then see the authority in the feedback.