This is how far I will travel on the road of orthodox thinking on sovereignty. From now on I definitely intend to support those who have attacked the idea, the concept of summa potestas, either as ultimate political power or as final decision or rule of decision in legal adjudication. I will honestly seek to hunt out that sacred thing in its natural habitat, in that territorially delimited segment of human society called the state, and above all in what, for lack of a better word, is generally referred to as the community. I am ready to admit that the term is an important one in international law, constitutional law and political philosophy. I do contend, however, that its importance has been, is, and will increasingly become, to put it mildly, that of a nuisance value. How much of a nuisance??Whoever takes International Law seriously must begin to destroy this false idea of sovereignty which has been, and is, the greatest drag, not only to the development of International Law, but also to the development of the science of International Law.?is Professor Josef L. Kunz's warning. A great number of scholars have pointed their fingers at the dogma and de nounced its ambiguous meaning, its monstrous nature, its meretricious attractions. Its death, fervently hoped for, has many times been predicted. But somehow that highest authority ... of some sort has come back to haunt its prosecutors. Who among us does not know of at least one of those courageous and outright textbooks on the Law of Nations which has had to make amends and to welcome back, grudgingly or not, in its second edition, revised and augmented, the concept the last breath of which had been taken for granted? Do we need a glance at its history? Since 1577, when Jean Bodin