Sovereignty

In a federal system, powers are divided between the central and provincial governments, each autonomous in its sphere, so no single authority possesses the absolute, exclusive, and indivisible power Austin requires

Austin's theory requires sovereignty to be absolute, exclusive, and indivisible. In a federal system like India or the USA, governmental powers are distributed between the central government and state/provincial governments. Each level is autonomous in its assigned sphere, meaning neither the centre nor the states alone hold the complete, undivided sovereign power that Austin demands. Option A is incorrect because Austin's theory concerns legal authority, not direct participation. Option C is factually wrong – federal systems usually have written constitutions. Option D is also wrong – Austin

Absoluteness – because Laski denies the state's right to have unlimited, supreme authority over all associations

Laski, as a leading pluralist, argues that the state is only one association among many and cannot claim total allegiance from individuals. He says the state's function is merely to 'set conditions' – meaning it is a coordinator or regulator, not an all-powerful ruler. This directly attacks the characteristic of 'absoluteness', which states that the authority of the state knows no limits. Option A is wrong – Laski does not argue for the dissolution of the state. Option C relates to universality and is about territorial application of law, which Laski is not discussing here. Option D misreprese

Society is prior to and independent of the state; the state is a closed hierarchical structure while society is an open organisation that the state cannot fully control

Maciver clearly separates state from society. He argues that society existed before the state – early hunters and gatherers had social groups without any state. Society is an 'open organisation' with diverse, informal, and spontaneous relationships, while the state is a 'closed hierarchical structure' with formal rules. Because society is open and prior, the state cannot fully control it. Option A is wrong – Maciver explicitly rejects state-society identity. Option C reflects the monist view that Maciver opposes. Option D is also incorrect because social customs are not the same as state laws.

The highest authority vested in the 'general will' of the entire community, making its collective will the supreme law of the land

Rousseau's popular sovereignty is based on the idea of the 'general will' – the collective will of the entire people (not just a majority or elected representatives). This general will is the supreme law of the land. No king or parliament can override it. This idea became the philosophical foundation of modern democracy. Option A describes legal sovereignty (British Parliament model). Option C describes military intervention or coup, which is a de facto takeover. Option D describes electoral rights, which is part of political sovereignty, not the deeper concept of popular sovereignty.