Austin's theory is further criticised on the ground that it invests the Sovereign with absolute and illimitable powers. The Pluralists maintain that the State is an association like various other associations and, therefore, the sovereign authority cannot be invested with unique sovereign powers. They oppose the Austinian doctrine of a single and unified sovereignty, and phasize the importance of associations, which are, for their purposes. as sovereign as the State is for its purpose. Sovereignty, accordingly, is neither i unity nor absolute. It is diffused and hedged all around within and without th State. Externally. Austin's sovereign power is limited by the prescription of International Law, and the concept of internationalism has made it incompatible. Austin's theory of sovereignty. therefore, is now regarded not only a legal but a baneful and dangerous dogma which should be expunged from the literature on international relations. Laski is even of the opinion that the notion of an independent sovereign on tional side, fatal to the well-being of humanity. It is a bold, but real It is, impossible, under the circumstances, to accept the legal theory of sovereignty as valid for political philosophy, as it postulates for the sovereign such powers as cannot in fact be exercised. Moreover, it narrows down the meaning of vital terms to a content which, if maintained, would be fatal to the existence of society 1,40 We cannot accept law, which is an important factor in the life of the State, from the purely legal point of view. Law must be built upon general social environments. To separate it from all these forces and influences is to defeat the very purpose of law. It should, however, be admitted that as an analysis of strictly legal nature of sovereignty, Austin's is clear, and logical