Raymond Klassen – Ideals and Identities

When Donald Trump says, “I want to own Greenland,” Trump is inviting us to be confused about two concepts that are related, but distinct. It is possible to own oil rights, as is the case of Venezuala, but owning an entire territory, like Greenland is not a matter of ownership – it is a matter of sovereignty. When Alberta invoked the “not-withstanding clause” 4 times in 3 weeks, Premier Danielle Smith asked Canada and the citizens of Alberta to be confused about the same thing.

Sometimes, a little restoration of how language is used is necessary. A common confusion has become rather salient these days: between ownership and sovereignty.  Sovereignty and ownership overlap in everyday speech, but philosophically, linguistically, and practically they point to very different kinds of authority and relation. The distinction becomes especially important in political theory, theology, and law.

1. Philosophical differences

a. Source of authority

Sovereignty names ultimate authority. A sovereign does not merely possess something but has the final say over it. Philosophically, sovereignty is tied to questions of legitimacy, command, and decision. Frequently, sovereignty appears most clearly in the power to decide in exceptional situations—when rules themselves are suspended or redefined.

Ownership, by contrast, is derivative. An owner’s authority exists within a framework of rules. Even absolute ownership presupposes a legal or moral order that recognizes property claims. One can lose ownership without losing personhood; one cannot lose sovereignty without ceasing to be sovereign.

In short: sovereignty grounds rules; ownership follows rules.

b. Relation to persons and things

Sovereignty is fundamentally relational to persons and political bodies. A sovereign governs subjects, citizens, or a community. Even when sovereignty is spoken of territorially (“sovereignty over land”), it ultimately concerns the authority to order human life within that space.

Ownership is primarily a relation between a person and a thing. While it can involve people indirectly (e.g., labor contracts), it does not directly authorize command over persons in their totality.

This is why slavery historically required a collapse of sovereignty into ownership: persons were reduced to things.

c. Temporality and permanence

Sovereignty tends toward continuity and transcendence. Medieval theology spoke of the “king’s two bodies”: the mortal ruler and the immortal sovereign office. Sovereignty endures beyond particular holders.

Ownership is finite and transferable. It can be bought, sold, inherited, revoked, or abandoned. It has no intrinsic claim to permanence beyond the conventions that sustain it.

2. Linguistic differences

a. Verb structure and grammar

We own objects, but we are sovereigns or exercise sovereignty. Ownership is typically expressed with a simple transitive verb (“I own this land”). Sovereignty often requires abstraction or mediation (“sovereignty is vested in,” “sovereignty is exercised through”).

This linguistic difference reflects ontology: ownership is concrete and immediate; sovereignty is institutional and symbolic.

b. Countability and measurability

Ownership lends itself to quantification: acres, shares, assets, percentages. It invites measurement.

Sovereignty resists quantification. One cannot easily say one has “30% sovereignty” without metaphor. Sovereignty is binary or threshold-based: it either holds or it does not, though it may be contested.

c. Metaphorical drift

Ownership metaphors frequently colonize sovereignty in modern discourse (“the state owns the land,” “data ownership”), but this often obscures power relations. When sovereignty is reduced to ownership, political authority is reframed as a commodity rather than a responsibility or calling.

3. Practical differences

a. Legal scope

Ownership rights typically include use, exclusion, and transfer—but always within limits imposed by zoning laws, taxation, eminent domain, or environmental regulation.

Sovereignty includes the power to create, enforce, and suspend laws themselves. A sovereign may redefine property regimes; an owner cannot redefine sovereignty.

For example:

• A landowner may decide who enters their property.
• A sovereign decides what counts as property in the first place.

b. Accountability and legitimacy

Owners are accountable as private agents. Their authority is instrumental and limited.

Sovereigns are accountable—at least in theory—to a people, a constitution, divine law, or historical destiny. Their authority raises moral questions of justice, violence, and legitimacy that ownership does not.

This is why abuses of sovereignty are described as tyranny, while abuses of ownership are described as theft, fraud, or negligence.

c. Practical conflicts

When sovereignty and ownership collide, sovereignty almost always prevails:

• Eminent domain overrides private ownership.
• Taxation presupposes sovereign authority over owned wealth.
• War nullifies ownership claims across borders.

These moments reveal that ownership is conditional, while sovereignty is foundational.

4. A concise contrast

Closing thought A helpful way to frame the difference is this: ownership answers the question “Who may use this?” while sovereignty answers the question “Who decides?” Modern societies often blur the two, but when crises arise, the distinction reasserts itself with force.