{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01486374896779521, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3125, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
National or people’s sovereignty?

In the article the author provides a comparative analysis of these two notions. He explains through the examples that owing to the historical context during the French Revolution, the gradual process of transforming the bearer of the sovereignty has started, and shift of power from the king to the collective unit has caused several disputes and discussions of theoretical nature. The collective unit, called the people or the nation, began to play the role of carrier of sovereignty, acting at the same time as the source of supreme power. Belonging of sovereignty to the people or the nation is manifested in the forms how the power presented to their representatives. Each of these forms has its own theoretical peculiarities. However, in the wake of historic developments the manifestation of one or another form of sovereignty practically loses its relevance. Regardless of the forms of expression of belonging of sovereignty to the people or the nation, sovereignty displays various and progressive elements of these concepts (renunciation of imperative mandate in favor of representative mandate, sovereignty is exercised through representatives rather than delegates)