Sovereignty of what?

Sovereignty based arguments have been used in disparate ways. Some political institutions resorted to such arguments to defend domestic choices departing from international or European integration processes. At times, courts have backed up those arguments by interpreting constitutional mandates as systematic prioritization of domestic interests over international integration. Against this backdrop, courts and scholars suggested that constitutions are inherently cosmopolitan and open to external normative integration. In their view, a) sovereignty-based arguments are indistinguishable from claims of pure and unrestraint political power; b) the only sovereignty that is worth protecting is that of the constitution. This paper will shed lights on this debate with a view to distinguish claims of pure (or unrestrained) sovereignty from constitutionally sound arguments. It will then suggest on what conditions sovereignty claims are consistent with an actual commitment to international law.