The phrase "theoretical authority" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when discussing topics like philosophy or science, or when talking about abstract or symbolic governing power. For example, "The theoretical authority of the president's legislation was questioned by the opposition."
In both contexts, the "self" has been threatened with loss of its theoretical authority.
A theoretical authority in some area of intellectual inquiry is one that is an expert in that area.
Most theorists of political authority view it as a species of practical authority rather than theoretical authority, though this view is not held by all.
That significance lies in the court's decision being regarded as having practical, and not merely theoretical, authority over the content of the law.
It explains the similarities and differences between the practical authority of rulers (including democratic electors acting as selectors of representatives or as plebiscitary decision-makers) and the theoretical authority of experts and persons of sound judgment.
A decision has theoretical authority if the circumstances in which it was made (the identity of the decision-makers, those involved in arguing the case, the availability of evidence or time) provide good reasons for believing the decision to be correct in law.
First, a normal justification is not a unique justification, but one typical to a variety of practical and theoretical authorities.
Theoretical authorities operate primarily by giving advice to the layman, which advice the layman is free to take or not.
The judgments of theoretical authorities give people reasons for belief while the judgments of political authorities are normally thought to give people reasons for action.
Theoretical authorities do not normally impose duties on others, although they might give advice on what a person's duty is.
Theoretical authorities, i.e., experts, are not characterized by claims to obedience they need not even claim a right to be believed.
