Q:8 Do universal human rights undermine state sovereignty?

According to some theorists of international politics, the nature of relations between

international society is anarchic. In contrast to Hobbes’ conception of the state of nature,

anarchy in the modern international realm is theorized as a “social condition in which certain

norms/institutions shape the nature of international politics” (Hutchings, 2018, 33). One such

norm which governs this social condition is state sovereignty. The principle of state

sovereignty in this case rests on the “rights to sovereign elf-determination and non-

intervention in the affairs of other states” (Hutchings, 2018, 34). This concept is highly

contested whereby the pluralists adhere to it and solidarists argue against the existence of

state sovereignty which has often played out in cases where some states have intervened in

the affairs of other states on humanitarian or other basis.

This has given rise to the debate of whether intervention on the basis of universal

human rights undermine state sovereignty or not. The debate is contentious since the

international public law gives precedence to state sovereignty whereas the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is an antithesis to it furthering the rights of all human

beings as equal and free regardless of their “nationality, place of residence, gender, national

or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status”. Historically speaking,

following the formal passage of UDHR, the world has made progress in respect to the

safeguarding of human rights. This includes the events such as the setting up of international

criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda and of an international criminal court in the

1990s (Hutchings, 2018, 60).

To determine the extent to which the universal human rights challenge state

sovereignty, this paper will argue that the principle of international human rights in itself is

entrenched in a state-based system making it subordinate to it thereby rendering its

imposing/eroding nature on state sovereignty.

 The principle of state sovereignty gives states the power to control its people, their

properties and their activities in the territory (Scott, 2004, p.27). On the other hand, the

human rights further the wellbeing of mankind regardless of their jurisdiction. Although

human rights question the morality of states, the fact that they are versed in public

international law which gives utmost importance to state sovereignty makes it a highly

paradoxical matter. Despite the agreement to human rights, there exists a number of practical

difficulties in imposing the human right laws on ground.

Firstly, it lies in the states’ jurisdiction which laws they consent to and enforce. The

ultimate decision-making power lies with the state. This complicates the way in which states

can be held accountable in case of human rights violation. Despite the emergence of

organizations such as the United Nations, the responsibility of implementation of

international law lies with the state. Furthermore, the mechanisms proposed by bodies such as

the UN are worth looking at. These include reports, inter-state and individual complaints

which come with their own limitations and cannot bring much change in the ground realities.

The contemporary examples of the Kashmir issue and the on-going crisis between Israel and

Palestine is the manifestation of the limitation of the function of peace-making organizations.

Thus, social change promoted by external actors can only influence state actions to a certain

extent.

Secondly, in order to achieve peace with respect to universal human rights, the

international civil society needs to work according to the political agenda of the states. The

implementation of human right laws is contingent on national interests. This means that the

normative framework of human rights rests on “identity, structural and political change”

which cannot be brought about without the willingness and cooperation of the state in

question (Sikkink, Risse, 1999, p.3). The functioning of non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) reflects this process. Donelly argues that international organizations such as NGOs

have no choice but to act in accordance with the state’s interests (Donnelly, 2011, p. 504).

All of this signals to the way enactment of universal human rights are rooted in a

state-based system. Although there are examples where actions such as “naming and

shaming” undertaken by international organizations have led to social change with respect to

human rights, the nature of change still remains subordinate to state sovereignty and cannot

be strictly imposed. In addition to this, the power dynamic of the world system (core vs

periphery) also dictates the way in which human rights are enforced. This is rather true as UN

is more likely to intervene in cases which concern “small, political isolated states”

(Kamminga, 1992, p. 2).

In conclusion, the moral force of universal human rights does carry weight. However,

in order for it work, it has to work in accordance with the political context of states and need

not to challenge or undermine state sovereignty. It is also important to note that if states

ensure adequate protection to its people and safeguard their rights, there will be no need for

the universal human rights to act in an imposing capacity on the state’s interests.