STATE SOVEREIGNTY VS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY?

‘Sovereignty’, a politically crucial and complex concept pertaining to the state, can be simply put forth as a dominant Power or supreme authority and in the modern democracies this power is said to lie with the people and is exercised through representative bodies such as Congress or Parliament. As this notion has always been actively examined, debated and defined in many different political nuances throughout history, quoting one definition of it would be unfeasible. Sovereignty promotes the concepts of supremacy, autonomy, and the exercise of power without limitations within its own territory. It implies the authority to make laws and entails an unbiased responsibility of the state. . The ideal principle of sovereignty where the state is not subjected to manipulation or any external power comes into play when we bring international law, relations, rules and regulations to the table of discussion as the modern world is globalising more and more and expanding its international relations.?

Sovereignty was sanctified by the Charter of the UN.? It was brought about as “sovereign equality” of all Member States, that is, all States must respect the prerogatives of all other States in their policies over their own population and their own territory (Art. 2.1 of the UN Charter). It follows from this principle that no State may “intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any other State” (Art. 2.7 of the UN Charter).

Let us see how this conflicting nature binds a country in the context of humanitarian obligations while protecting its interests with utmost independence.

THE BOUNDARIES OF SOVEREIGNTY

The concept of sovereignty protects its state from the invasion of outsiders in its internal matters but it cannot be substituted in its ideal form. There certainly are limits to the control a country can exercise over all its internal affairs within its borders. Furthermore, it is also restricted when a country agrees to subject itself to international organisations, treaties, conventions. Many countries choose organisations like the European Union and the World Trade Organisation over sovereignty. Issues such as climate change and terrorism circumvent the boundaries of the states. Meanwhile, many countries argue that in the cases where there is grievous and blatant violation of human rights, breaches of sovereignty should be permitted? on humanitarianINTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

The?Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was the first legal document that universally protected fundamental human rights. The 30 articles of the UDHR are the bedrock of the current and future human rights conventions, treaties and other legal instruments. The International Bill of Rights comprises the UDHR, together with the 2 covenants - the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 80% of the states have ratified at least 4 or more core human rights treaties as well as 1 of 9 optional protocols. It subjects the States to have obligations and duties under international law to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.

SOVEREIGNTY AND THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

It was World War II that addressed the urgency for the recognition of sovereignty in the international aspect to defuse the conflicts before they escalate into full-flagged wars. The United Nations upheld this respect for sovereignty for several decades, creating the multinational peacekeeping forces to protect and enforce the peace and defend human rights that were supposed to coordinate with the state governments. It was a series of conflicts in the 1990s, including the Rwandan genocide and wars in the former Yugoslavia, that led the scholars and diplomats to rethink on the way that world pursues sovereignty. The local governments who were the one responsible for peace-making were committing violence against its own people posing an important question whether it would be justified to violate a country’s sovereignty to prevent a mass atrocity.?

In 1999, violence surged in the former Yugoslavia, as Serbian authorities persecuted Kosovar Albanians (ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo, a region within Serbia) who demanded an independent country. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) decided to interfere as mass violence was unfolding. The alliance initiated an attack and launched an extensive bombing campaign on Serbia which was led by US was justified in order to end violence. This decision remains controversial. On the one hand, it forced the Serbians to negotiate and bring an end to hostilities and persecution. The campaign lacked UN authorization violating Serbian sovereignty. NATO’s actions determined that there was a larger interest among some world leaders in undertaking such a humanitarian intervention, but it also asked for the guidelines for such interventions.

This led in 2005 to UN members fostering the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. This doctrine makes countries have a fundamental sovereign responsibility to protect their citizens. If they do not comply with this doctrine, that responsibility falls to the United Nations system, which may take steps to protect those vulnerable people and violate the sovereignty of the relevant country if needed. The R2P doctrine was suspended in 2011 in the midst of Libya’s civil war. In 2011, as the Libyan revolution had begun in Benghazi, UN invoked the R2P with its responsibility to protect Libya authorizing the NATO to conduct a limited humanitarian intervention in Libya in order to protect the country’s civilians with?deliberate violation of a country’s sovereignty?on humanitarian grounds but NATO undertook a broader political mission of regime change in Libya. This shift infuriated China and Russia and accused NATO of overstepping its UN mandate. In 2020, the UN mediated a ceasefire between two major factions within the country, however Libya still is engrossed in the widespread political instability.?

CONCLUSION

As we look into the concept of sovereignty and International human rights concurrently, its conflicting nature is very explicit as one indicates the utmost independence where one grapples with a country with interventions from outside. Nevertheless, the urgency and need in respect of striking the balance between these two cannot be undermined and neglected as both are equally crucial.