Does the Continued Existence of State Sovereignty Make Human Rights Ultimately

Equal rights are unalienable and natural rights that everyone has. Human rights are important because they promote peaceful coexistence between the government and its people. Governments often wield authority over their citizens, and the best way to regulate or regulate that power is to grant people some constitutional rights (Alain 35). Human rights protection is an essential principle in both existing and emerging democracies, and it is expanding across the globe. However, the enforcement of human rights has been hindered by the powers that different countries in the international community have been given as a result of their sovereignty. Some countries have committed atrocities to their citizenry but seeking interventions from other neighboring states on account of sovereignty. Sovereignty bars other countries from intervening in matters bordering on human rights that are part of the internal affairs. Even the greatest defender of human rights, the United Nations, seems to be reluctant in pursuing human rights without much emphasis on sovereignty (Simmons 51). For example, when a country is in a humanitarian crisis, and the UN has information relating to violation of human rights, they must seek the consent of the affected state first before intervening. This paper argues that the continued existence of state sovereignty makes human rights ultimately unenforceable.


Arguments
Human rights are fundamental in the sense that they are rights that every person should access regardless of race, origin, ethnicity, religion among other factors (Alain 29). The implication is therefore that human rights are universal to all humanity across the globe. However, that is not the case for most countries of the world. There has been a protagonistic relationship between sovereignty and human rights across various countries of the world. It is hard for one country to intervene in another country on matters concerning fundamental human rights just because of sovereignty. The human rights mean that their access goes beyond the mere virtue of being humans. Independence implies that a country is independent and has powers to guarantee or deny its citizenry individual rights as it deems fit depending on different circumstances.
While certain conditions may inform the suspension of individual rights and freedoms such as freedom of movement and assembly especially, say during terrorist attacks, some countries are known for curtailing fundamental human rights even without proper reason. It is sad that no country including the most powerful nation, the United States of America because of the issue of sovereignty that gives every state the audacity and capacity to conduct her businesses in a manner that does not violate international treaties such as crime against humanity that include forcible deportation and genocide (Alain 62). The definition of human rights do differ from one country to another; however, a reference to the universal declaration of human rights document has a broader definition of the term. It defines human rights as rights that every person should access not just because of the virtue of being human but because all people are born free and equal regardless of language, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, sex or status of a country where one is born.
Some states have a narrow definition of human rights, an aspect that has led to various injustices that have gone unpunished hence widespread impunity. It is also important to recognize that such narrow definitions often align with the dictates of the quest for sovereignty powers particularly with the calls for non-intervention from other countries as one of its primary principles. The principle of non-intervention upon which sovereignty is built automatically implies that every state will grant its citizens rights according to its perceptions and considerations (Alain 71). The perceptions created by sovereignty principles have significantly hampered the implementation of fundamental human rights especially in countries such as Iraq among others. Initially, the concept of sovereignty was formed as a means of promoting peace and unity among the community of nations, however, the state in which sovereignty has informed the reluctance of countries to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.
The violation of human rights still continues despite international treaties signed by various countries as part of peaceful coexistence. Sovereignty is found upon the principle of non-intervention, and when a country violates human rights, the best possible alternative for other nations such as the United States include political condemnation, economic sanctions and if the situation gets worse, military action (Simmons 39). However, such actions rarely solve the real problem of implementing the critical human rights. The perpetrators of violation of human rights do it on the account that sovereignty overrides human rights and the pressure therefore from other countries. Meanwhile, actions such as economic sanctions only impact on the strained inter-state relations instead of pushing perpetrators to resort to the underlying issues. Sovereignty often places limits on the abilities of other states to protect human rights without their borders, and it is in that respect that it adversely affects proper implementation of human rights.
For example, during the I and II Chechen wars, it was reported that Russia has severely violated several fundamental human rights of the segment of its population by way of using torture, extra-judicial killings, and rape (Simmons 38). While such acts went against the United Nations (UN) standards because of clear violations of human rights, the European Union (EU) failed to intervene and instead went silent on the issue. Such is a classic example of how sovereignty can make it difficult for nations to enforce human rights. As evident in the mentioned case, the intention of the EU members is to implement peaceful coexistence with Russia and not to interfere in its internal affairs. Apparently, there is a disconnection between the foundation upon which sovereignty was built as well as the need to preserve human rights. Sovereignty was meant to promote peace and harmony, but that does not mean that attaining such peace and harmony must disrupt the preservation of fundamental human rights. Respect for sovereignty is another way of telling the people that human rights are not important because sovereignty stands on the opposing side of human rights implementation. The implication of preserving sovereignty at the expense of human rights begs the question of whether non-intervention intervention is even when it promotes encroachment of human rights (Shepherd 573). The answer is yes, sovereignty, especially the principle of non-intervention has thwarted the efforts of other countries in ensuring that all humanity across the globe enjoys human rights.
The manner in which sovereignty has framed the dialogue and the alternatives that other states have when they violate human rights has further placed a burden on human rights implementation. Interstate actions have failed to prompt the application of human rights. Norms do shape human rights and so do sovereignty (Simmons 57). On the other hand, contemporary conceptions of sovereignty and subsequent ratifications came long before the ones for human rights. One can argue that sovereignty existed before human rights, a fix in which the UN has found itself hence its move to recognize sovereignty even when issues concerning human rights are emerging. Sovereignty, therefore, has a chronological advantage that explains its firm entrenchment in the actions of various states. For instance, when there are violations of human rights in a particular country, the UN through its peacekeeping missions seeks the consent of the affected country (Shepherd 575). The act of seeking the consent of the concerned country is a clear demonstration how the UN values sovereignty despite its commitment to the preservation of human rights. The conflict between sovereignty and human rights originates from the fact that sovereignty preceded human rights; therefore, human rights come second after sovereignty in both principle and practice. In this regard, it is apparent that sovereignty has made it practically difficult for other states to intervene and protect human rights in other countries where such rights face obstacles.
Non-western states do perceive human rights as a form of moral imperialism imposed on them by the Western countries to which it is one of the primary concerns. For instance, the Islamic states act contrary to the western perspective of human rights and instead follow religious principles of defining human rights and sovereignty. The definition of sovereignty to most non-western states do not comply with the international rules and principles hence the clash in understanding and application (Scheipers 31). The Islamic states and Christian states have different views on human rights, and lack of intervention is the underlying reason for non-conformity in enforcement and implementation of human rights. If human rights and sovereignty are both shaped by norms, yet norms are differ based on varying religious perspectives, it makes the achievement of a universal human rights chapter a great challenge. The outcome is that Islamic states human rights do not conform to the Western human rights. In such a case, the aspect that sovereignty is supreme makes citizens from such countries vulnerable to violations of human rights.
Sovereignty through the principle of non-intervention means every state adopts a wait-and-see approach when its neighbor violates human rights of its people. In the case of any form of intervention, it is upon the victim state to invite others for help, or, the UN can seek the consent of the affected country before intervening. Human rights are inalienable rights, and everyone has the right to enjoy them (Shepherd 581). However, the focus should be shifted to human rights as a responsibility of every sovereign country to protect the right of their citizens. The foundation of the sovereignty should redefine the principle of non-intervention to allow stern measures to be taken against states that violate human rights.
However, in as much as we may blame the lack of proper and efficient implementation of human rights on sovereignty, it is critical to seek the enforcement of human rights through the established structures of sovereignty. The adoption and reification of human rights must be done in a manner that meets the international obligation of upholding human rights. Similar emphasis and effort spent on strengthening sovereignty should apply to the upholding of human rights (Scheipers 49). The universality of human rights has not been realized mainly in most non-western states because of different cultures, views and understanding of what should constitute human rights. Most importantly, every country is independent and has a legislation body that is responsible for making and amending laws, upon which human rights originate. Every country has a written or unwritten constitution that clearly spells the fundamental human rights under the Bill of Rights. However, the content and definition, especially concerning interpretation and application of such rights, significantly vary from one state to another.
Conclusion
Sovereignty severely affects the upholding of human rights. Every human being has inalienable rights that they enjoy by being human beings. However, autonomy gives the state the powers through limitation, to control the type of rights that a citizen can enjoy (Simmons 87). Violation of human rights depends upon the extent to which a government limits the rights of its citizenry to various rights as enshrined in their primary legal document, the Constitution. Sovereignty, on the other hand, means that matters human rights are internal affairs of a country that the principle of non-intervention upon which freedom bases. It implies that regardless of how much a state violates the rights of its citizens, sovereignty guards it against any actions of external states, especially through military action. The alternative is the imposition of economic sanctions, political condemnation as well as potential military action that acts as the last resort in case of severe violations.
Works Cited
Alain Pellet. “State Sovereignty and the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights: An International Law Perspective.” Pugwash Occasional Papers, vol. 1, no. 1, 1999, p. 42.
Scheipers, Sibylle. Negotiating Sovereignty and Human Rights: International Society and the International Criminal Court. Manchester University Press, 2009.
Shepherd, Robert. "The Human Rights State: Justice within and Beyond Sovereign Nations by Benjamin Gregg (review)." Anthropological Quarterly, vol. 89, no. 2, 2016, pp. 573-582.
Simmons, Beth A. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. Cambridge University Press, 2009.