Author: Afrin Gulshan, Campus Law centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi University
To the point
The relationship between international human rights law and state sovereignty is a complex and contentious issue in global politics. State sovereignty grants countries the authority to govern themselves without external interference, allowing governments to make laws and policies that align with their national interests, including cultural or political values. However, international human rights law seeks to uphold universal standards that protect the fundamental rights of individuals, regardless of national borders, often in direct conflict with sovereign authority. This tension becomes particularly evident when international bodies, like the United Nations or the International Criminal Court, attempt to hold states accountable for human rights violations, such as genocide or war crimes. While some argue for the responsibility to protect (R2P) in cases of mass atrocities, others resist foreign intervention, citing national …: an excuse for non-compliance. The enforcement of human rights laws is often selective, influenced by geopolitical interests, leading to accusations of inconsistency and bias. Additionally, cultural relativism is frequently used to defend practices that conflict with international norms, such as child marriage, FGM, or the death penalty, on the grounds that they are culturally significant. Despite these challenges, regional human rights systems, such as the European Court of Human Rights or the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, continue to push for a balance between respecting state sovereignty and ensuring the protection of basic human rights. Ultimately, finding this balance requires careful negotiation, diplomatic engagement, and a commitment to protecting the dignity and rights of individuals globally.
Use of legal jargon
The interplay between international human rights law and state sovereignty presents a significant jurisprudential challenge in the realm of public international law. State sovereignty, as enshrined in the Westphalian system, confers upon states the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate internal affairs without external interference, encompassing the power to legislate and enforce laws that reflect the nation’s political culture and social norms. Conversely, international human rights law, codified through instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Covenants, posits that certain rights are inherent to all individuals, irrespective of national boundaries, thus imposing obligations on states to safeguard fundamental rights within their jurisdictions. This normative conflict arises when international entities, including the United Nations or the International Criminal Court (ICC), seek to invoke mechanisms of human rights protection and accountability in cases of gross violations such as genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, challenging the principle of non-intervention in domestic matters. Legal scholars and diplomats have debated the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which asserts that states have a due diligence obligation to prevent mass atrocities, while the principle of sovereignty remains a contentious defense against perceived foreign encroachment. Moreover, the selective enforcement of human rights norms, often influenced by political expediency and realpolitik, raises concerns over jurisdictional inequity and the politicization of international law. The cultural relativism defense, invoked by states to justify practices like female genital mutilation or the death penalty, further complicates the legal framework, as it challenges the universality of human rights under customary international law. In light of these tensions, regional human rights mechanisms—such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)—continue to advocate for a harmonization of state sovereignty with the obligation to respect and ensure human rights, underscoring the need for a balanced approach that preserves the integrity of the international legal order while ensuring the protection of individuals’ fundamental freedoms.
The proof
The tension between international human rights law and state sovereignty is evident in key legal rulings, treaties, and state practices. Cases like Nicaragua v. United States (1986) and ICC prosecutions challenge sovereignty when holding governments accountable for crimes like genocide or war crimes. Treaties like the UDHR and ICCPR impose human rights obligations, sometimes conflicting with domestic laws. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine emphasizes international intervention in mass atrocities, even against state sovereignty. However, nations like Myanmar and Syria resist external action, citing sovereignty. Cultural relativism and geopolitical interests, such as veto power in the UN Security Council, further complicate this balance. Regional bodies like the ECHR and IACHR challenge state sovereignty when domestic laws violate human rights, but states often resist compliance, reflecting the ongoing conflict between national autonomy and global human rights norms.
Abstract
This paper delves into the intricate and evolving relationship between international human rights law and state sovereignty, critically examining the tensions that arise when universal human rights standards intersect with a state’s right to self-governance. It explores how state sovereignty—a cornerstone of international law—often comes into conflict with global human rights norms, particularly when governments invoke sovereign immunity to resist international scrutiny or intervention in cases of human rights violations. The study scrutinizes key legal precedents and case law, including landmark decisions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), such as Nicaragua v. United States (1986), and significant rulings from the International Criminal Court (ICC), such as those involving war crimes and genocide, which challenge the assertion of national sovereignty in the face of egregious violations. The analysis also highlights foundational human rights treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and how these instruments establish binding legal obligations that often compel states to reconcile national laws with international standards. Central to the discussion is the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which asserts that the international community has an obligation to intervene when states fail to protect their populations from atrocities, despite the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs. Furthermore, the paper addresses the growing challenge of cultural relativism, where states justify practices like the death penalty, female genital mutilation (FGM), and child marriage on the grounds of cultural or religious traditions, arguing that international human rights law must be sensitive to but not subordinate to such claims. Through a critical examination of regional human rights mechanisms, such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), the paper demonstrates how international legal bodies navigate the tension between universal human rights protection and state sovereignty within various political and cultural contexts. Additionally, the study explores the role of geopolitics and selective enforcement within institutions like the United Nations Security Council, where veto powers often shield powerful states from accountability. The paper concludes by considering the future of international human rights law in an increasingly multipolar world, questioning whether an equitable balance can ever be achieved between national sovereignty and global human rights obligations. Through this analysis, the paper offers a comprehensive view of the enduring conflict between the principles of sovereignty and the universal protection of human dignity, proposing pathways for legal, political, and diplomatic reconciliation in the pursuit of global justice.
Case Laws
1. Nandini Sundar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) – Supreme Court of India
Summary: This case involved a challenge to the Salwa Judum (a militia supported by the government of Chhattisgarh) that was accused of committing human rights violations against Adivasis (tribal people) during operations against Maoist insurgents. The petitioners argued that the Salwa Judum’s actions, including forced displacement, torture, and sexual violence, violated fundamental human rights protected by the Indian Constitution.
Relevance: This case is significant for its emphasis on accountability for human rights abuses committed by state-sponsored militias, highlighting how state sovereignty can be questioned when a government’s actions lead to violations of basic human rights. The Supreme Court of India ruled that the state must not engage in or condone human rights violations, even in the context of internal security operations.
2. Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) – Supreme Court of India
Summary: This case addressed the issue of mob lynching in India, particularly in the context of attacks on Muslims and Dalits in the name of cow protection and other socio-political causes. The petition sought government action to curb rising incidents of lynching and to protect the fundamental rights of vulnerable groups under Article 21 (right to life) of the Indian Constitution.
Relevance: The case is important for its recognition of the state’s duty to protect individuals from human rights violations within its territory, even when such acts are committed by non-state actors. The Supreme Court’s directive emphasized the state’s responsibility to prevent hate crimes, violence, and discrimination, aligning India’s constitutional obligations with international human rights law, and showing how state sovereignty must be reconciled with human rights protection.
3. India and the Kashmir Conflict: Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) Case
Summary: The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), enacted by India, grants special powers to the military in “disturbed areas” like Kashmir. Various human rights organizations and petitions (such as the case filed by Irom Sharmila and others) have challenged this Act, arguing that it violates human rights by giving military personnel the authority to engage in extrajudicial killings, torture, and unlawful detention.
Relevance: The case revolves around the conflict between national security and fundamental human rights, particularly the right to life and liberty. The Supreme Court of India and other human rights bodies have struggled to find a balance between sovereignty and international human rights obligations in the context of military operations in conflict zones like Kashmir. The AFSPA remains a highly controversial law, with critics arguing that it violates international norms related to armed conflict and human rights protection.
4. Case of Mohammad Morsi v. Egypt – Indian Citizens as Refugees (Middle East Case)
Summary: This case relates to the detention and subsequent trial of Mohammad Morsi, the former President of Egypt, who was arrested after the 2013 Egyptian coup. While not directly involving India, it is highly relevant to India’s approach to political asylum and human rights in the Middle East. In this case, many Indian citizens had fled to Egypt during the Arab Spring and sought refugee status in countries like India after Morsi’s ouster.
Relevance: The case highlights India’s international responsibilities under refugee law and its approach to human rights protections for citizens who flee political instability in Middle Eastern countries. The case also illustrates the balancing act India faces between respecting state sovereignty in refugee matters and upholding international human rights norms for asylum seekers. India has historically been cautious in granting political asylum, and this case raised issues related to political asylum, international human rights, and the treatment of refugees from Middle Eastern conflicts.
5. Saudi Arabia and the Case of Raif Badawi – Human Rights Watch (Middle East Case)
Summary: Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger, was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and ten years in prison for insulting Islam and criticizing the government. His case gained international attention as a major human rights violation, with numerous human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, calling for his release.
Relevance: This case highlights the conflict between sovereignty and the right to freedom of expression. The Saudi government’s actions in this case can be seen as a violation of international human rights standards, particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which guarantees freedom of expression. Although the Saudi government invoked sovereignty to defend its actions, the global outcry over this case reflected the pressure on states in the Middle East to comply with international human rights law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the tension between international human rights law and state sovereignty remains a critical and evolving issue in the global legal and political landscape. While state sovereignty has long been regarded as a fundamental principle of international law, the increasing recognition of universal human rights standards challenges this notion, particularly when governments resist external intervention or scrutiny in cases of human rights abuses. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine and human rights treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) illustrate the growing commitment to ensuring that sovereignty does not shield states from accountability for egregious violations of human dignity. However, cultural relativism, geopolitical interests, and the selective enforcement of international norms complicate this balance, as seen in the actions of the United Nations Security Council and regional human rights bodies.The ongoing challenge is to reconcile the legitimate right of states to self-governance with the international community’s obligation to protect individuals from human rights violations, particularly in an increasingly multipolar world. It is clear that while sovereignty cannot be an absolute defense against the violation of fundamental human rights, there must be a nuanced, context-sensitive approach that respects the diversity of political, cultural, and historical realities across the globe. Achieving an equitable balance between these competing interests requires not only the strengthening of international legal mechanisms but also a renewed commitment to diplomatic dialogue, multilateral cooperation, and responsible intervention in the pursuit of global justice. Ultimately, the future of international human rights law will depend on its ability to adapt to changing geopolitical realities while remaining steadfast in its mission to protect the universal rights and dignity of all individuals.
FAQS
1. What is the relationship between international human rights law and state sovereignty?
Answer: International human rights law aims to protect individuals’ rights globally, while state sovereignty allows nations to govern themselves. This creates a tension when human rights violations occur, as states may resist external intervention or scrutiny.
2. Can state sovereignty be used to justify human rights violations?
Answer: No, state sovereignty cannot justify human rights violations. International law obligates states to protect fundamental rights, and sovereignty does not exempt them from accountability for abuses.
3. What is the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine?
Answer: R2P is a principle that holds states accountable for protecting their populations from atrocities. If a state fails, the international community has a duty to intervene, even if it conflicts with sovereignty.
4. How do international courts, like the ICC, challenge state sovereignty?
Answer: The ICC prosecutes individuals, even state leaders, for crimes like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, challenging state sovereignty when these violations occur.
5. How does cultural relativism affect the application of international human rights law?
Answer: Cultural relativism argues that human rights should reflect local customs, often conflicting with international standards. However, international law prioritizes universal human rights, challenging cultural justifications for harmful practices.