The defense of human rights

The defense of human rights

The defense of human rights has historically been profoundly against the notion of state sovereignty. The concept of sovereignty causes States to struggle in their internal affairs. That very concept seems to be in direct contradiction with the code of universal human rights and the protection of an individual within a state. International human rights commitments are also routinely perceived to be “eroding state sovereignty. “There is a contrasting relationship between human rights and State sovereignty. They can also coexist though competing and contrasting. Human rights and the authority of the state are two different concepts in the philosophies discussed separately. Still, the issue starts in reality as the “good law” of the state communicates human rights. The historical context of a sovereign principle comes from the Westphalian peace agreement, which lasted three centuries before any reform occurred.

It is important to be familiar with the form of relationship between them to explore the reconciliation of human rights and state sovereignty. Since the universal declaration on human rights came into being, there have been many debates regarding the relationship between human rights and state sovereignty. This article discusses first the effect on the changing of the nature of sovereignty of the historical development of human rights and then the various claims centered on the social, legal as well as political aspects of human rights, which affect its relationship with state sovereignty.

In conclusion, the State sovereignty is no longer a simple right to exercise control on a given territory, as laid down in Westphalia’s foundational peace. This was then redefined and turned into an appropriate and complicated process of exercising power. The international law has become more lenient when it comes to cross-border action to protect human rights, albeit firmly based on state law.