Sovereignty vs. Human Rights in International Law

In the realm of international law, the principle of sovereignty is paramount, yet it often conflicts with the tenets of universal human rights. Scholars have debated whether state sovereignty should encompass the right of states to prevent foreign intervention even in cases of egregious human rights violations. For instance, numerous debates arose during the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, prompting international bodies to reconsider how and when to apply humanitarian intervention. The sovereignty versus human rights discourse highlights a critical tension: should the autonomy of a state be upheld at the expense of the rights and lives of individuals within its borders?

Furthermore, recent developments in international relations suggest that an evolving view of sovereignty might be necessary to address global crises effectively. Advocates for 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) argue that the international community has an obligation to intervene when states fail to protect their citizens from mass atrocities. This shift in perspective implies a potential reassessment of traditional notions of sovereignty in favor of a more interconnected understanding of global responsibility.