Human Rights Vs State Sovereignty

Human Rights VS State Sovereignity

The highest priority of human right’ value is not brought into question by society in the modern democratic states. However, in a number of regions human rights till today continue to remain an object of serious and sometimes mass violations. In this regard ensuring their observance doesn't stop being the topical problem raising the question of the state sovereignty in the context of admissible and operative intervention in state internal affairs by other states for providing security for the violated population. The special attention of theory of law and international representatives to the concept of the state sovereignty is connected inevitably to the consequences of the world community’s globalization,

For example, in the most pragmatic definition of the rights and freedoms of the person given in the Universal Declaration of Human rights has been said that: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. (UHRD, art. 2, 1948) The use of this definition is named as the most pragmatic for two reasons. First, an omission of any of abovementioned criteria could mean impunity for certain human rights violations. Secondly, it contains some kind of a challenge to the concept of the state sovereignty. In general, the sovereignty is understood as supremacy of the state power within its territory and independence out of it. However, the accuracy of such formulation is quite relative (Lukashuk,

Distribution of idea of human rights still interferes with Westphalian traditional of understanding of sovereignty. However it is impossible to note evolutions in perception in this understanding. In particular, Kofi Annan's announcement made in 1999 testifies to it that "today state is the mechanism working for the people, and not vice versa" (Annan, 1999. This position has been also reflected and in documents of Pagwash Conference on science and world Affairs. According to it, sovereignty never was and isn't reflection of the boundless power to do everything that directly prohibited by international law" (Pellet, 2009). Such perception of the state sovereignty inevitably conducts a reconsideration of its essence, formation of new approach according to which it serves interests of the people, not just the states. Moreover, in such a new position the sovereignty is not simply the instrument of prevention of the international conflicts, but also suppression of internal human rights violations. This new perception reflects objective reality of a modern world order, changing thus idea of the sovereignty in the form in which today it serves for creation of the relations between the states, keeping still strong traditions of the Westphalian