Human Rights and State Sovereignty Flashcards
examine the tension between human rights and state sovereignty
state sovereignty often prevents international bodies from being able to adequately protect and defend human rights
sovereign states are free to withdraw from courts that protect human rights at any time, thus undermining international law and restricting the ability of courts to uphold human rights
the ability of the ICC and UN tribunals to deal with human rights abuses depends heavily on the cooperation of the sovereign nation-states involved
state sovereignty often prevents international bodies from being able to adequately protect and defend human rights
there is a lot of tension between human rights and state sovereignty as the latter often prevents international bodies from being able to adequately protect and defend human rights
states are sovereign and so cannot ever be bound by international law designed to protect human rights
in fact, one of the main issues relating to UN special tribunals and the ICC is that some countries are not bound by the full requirements of the court, including China, the USA, India and Israel
this severely limits the ability of such institutions to deal with human rights abuses as it restricts their jurisdiction and how much action they can realistically take after humanitarian catastrophes and other issues of abuse by individuals or governments take place
for example, China is recognised for having a relatively poor human rights record
in 1989, the Tiananmen Square Massacre took place in which troops fired at student-led demonstrators and the number of casualties was internally estimated by the Chinese government to be around 10,000
more recently, China has come under huge pressure and criticism due to its treatment and persecution of Uyghur Muslims
in 2018, a UN committee heard that up to 1 million Muslims were being detained in internment camps and forced to undergo ‘re-education’ programmes
however, China is one of the countries not fully bound by the ICC, meaning that many of such human rights abuses may be essentially ignored and institutions like the ICC and UN tribunals are rendered unable to act
as such countries, known for having poor records regarding the treatment of their citizens, are not bound by the courts, it severely limits the ability of these courts to deal with human rights abuses
this demonstrates that state sovereignty allows states who infringe upon human rights to ignore organisations that seek to uphold human rights by refusing to be fully bound by such organisations
sovereign states are free to withdraw from courts that protect human rights at any time, thus undermining international law and restricting the ability of courts to uphold human rights
another tension between human rights and state sovereignty is that sovereign states are free to withdraw from courts that protect human rights at any time, thus undermining international law and restricting the ability of courts to uphold human rights
for instance, the ICC faced another huge blow in 2016 when South Africa, Burundi and Gambia declared their decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute and therefore the ICC
there are fears that other African countries may follow, largely because there is the perception that the ICC and UN tribunals are biased against Africans seeing as most trials and prosecutions have been of Africans and arrest warrants have only ever been issued against Africans
according to countries like Burundi and Gambia, this makes the ICC look like a colonial organisation and this criticism limits its power and influence
since other African countries may also leave the jurisdiction of the ICC, this issue has the potential to severely limit the ICC’s ability to deal with human rights abuses
UN tribunals are also often criticised for being based upon Western, liberal values and since they tend to be focused on developing or transitioning states, giving the impression that these countries are seen by the West as ‘backward’ and are unfairly focused on, especially since there have been many alleged human rights abuses perpetrated by the West, such as the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, waterboarding and covert rendition by the US
with so many countries either refusing to sign up to the courts in the first place or proceeding to withdraw, the ICC and UN tribunals cannot be said to provide truly international justice, only providing limited and partial justice
the ability of the ICC and UN tribunals to deal with human rights abuses depends heavily on the cooperation of the sovereign nation-states involved
moreover, the ability of the ICC and UN tribunals to deal with human rights abuses depends heavily on the cooperation of the sovereign nation-states involved
both organisations depend on states to turn over suspects and help in the information gathering process in order for trials to be as quick and efficient as possible
unfortunately, this is not always the case
there have been numerous cases when the prosecutor has the evidence needed, an indictment has been issued but a trial has not followed because the indicted individual has not been turned over for trial, meaning that the suspect remains at large as an international criminal and does not have to answer their charges
this has been the case with Omar al-Bashir, former president of Sudan, who is charged with crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur, in which up to 300,000 people were killed and 2.7 million driven from their homes by militias he backed from 2003
Sudan’s military government has said it will not extradite al-Bashir to face his charges, claiming it would be “an ugly mark on Sudan”
this lack of cooperation is one of the biggest issues facing both the ICC and UN special tribunals, limiting their ability to deal with human rights abuses as neither can force a state into complying with them, even if that state has agreed to fall under the jurisdiction of the courts
