Evaluate the view that sovereignty is the biggest barrier to the protection of human rights

What is the structure of the essay?

P1 - Sovereignty undermines international courts vs. Sovereignty does not undermine international courts

P2 - Humanitarian intervention override state sovereignty vs. sovereignty has prevented humanitarian interventions

P3 - Sovereignty allows states to ignore international human rights law vs. The attitudes of the worlds biggest power are a biggest barrier to human rights protection

P1 - Sovereignty undermines international courts

• Most important way sovereignty acts as a barrier to human rights protection is that it limits the effectiveness of international courts as they lack the power to enforce their rulings

  • This is supported by the realist perspective that argues states are primarily driven by self-interest and will prioritise this over implementing an international courts decision.

  • For realists, this means courts lack true power to protect human rights as there is no compulsion without force.

• The ICJ is often unable to enforce human rights standards as it relies on the political goodwill of states to implement them as the UN lacks its independent enforcement mechanisms.

  • For example, in the case of South Africa v Israel, in 2024, the ICJ issued a ruling ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts and its offensive in Rafah.

  • Israel did not comply and stopped aid going into Rafah.

  • This shows that states can selectively comply with rulings and ignore them when they interfere with domestic priorities, showing how state sovereignty is a significant obstacle.

• Also prevents international courts from prosecuting leaders of human rights abuses as it relies on states arresting those people

  • Despite being convicted, Omar al-Bashir, the former President of Sudan, avoided arrest for years despite an ICC indictment for crimes related to the Darfur conflict

  • Many states including South Africa, Kenya, and Jordan refused to enforce the warrant.

P1 - International courts are effective in protecting human rights

• Sovereignty isn’t an issue as they can put significant moral pressure on states, meaning that they are often able to convince states to change their behaviour through legal rulings

  • This is supported by the liberal perspective, which views rules-based international order and the moral pressure of the international community as having real power and ability to uphold human rights effectively

• The ECtHR enables individuals to directly bring cases against states for alleged HR violations.

  • Not only have these rulings forced states to respect the human rights of individuals, but also promoted legal and policy reforms in member states.

    • For example, in Goodwin v UK, the Court’s ruling that failure to legally recognise a transgender woman’s gender reassignment violated her right to respect for private life, Article 8. This led to the Gender Recognition Act, allowing transgender individuals to obtain legal recognition.

• The ICJ is also able to protect HR by settling disputes between states and creating pressure, as states consent to the jurisdiction of the ICJ and are supposed to accept its judgements as binding.

  • For example, in Democratic Republic of Congo v Uganda (2022), the ICJ ordered Uganda to pay $325 million in reparations to the DRC for its military intervention during the late 1990s which violated human rights.

  • Uganda complied and has paid it.

P2 - Humanitarian interventions override state sovereignty

• Sovereignty isn’t the biggest barrier to human rights due to humanitarian interventions being able to override state sovereignty in when violations are imminent.

• The end of the Cold War, marked by unipolarity and the U.S. championing liberal democracy, created a global environment where humanitarian interventions came frequently.

  • NATO-led intervention in Kosovo in 1999, launched specifically to prevent mass violence against ethnic Albanians by Serbian forces. Despite bypassing a UNSC veto, NATO’s intervention successfully halted large-scale violence and forced Yugoslav forces to withdraw.

  • Similarly, the successful INTERFET intervention in East Timor, of 1999, demonstrated how rapid, well-coordinated intervention can uphold human rights.

  • Backed by UN authorisation, Australian-led forces restored order, and facilitated East-Timor’s independence

• Additionally, the ability of the international community override state sovereignty to protect rights was legitimised by the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which was formally endorsed by the UN in 2025

  • R2P states that a nation had a responsibility to protect human rights of their own citizens and if they did not do so, other states had a responsibility to override their sovereignty.

  • Came into force in NATO’s 2011 intervention in Libya as Gaddafi threatened large-scale civilian massacres in Benghazi and elsewhere in response to the Arab Spring uprising.

  • The intervention successfully prevented massacre in Benghazi.

P2 - sovereignty has prevented humanitarian interventions in past decade

• It can be said that sovereignty is the biggest barrier to human rights protection, as in the past decade, it has prevented any international humanitarian interventions from taking place and therefore allowed human rights abuses

• Over the past 15 years, the rise in China and Russia has impacted the global willingness and capacity to engage in interventions.

• Both states are strong advocates for supreme sovereignty - meaning that intervention should not be allowed.

  • They have both used their UNSC vetoes to block resolutions that could authorise humanitarian intervention. Such assertive use of veto has created an environment where major interventions are difficult. j

  • As a result, human rights crises have proliferated across the world. While some of these like the Uyghur genocide in Xinjiang would not have attracted intervention in the 1990s due to apprehension of protracted conflict, others such as the Rohingya Genocide in Myanmar may have.

• Further, even during the 1990s and early 2000s, the international community’s hestitation about infringing upon state sovereignty led to the inaction that could have prevented instances of HR violations.

  • Clearest example is the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, when approximately 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu were killed in just 100 days. Despite warnings from UN officials and NGOs about the violence, there was no action.

P3 - Sovereignty is the greatest barrier as it allows states to not accept jurisdiction of international courts

• Sovereignty allows states to not accept the jurisdiction of international courts, meaning that states can simply decide not to accept some aspects of international rights law.

  • For example, in the ICC - 70 states including powerful nations such as Russia, China, and US have not signed the Rome statute - meaning the ICC does not have jurisdiction over these 70 countries and can’t act against leaders from these nations.

• Can also be seen in the ICJ - not able to proceed with a case if state doesn’t accept its jurisdiction.

  • For example, in March 2025, Sudan filed a case against the UAE at the ICJ, accusing it of violating the Genocide Convention by financially supporting the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in carrying out HR abuses in Darfur.

  • ICJ ruled it could not proceed as UAE does not accept jurisdiction.

P3 - Changing attitudes of China, Russia, and US are a greater threat to human rights

• It can be argued that sovereignty isn’t the biggest barrier, rather attitudes of CN, RU, US, are a much greater threat.

  • During the 1990s and 2000s, the US global hegemony and the importance given to human rights meant that sovereignty was not really a barrier to HR intervention.

  • Rather than sovereignty being an issue today, it is instead the growing apathy of these massive powers as the barrier.

• Russia and China have risen in power and strongly opposed protection of HR if it undermines sovereignty. As they are both P5 members with veto on the UNSC, they have been able to use their structural power to prevent interventions.

  • For example, Russia repeatedly vetoed resolution aimed at addressing human rights crises in the Syrian Civil War, shielding its ally Bashar al-Assad from international military responses, despite evidence of chemical weapon usage.

• The decline in interventions has also been influenced by the US’ rejection of its previous role as the global police force and instead shifted towards isolationism, which began in the late 2000s and continued into the 2010s.

  • The costly and prolonged military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan shifted US police away from foreign intervention to domestic priorities, a trend that began with Obama’s presidency and intensified under Trump’s ‘‘America First’’ policy.

  • The US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, under Biden, signposted this shift, marking US reluctance to commit U.S military forces and lead humanitarian missions.