Rethinking the Concept of Sovereignty in Light of the Responsibility to Protect Principle
Keywords:
National sovereignty, equality of states, immunity of rulers, responsibility to protect, human rightsAbstract
Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and subsequent human rights agreements and programs, cooperation in the field of human rights has steadily expanded (United Nations, 1948). It is evident that the end of the Cold War and the expansion of globalization processes facilitated opportunities for states and other actors to consolidate their efforts in addressing a wide range of global concerns, including human rights. During the 1990s, a renewed international commitment emerged, which by the end of that decade was, to some extent, referred to as the “age of human rights.” Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, contemporary human rights policies seek to prevent stagnation in the development of relevant actors and related issues. Seventy years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the international community and approximately thirty years after the end of the Cold War, the present moment provides an appropriate opportunity to reassess achievements in the field of human rights and to reflect upon the remaining challenges and emerging opportunities. The present study seeks to contribute to the broader discourse on the relationship between national sovereignty and human rights in the contemporary world. This dissertation carefully examines the dynamic interaction between national sovereignty and human rights. The contentious nature of these issues arises from the fact that they require states to increasingly relinquish their traditional sovereign privileges in matters relating to human rights; alternatively, these processes are increasingly driven by non-state actors; or simply because such developments, taken together, tend to marginalize national governments. Specifically, national governments continue to seek to maintain their position as primary actors in this process; however, as analyzed in the present study, traditional national sovereignty is undergoing erosion and transformation, while the role of non-state actors has expanded significantly. In order to fully and effectively protect human rights under contemporary conditions, emphasis must be placed on the process of establishing a supranational system and, to some extent, a form of global governance, since state sovereignty has frequently served—and continues to serve—as a pretext for impunity in relation to crimes against humanity and systematic violations of human rights.
Downloads
References
1. Hashemi SM. Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Tehran: Mizan Publishing; 2005.
2. Robertson G. Crimes Against Humanity. New York: The New Press; 2002.
3. United N. A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility: Report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. New York: United Nations, 2004.
4. Annan K. A more Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility2004.
5. Weiss TG. Humanitarian Intervention: Ideas in Action. Tehran: IPIS Publications; 2007.
6. Assembly of the African Union. Decision on the Report of the Commission on the Abuse of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction Doc. Assembly/AU/14 (XI). Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt2008.
7. Krasner SD. Westphalia and All That. In: Goldstein J, Keohane RO, editors. Ideas and Foreign Policy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1993. p. 235-64.
8. Jackson RH. Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
9. Morgenthau H. Problem of Sovereignty Reconsidered. Colombia Law Review. 1948:341-65.
10. Albert-Colliard C. Institutions of International Relations. Tehran: Nashr-e-No; 1989.
11. Albert-Colliard C. International Organizations. Tehran: Fakhteh Publishing; 1992.
12. Williams M. Rethinking the concept of sovereignty: The impact of globalization on state sovereignty. Journal of Political-Economic Information. 2000(155 & 156):132-41.
13. Clunan AL. Redefining Sovereignty: Humanitarianisms Challenge to Sovereign Immunity. In: Shawki N, Cox M, editors. Negotiating sovereignty and human rights: actors and issues in contemporary human rights politics. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing; 2009. p. 7-26.
14. Ganji M. The United Nations. Tehran: Franklin Publishing; 1973.
15. Orentlicher D. The Law of Universal Conscience: Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Washington, D.C.: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; 1998.
16. Bhuta N, Schurr J. Universal Jurisdiction in Europe: The State of the Art. Human Rights Watch Report, 2006.
17. Amnesty International. Universal Jurisdiction: The Duty of States to Enact and Implement Legislation. 2001.
18. International Court of Justice. Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium). 2002. p. 295.
19. Ghali BB. An Agenda for Peace1992.
20. Gal-Or N. Enforcement of Occupation Law in Domestic Courts. Hebrew University International Law Research Paper No. 19-08, 2008.
21. Di John J. [Working Title/Report]. 2008.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Fathollah Rahimi; Ali Akbar Gorji Azandriani, Samaneh Rahmatifar, Alireza Habibi (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.