Human Rights And International Law

This research is based on the “universalist” theory of human rights. The Universalist theory supposes that human rights are universal since they are said to belong to all humans in every society. Human rights are also supposed to be inalienable; because they flow from and protect human existence, they cannot be taken away without endangering the value of that existence. However, these universal and inalienable qualities of human rights are disputable in both their conception and operation (Heard A, 1997).

Liberalism was previously a projection of how international relations ought to be; now, liberalism is a modern theory towards peace attained with a state’s ambition for dominance. “Self-interest” has two definitions in accordance to liberalism and realism. Liberalism considers the measure of power within states through stable economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms (human rights). Realism believes states are driven by competitive self-interest; international organizations hold little to no real influence because states are self-preserved. International relations is governed by states acting in their self-interest through liberalism; states act in their self-interest by cooperating with one another through international organizations, transnational advocacy networks, and non-governmental organizations. International organizations, normative values, and terrorism are all examples of how international relations is progressing into liberalism.

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

Realism is the preeminent theory of International Relations, as it provides the best explanation for what is going on today in the modern world in case of conflicts and political disputes. Realism can be broken down in three elements: Survival, Statism and Self Help. Survival is fundamentally the basic instinct of any state. Not to forget that in International Relations, states are known as “Actors” (O’Neil, 2009). Survival mostly kicks in when a state is under anarchical rule, or simply “a state with no higher authority” (Mearsheimer, 2008). Statism on the other hand concentrates on economic controls of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industries. And finally Self Help. Self Help is basically being able and adapted to succour one’s state in times of hardship and distress. Even though there are many different elements and

There are three theoretical perspectives in which world leaders identify themselves with one theory or all, based in the decision they must make. To better understand the international politics comparison of the three theoretical approaches are conducted. Realism has been viewed as the dominant perspective in International Relation theory for many years. Realist view survival as the means to “create and enforce laws to protect citizens” (6). The assumption in Realism can be made that “the rules of the international system are dictated by anarchy; in this sense, anarchy is perceived as a “lack of central government to enforce rules” and protect states” (6). Realism can also be assumed as the theory that used by nation leaders to rule and govern with an “iron Fist”.

These assumptions hold a substantial amount of merit if the international system is viewed as anarchic. Since anarchy is assumed, all states must fend for themselves by any means necessary. This is where offensive realism borrows from neorealist and classical realist thought, in that states just want enough power to survive. Although states seek to acquire as much power as possible, because it’s hardwired into human nature, according to offensive realism. However, unlike classical realism where the pursuit of ultimate power by states is assumed, ultimate power is viewed as the best strategy for

Analysing the world from a realist perspective implies a certain detachment. This viewpoint assumes that the world is entirely egoist and unmoral, and each country is acting only toward his own interest. Moreover, this world is anarchic in the sense that no institution can dictate a state. The main objective is to survive and to assure the security of one’s own nation. In order to assure security, a state has to gain as much power as possible and must be independent. Thus, all international organization or alliance are not likely to work.

Up until this point, I have steered clear from a prescriptive theorization of human rights and maintained a descriptive stance in which I have offered the naturalist description on the way in which we come to think of universal human rights and moreover, offered an explanation which confronts the problems of relativism that arises on the subject matter. Now I will attempt to give an account on how all things considered in the first two sections of my paper, we ought to think about universal rights relative to the international legal system. My analysis here will be two-fold. First, I will begin by suggesting that it may be useful to revise our conception of universal human rights so that we may sever its connection with the absolutism vs

The lynchpin of the 21st century has been the notion of liberalism, whether in relation to individuals, a race or even a nation. Societies are founded on the idea of dominion and other societies have learned to embrace cultural differences and give credibility to them as a result. However today’s era of globalisation has yet to shake off fully the imperialistic attitude that was prevalent up until the 1800. While the intention behind the creation of fundamental human rights – such as the Charter of the United Nations – was an amicable one, the reality has given rise to anomalies when dealing with nations that are outside the norm of accepted practices. This strains the concept of international human rights as it contests the concept of state sovereignty. This essay will argue that international human rights activity can be seen as a struggle to balance the competing claims of sovereignty and international human rights. While some activity by amalgamated international forces are warranted, the process in determining action is in itself the cause of the tension rather than the act.

The Realism theory explain that even if all the countries appear to have different objectives according to particular circumstances, in reality they have common intentions, which are focused on re-building the logic of policy makers. And the last assumption sees a country as a “unitary actor”. The nature of the international system defines the main problems that a country can face (Holsti, 1985) .

The focus of analysis in realism is the struggle for power among states in an anarchic international system. Realists view states as dominant actors. These states are insecure, selfish, unitary, and rational in the sense that they make decisions in an organized manner that will produce the greatest utility. The states are always looking out for their own national interests and are naturally antagonistic against other states. Because realists are only concerned with the survival of the state in an anarchic international system, the most important goal of the state is to enhance their power to ensure security. The security dilemma, power politics, anarchy, and the self-help system all characterize the realist perspective.

Kelsen, Hart and Bull (2012, p. 19) argued that international law lacks many characteristics required to qualify as a fully fledge rule of law systems. Furthermore, Hence, Gurvitch (1993, p. 213) concluded that between two orders there is an unstable equilibrium, which will depend upon the importance given to one order, or the effectiveness one has over the factors given priority by each of them.

Realism is an approach to international politics that is based on the importance of power politics and the pursuit of national interests (Heywood, 2000). According to this school of thought, the international realm is a moral free ambience in which the state is seen as a rational and uniform player which finds itself in constant conflict with the other states of the system due to the lack of a comprehensive world government, i.e. an international anarchy (Oldemeinen, 2010). Realism is directly contrasting to romanticism or idealism, as it offers a cold and calculating picture of how the world functions, which is often seen as pessimistic. From an international relations perspective, realism portrays global politics in a homogeneous

The question at the heart of this dissertation is: Why does an international human rights framework impact the domestic political efficacy of rights-based mobilization in some cases and not in others? The number of international human rights conventions and tribunals has increased dramatically since World War II. This human rights regime now reflects a complex web of rules, norms, and institutions that attempt to structure the behavior of states vis-à-vis citizens. I seek to explain the conditions under which international human rights law affects the promotion of rights claims in democratizing states and the mechanisms by which