The Responsibility And The Sovereignty Of The State

The definition of the concept human rights can differ for each person. The basic definition of human rights is the rights each person deserves to live their life in an equal and just society regardless of where they live, what they believe in, or the color of their skin. The years between 1933 and 1945, post-World War I, is sometimes viewed as the worst decade in history. The Holocaust, was a big reason for this belief. Holo meaning whole, and Kaustos meaning burned or burning was the phrase used to describe this horrific genocide . Should there be limits to state sovereignty when basic human rights are threatened by genocide? It began around 1933, when people in Germany, Poland, and many other places in Europe, started to separate

“Ideas about human rights have evolved over many centuries. But they achieved strong international support following the Holocaust and World War II. To protect future generations from a repeat of these horrors, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 and invited states to sign and ratify it”

Human rights are rights innate to every single individual, whatever our nationality, where you live, sex, national or ethnic birthplace, color of skin, religion, dialect/language, and many more. We are all similarly qualified for our human rights without segregation. These rights are altogether interrelated, associated and resolute. Widespread human rights are regularly communicated and ensured by law, in the types of treaties, standard global law, general standards and different wellsprings of international. International human rights law sets down commitments of Governments to act in certain routes or to cease from specific acts, keeping in mind the end goal to advance and secure human rights and central flexibilities of people or

“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”(UDHR). A declaration issued on December 10, 1948 by the United nations national assembly “an expression of the fundamental values which are shared by all members of the international community”( ).Although this may be true the reality that individuals misuse the power they have or are given is very common in our current society. When thinking of the abuse of power we think of someone who abuses their position to get information or to take advantage of a situation, and or to hold the power they have over another person. The misuse of power is a common occurrence in society, which requires victims to overcome it by stepping up or coming together as one to take back the rights we are all given as human beings.

Human rights - they are an ongoing issue in the world today, with the constant struggle against violation. The United Nations has accepted 30 articles on human rights, which help protect millions from political, social, and legal abuses (UDHR). Even with the insistence from the world’s leaders to follow and honor these rights, violation is common and provides a serious threat to people all over the world. One example of a violation of human rights such as equality and safety in possessions is shown through the issue of Japanese American internment camps (UDHR).

This paper considers two issues: firstly, human rights in the developing world and secondly Canada’s responsibility of humanitarian assistance. Both issues are of grave importance and are mutually exclusive - as nations lacking strong human rights standards are more likely to require the greatest humanitarian assistance. Additionally, the need for humanitarian assistance will increase as global crises become more frequent, due to climate change insecurity (Adger, Huq, Brown, Conway & Hulme, 2003). The example of climate change will be utilised throughout this paper to explore the disparaging links between climate justice and human rights. In defining humanitarian assistance this paper will take Jamieson’s (2004) definition that humanitarian assistance is a response to crises via support in the short term to overcome disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis. Whereas, development assistance considers the longer term issues in developing countries. By defining the two main types of assistance this paper will propose that greater investment into development aid may reduce the need for humanitarian aid as nations become more capable to support themselves. The body of this paper will consider key arguments concerning humanitarian assistance and human rights, including: Canadas humanitarian response in the developing world, the increasing need for global crisis response, human rights as a global responsibility and lastly the move from humanitarian to development assistance. In

Humanitarian interference positions a hard trial for an international society constructed on the doctrines of sovereignty, intervention, and the use of force. Directly after the holocaust, the society of states recognized the laws prohibiting genocide, forbidding the exploitation of civilians, and identifying plain human rights. These humanitarian values often clash with doctrines of sovereignty. Sovereign states are required to perform as protectors of their citizens’ security, but what happens if states act as villains towards their own people, treating power as a pass to kill? Should dictatorial states be recognized as valid members of international society and permitted the protection afforded by the intervention norm? Or else, most states loss their sovereign rights and be exposed to reasonable intervention if they aggressively abuse or fail to protect their citizens? Connected to this, what responsibilities do other states or organizations have to enforce human rights standards against governments that vastly violate them?

The world's nations have a "responsibility to protect" people from the worst human rights abuses. For instance, the United

Sovereignty is having authority over a territory, with rights to govern that territory. Therefore, that means a sovereign state is independent from any foreign power. This state also can create peace, form treaties, create alliances, and start a war. In terms of starting a war, that is the reason governments are established. Established governments are used for the purpose of self-defense, protecting

The debate of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect have been discussed in international relations discourse more seriously within the last 60 years. The major historical developments which have led to an increase in the intensity of these debates have had beneficial and detrimental effects on Earth within the last 20 years. Several factors have contributed to this including; globalization, the rise in international accountability, an increase humanitarian consciousness to prevent major atrocities from occurring, the expansion of territorial to global responsibility of the western world, and the realization of the western world that regional sovereignty no longer accounts for national security. To develop an opinion

Many perceive humanitarian intervention as a way to provide protection for people in instances of gross human rights violations, however, the concept has become increasingly contentious (Rashid, 2012). Contentions concerning humanitarian intervention are multifaceted; humanitarian intervention infringes upon state sovereignty which is perceived as a crucial basis for international order, yet, infringement is often justified by contentions focusing upon the universality of human rights and a responsibility to protect and promote them (Atack, 2002). While there are alternative definitions, for the purposes of this paper humanitarian intervention will be considered to be, ‘the threat or use of force by a state (or group of states) across another state’s borders which aim to prevent or end widespread violations upon the fundamental human rights of individuals … conducted without the

The key objections to humanitarian intervention include the conflict of interests with the self-interested state and sovereignty, the difficulty of internal legitimacy, the problematical Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and the debate over legality of intervention. The issue of morality stands as an overarching issue which touches on all of these. Overall, one finds that despite a moral imperative to intervene, humanitarian intervention should not occur but is perhaps the lesser of a series of evils.

Global Politics The study of international or rather global politics, seeks to provide an account of politics in the broadest domain. The domain of international politics in the twenty-first century is characterised by the increasing number of actors pursuing common and personal interests. It is largely due to the globalised, interdependent nature of the current international political environment that the concepts of sovereignty and power deserve further evaluation.

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.