Sovereignty, Non-Intervention, Human Rights.

The last four or five decennia a growing number of debates have been initiated dealing with the issue of the necessity of a reassessment of the implications of the coexistence of the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention on the one hand, and the principles of humanity and of international concern for human rights on the other.

The principle of sovereignty and non-intervention have served as an untouchable ideological dogma in international relations and international law for a long time.
The concerns for the well-being of citizins, human rights, in countries all over the world have become more and more the focus of attention during the last four or five decennia. As we all can understand a conflict can arise between nations who want to address the issue of a countries human rights situation while on the other hand the country in question wants to make an appeal to the principal of sovereignty and non-intervention.

Difficult situation. What weighs or should weigh more ? The principle of Sovereignty and non-intervention or the principle of Humanity and Human Rights ?

Of course this is a question that can only be answered after investigating the scale of the human right's violations in a particular case. There is no general answer. It is hard to establish objective guidelines of how to weigh the different principles and what nature or form the intervention should take.

Awarding the Peace Noble Prize to Amnesty International in 1977 can be regarded as an important milestone in these developments. Human Rights were more and more looked upon as a principle that could indeed outweigh the principle of Sovereignty and Non-Intervention in internal affairs.

If you visit this link you'll find the acceptance speech, the Nobel lecture, by the Amnesty International representative.

http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1977/amnesty-lecture.html

This is a first post of mine regarding this issue. Tomorrow I will give a few more links and I'll select some quotes, that are relevant to the subject of this thread; the necessary reassessment of the implications of the coexistence of the two principles, Non-Intervention or Non-Interference and Human Rights.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The last four or five decennia a growing number of debates have been initiated dealing with the issue of the necessity of a reassessment of the implications of the coexistence of the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention on the one hand, and the principles of humanity and of international concern for human rights on the other.

The principle of s ...[text shortened]... of the coexistence of the two principles, Non-Intervention or Non-Interference and Human Rights.

Some relevant quotes on the subject of this thread taken from the Nobel lecture, which is, by the way, an excellent description of the developments of the notion of Human Rights, what Amnesty International stands for and what it tries to achieve.


Quote I. " ... Therefore, the promotion of human rights as a whole is directly related to the preservation of lasting peace."

QUOTE II. " ... However, the more serious deficiency appears to be at the international level. At the drafting of the Charter of the United Nations, a clause was inserted to protect matters within the domestic jurisdictions of each member state. Yet it was envisaged at the time that human rights would be protected internationally. Through Articles 55 and 56, all members pledged themselves to take joint and separate action to secure human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and Article 68 called for the establishment of a human rights commission."

Quote III. "... Fourth, human rights are universal ..... The full implications of the universality of human rights is not yet sufficiently recognized. Such recognition would entail a rethinking and revising of a fundamental principle of international relations - non-interference in the internal affairs of a state. The application of this principle in the field of human rights is the most formidable obstacle to the creation of effective implementation machinery. It will require a major effort of international re-education to extricate human rights from the grip of the principle of non-interference in internal affairs."


http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1977/amnesty-lecture.html

The following quotes are taken from the article "A Gulf in the Charter" by B.G. Ramcharan. An article that gives an introduction to the developments and changing in global thinking regarding the three principles mentioned in this thread's name: Sovereignty, Non-Intervention and Human Rights.



"Governments are being held more and more accountable to their people in a process that is witnessing the vindication of the principles of democratic government, the rule of law and respect for human rights. And yet we are still caught in the web of archaic, outworn and outdated tenets of international law. The question that presents itself for examination is: shall the law serve the interest of the people or shall it be used to cloak their oppression?"

"Whenever there is a tension between the principles of sovereignty and humanity, contemporary international morality and legality would demand that precedence be given to the dictates of humanity."

"The international ethic is changing on this issue at the governmental as well as the non-governmental level."


"In their political Declaration, the London Economic Summit noted " .......... We urge the UN and its affiliated agencies to be ready to consider similar action in the future if the circumstances require it. The international community cannot stand idly by in cases where widespread human suffering from famine, war, oppression, refugee flows, disease or flood reaches urgent and overwhelming proportions."


http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v07n5p10.htm