Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
Legal scholars have been conducting research on whether legal norms such as human rights norms can be universal. For a long time, there has been an argument among scholars and law experts on the degree to which sovereignty of a state may be considered superior to these international legal norms.
According to Slomanson (2011, p. 78), the United Nation has defined human rights and the importance of upholding these rights irrespective of one’s nationality or the sovereignty of a state. These international legal norms should apply to everyone in any part of the world.
This means that individual states have the responsibility of incorporating these international legal norms into their national laws in order to ensure that they are upheld locally.
Although some legal scholars have argued that sovereignty of a state should always be considered important when dealing with international legal norms, there is a consensus that when handling issues of human rights, the international law on human rights- as defined by the United Nations- should always come first.
This research paper is focused on determining whether international legal norms such as human rights should be universal all over the world.
Discussion
According to Slomanson (2011, p. 90), technology has turned the world into a global village, especially following the development in transport and communication systems. Today it is possible for Americans to know what is happening in China, United Kingdom, Kenya, South Africa, Russia, or any other part of the world in real time through news broadcast.
This means that we are living in a world where anything that happens in other parts of the world appears to be happening at our doorsteps because of ease of communication. It is therefore, very important to determine the relevance of having some of the international legal norms be made universal across the world, especially those that focus on human right.
In a society that has been integrated by advancement of technology, it becomes very important to have universal norms that are applicable to all human races in the world. When developing human rights laws, it was appreciated that there are standards within which a person should be treated by the state, and other members of the society.
As Slomanson (2011, p. 56) says, no human race is superior to others, and when applying the human rights laws, it is necessary to ensure that there is universality to all.
Some scholars have argued that sovereignty of a state may be a limitation to the concept of universal human rights. This argument has strongly been challenged by many scholars across the world. A human being in Congo forest in Africa is not a lesser human being to an affluent man staying in East London.
Despite the difference in the level of wealth owned by the two, these individuals share the fact that they are human beings. Human rights norms should be applied equally to them. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 has been a perfect example of the need to make human rights norms superior to a country’s sovereignty as a way of protecting humanity.
When the ethnic war between the Hutus and Tutsis begun, the world largely believed that Rwanda was a sovereign state that should be allowed to solve its own internal conflicts. The world watched helplessly as the government machinery was used against one tribe.
That which started as a small ethnic conflict in this tiny African nation resulted into ethnic cleansing where over one million people perished. Many others were displaced from their homes, forced to suffer in foreign countries because their homes were destroyed by their adversaries.
One question that many have been asking is why the world watched while this massacre was going on in Rwanda. The country is a sovereign state, and that remains a fact. However, it is important to appreciate the fact that it reached a moment where the leadership of this sovereign state failed its sacred duty of protecting all the citizens.
It became a party in the war. It took sides in this ethnic cleansing, and used its machinery against one ethnic community. As Slomanson (2011, p. 25) notes, a country’s sovereignty should be subject to some fundamental international laws, especially in regard to the law on humanity.
This sovereignty is always entrusted with the government to the extent that it shall protect its people from any form of aggression, whether it is from internal or external forces. When the same government turns against the people it should protect, then such sovereignty would lose its true meaning.
It would become irrelevant, and human rights norm should be given precedence over it. This is what the international society failed to consider in the Rwandan case, and the result was a massacre of over one million people.
For such a tiny country like Rwanda to lose one million people, it would mean that if the war was fought in China, more than three hundred million people would have perished as the world watched. This is catastrophic.
This is a clear indication that human right needs to be universal irrespective of a country’s sovereignty. Sovereignty should be relevant to the extent to which it remains protective of the international human rights law. This way, it would be possible to protect humanity from any form of aggression by any forces.
The international society must have learnt from the Rwandan case, and this has been reflected in some of the decision it has made over some of the recent conflicts that have arisen in various countries, especially in the Arab world. Muhammar Gaddafi of Libya was a strong military ruler who could not have been forced out of power by a simple rebellion from a section of the society.
His military power would have quelled such rebellion with very minimal effort. The same rebellion was mounted against Egyptian Ruler Hosni Mubarak. When the government used its machinery against its people, the international society was forced to intervene.
Although this resulted into ousting of these dictatorial rulers out of power, it played a major role in minimizing the death tolls during such revolutions.
Yemen, Tunisia and Syria are some of other countries where serious uprising against the government has been experienced in the recent times. In Syria, for example, the government was overwhelmed by the force of civil war, and had planned to use biological weapons against those fighting the government.
This information leaked to the international society that the Syrian government was planning to use such weapons against its own people. The international society acted very fast. The Obama administration issued a warning to the government, and issued an ultimatum that the weapons be withdrawn.
The United States was close to attacking the Syrian government, forcing it to withdraw such dangerous weapons. At this moment, it would be important to make a reflection on how international human rights norm was able to protect Syrian from the devastating effect of the biological weapons.
The international society appreciated the fact that Syria is a foreign state. However, it was uncomfortable with the fact that such a sovereign state was planning to abuse human rights of its own citizens. The international human rights norm was therefore, given precedence over the sovereignty.
International legal norms, especially on human rights, are always applicable when a country is engaged in a war. The law of war defines acceptable justification that can make a country go to war. The law emphasizes on the need to seek non military interventions first, before a country can consider going to war.
According to Slomanson (2011, p. 42), even in circumstances when a country goes to war, the international human rights norms should always be followed carefully to ensure that people are protected from unnecessary harm.
Before the law was developed, there was a loophole that was exploited by some countries when dealing with prisoners of war. However, laws of war clearly define the treatment that should be subjected to the prisoners of war.
The law prohibits unnecessary torture, especially when it is evident that the war is over or when the prisoners do not pose any threat to the national security.
The law also sheds light on the type of weapons that can be used and the issue of surrender during the war. This means that no country in the world can engage in a war with total disregard to the well-laid principles outlined in the international laws.
The motive of this law is to ensure that countries exploit other avenues of solving conflicts instead of going to war. However, when it is apparent that going to war is inevitable, then the law sets guidelines which are meant to protect humanity from devastating effects of such wars.
It would be necessary to analyze the spirit of international laws of war. When developing this law, it was intended to minimize instances when a country would be forced to go to war. That explains why it has several avenues of solving conflicts before a country can go to war.
Even in cases where war is inevitable, the law seeks to determine some guidelines that should be followed when engaging in such wars in order to minimize civilian casualties, and human suffering as much as possible. This law guided actions of United Nations and France in forcing Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast in West Africa.
After being defeated by the opposition, Mr. Gbagbo refused to relinquish his duties as the president, citing irregularities. He used government machinery against the opponents in order to remain in power.
Abass (2012, p. 89) quotes him as saying, “I will continue to work with all the countries of the world, but I will never give up our sovereignty.” However, the international society ignored this sovereignty, used minimal force possible, and forced him out of office.
The Responsibility to Protect is a relatively new principle that has been emerging as a way of emphasizing the need for states to protect their citizens. This emerging norm holds that sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility of a state to protect its people (Slomanson, 2011, p. 54).
As mentioned previously, the global village that we currently live in exposes all to the effect of atrocities mated against people in various parts of the world. A clear example can be taken from the recent civil strife in China. The world watched as the Chinese government subjected Tibetans to various forms of oppression.
In 2008, there was unrest in this region as the government tried to crack any form of rebellion from a section of Tibetan leaders. It is important to understand that the Responsibility to Protect is a new norm that is taking shape in the contemporary world.
It demands that the government should take the responsibility of protecting its people very seriously. According to this norm, people interest and security should be given precedence over the interest of the government. The sovereignty of a country is constituted by the people of that country.
The government is constituted by a small section of the society mandated by the people to run the affairs of the nation. It is therefore, important that the interest of the government should be subject to that of its people.
At no circumstance should the government use excessive force against its own people. The Chinese government had to stop its military actions in Tibet because of the international pressure. This demonstrates the importance of universal human rights norm in the world.
Slomanson (2011, p. 21) defines humanitarian intervention as “A state’s use of military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed.”
This law is closely intertwined by the Responsibility to protect norm. A country is mandated to protect its people from any external or internal aggression.
When it is determined that a foreign state, or other foreign forces, are posing threat or perpetuating human rights violation to a country’s citizen, then such a country has the mandate to declare war on that state with the sole purpose of protecting its people.
A case in point was the War on Terror that was declared by the United States on the outlawed Al Qaeda Group. The United States ignored the sovereignty of Pakistan, and used its forces to kill the leader of this group in Pakistan without the knowledge of this government. A similar case happened in Kenya, a country in East Africa.
It sent its forces to Somali to fight Al Shabab, a terrorist group that is associated with high seas piracy in Indian Ocean among other terrorist activities. The country cited attacks by this group on its people in major towns of Nairobi and Mombasa as the chief reason for the attack.
Conclusion
It is clear from the above discussion that international legal norms, especially the human rights norms can be universal. The world has become a small global village due to technological advancement in the fields of transport and communication.
It is now clear to the international society that the need to protect human rights is universal, irrespective of one’s race, country of origin, or economic status.
The national governments of all countries around the world have the responsibility of protecting their citizens. Sovereignty of a state would always be considered secondary to human rights needs, and this has helped restore sanity in various parts of the world.
References
Abass, A. (2012). International law: Text, cases and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slomanson, W. (2011). Fundamental Perspectives in International Law. Boston: Wadsworth
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.